PDA

View Full Version : Gay marriage/Interracial marriage


ypsidan04
16-06-2004, 00:54
Before the U.S. Supreme Court delivered the landmark Loving decision, interracial couples were in the same boat that same-sex couples are in today. They were vilified, persecuted and forbidden to marry. Interracial marriage was considered a felony punishable by five years in a state penitentiary.

Critics of gay marriage point to polls that seem to support their position. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll last month, 65% said they oppose same-sex marriage. But mass opinion should not dictate judicial decisions. In 1948, when California became the first state to strike down a ban on interracial marriage, nine out of 10 Americans opposed such unions.

I've been saying this for a while. Here's some numbers to cement the similarities.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-25-couples_x.htm


(friendly word to the wise: I'm not gay. Just a "freedom fighter", of sorts. There were plenty of Northern whites who were campaigning for black civil rights. Plus, I have gay family members. ;) )

Kate
16-06-2004, 01:27
I stay by my opinion that marriage is only between a man and a woman. But I'm all for "legal unions" between gay couples. Maybe gay couples can come up with a name for their union, like "zarriage" (very 21st century, in my opinion), but please leave "marriage" for the old fashioned union between a man and a woman. :)

As to the interracial marriages, well, it's a pity that "race mixing" is inavitable, but what can we do? I can't exclude the possibily that even I might fall in love with a guy from a different racial group. Gotta go with the flow.

Unplugged
16-06-2004, 02:26
well, it's a pity that "race mixing" is inavitable
What?! :eek: Either I have interpretated it wrong, or that was a pretty racist comment :none:

Anyway, I think everybody knows my opinion on this... everyone should have to right to be free and marry whomever they want to marry, it doesn't matter if they're black, white, yellow, red, gay, bi, hetero, transexual, transvesti :laugh: Who gives a shit! Let people be happy, they're not hurting anyone :coctail:

Oh, and yes, the majority of society should not always be followed on what concerns freedom and legal matters. Society is full of hypocrites and fake moralists :bebebe: :rolleyes:

Kate
16-06-2004, 02:59
staringelf, no racism from me. :D I am the most anti-racist person in the world.

Anyway, I think everybody knows my opinion on this... everyone should have to right to be free and marry whomever they want to marry, it doesn't matter if they're black, white, yellow, red, gay, bi, hetero, transexual, transvesti

I agree. But in my opinion marriage is only for a man and a woman, as I said before. Gay couples will as happy together under a legal union.

Khartoun2004
16-06-2004, 04:22
As to the interracial marriages, well, it's a pity that "race mixing" is inavitable, but what can we do?

staringelf, no racism from me. I am the most anti-racist person in the world.


Yeah, ok Katbeidar. that wasn't a racist comment my ass. Maybe it wasn't your intention for it to sound racist, but in this context it's kind of hard for it not to be taken as one.

But in my opinion marriage is only for a man and a woman, as I said before. Gay couples will as happy together under a legal union.


As for this comment, I can tell that from a US prospective, this is not the case. Unless the word marriage is attached to a "Legal Union", the couple that attains the union does not have egual rights to a couple that is "married". The laws are wored in such a way that it is not possible for Civil Unions and Marriage to be the same thing.

Another point I'd like to make that I really cannot for the life of me understand, so maybe you can clear this up for me. How come you say you are not against a "legal union" of some kind that grants same-sex couples the same rights, priviledges and responsibilities as a married couple, however you're against calling it a marriage? Personally you and half the world are getting hung up by semantics. It's a word nothing more. Marriage is the principle of binding two people that are not related to each other in a commited relationship, which legal, spiritually, mentally and emotionally binds them as a family. What's the point of having two seperate names for the same idea? It's repetative and a slap in the face to every homosexual, non-traditional family/union in the entire world.

forre
16-06-2004, 15:07
The question of whether interracial and homosexual marriages should be allowed or not will be the most rediculous question in the future. It's just the present mentality of certain parts of population that quiestions such things. Let's just go back to the American history:

"Intermarriage bans arose in the late 1600s, when tobacco planters in Virginia needed to shore up their new institution of slavery. In previous decades, before slavery took hold, interracial sex was more prevalent than at any other time in American history. White and black laborers lived and worked side by side and naturally became intimate. Even interracial marriage, though uncommon, was allowed. But as race slavery replaced servitude as the South's labor force, interracial sex threatened to blur the distinctions between white and black--and thus between free and slave. Virginia began categorizing a child as free or slave according to the mother's status (which was easier to determine than the father's), and so in 1691 the assembly passed a law to make sure that women didn't bear mixed-race children. The law banned "negroes, mulatto's and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, [and] their unlawfull accompanying with one another." Since the society was heavily male, the prohibition on unions between white women and nonwhite men also lessened the white men's competition for mates. (In contrast, sex between male slave owners and their female slaves--which often meant rape--was common. It typically met with light punishment, if any at all.)

If fears of interracial sex underlay bans on interracial marriage, it was marriage that became the greater threat. Men might rape black women or keep them as concubines, but to marry them would confer legal equality. Thus, over the course of the 18th century all Southern states--and many Northern ones--outlawed all marriages between blacks and whites. Up through the Civil War, only two states, Pennsylvania in 1780 and Massachusetts in 1843--hotbeds of abolitionist activity--repealed their bans."

Nowadays, not so many people question such marriages, while 200 years ago, we faced actual laws that prohibited marriage between black and white people.

Let's have a look what is happening with homosexual marriages now. A few European countries plus Canada have already allowed it. You ask me why? Because there's no logic reason why not. Since people are marrying each other willingly and willingly can have children and take care of them - such institution as marriage can't have anything against it. It's true that the majority of the countries in the world don't have such law available at the moment but it's only a matter of time - nothing else.

P.S. Herr Hitler could have introduced the prohibition of marriage between Jews and Germans but would it make any sense?

Edit:
Oh forgot to look for some data before. Let's see here:
Gallop Poll indicates acceptance for interracial marriages is growing. 61% of White Americans are more likely to approve of such marriages today, compared to 4% in 1958.

Funny that we are discussing interracial marriages nowdays. A sort of outdated I think. If you ask me if they have something to do with homosexual marriages, then the idea is clearer - analogy between interracial and homosexual marriages holds true.

ypsidan04
16-06-2004, 18:04
plus Canada have already allowed it.

I don't mean to nitpick, but only two provinces have allowed it: Ontario for sure, and I think the other is Manitoba. It's certainly not recognized all over Canada.

forre
16-06-2004, 18:15
Yes, of course not the entire Canada. The main idea remains the same though. ;)

rosh
16-06-2004, 19:06
i can almost understand [ not quite but almost ] the furore about gay marriages ... however interracial ?!?!?! why does THAT even feature in this thread ... ?

ypsidan04
16-06-2004, 19:39
i can almost understand [ not quite but almost ] the furore about gay marriages ... however interracial ?!?!?! why does THAT even feature in this thread ... ?

Because I personally feel that there are many similarities. As to now, and the feelings about interracial marriages in the US in the early to middle 20th century.

Basically, in time, gays and lesbians will receive no more notice than a black/white couple receives now.

rosh
16-06-2004, 20:58
ypsidan04 - then come to south africa. its still VERY taboo here - interracial relationships and marriages. people just cannot get it into their heads that colour / race and other completely irrelevant factors, matter.

personally ive experienced it. "whats the indian girl doing with a white girlfriend ?" and had opposition from some girls families ... " its bad enough youre gay ... but why are you going out with an indian ?!" oh and the oh-so-famous-line here ... everyones favourite :

"im not racist! i have black friends !"

idiots ...

Kate
17-06-2004, 00:05
Khartoun2004, Yeah, ok Katbeidar. that wasn't a racist comment my ass. Maybe it wasn't your intention for it to sound racist, but in this context it's kind of hard for it not to be taken as one.

I just don't see my comment as a racist one. I have no idea where you are comming from. :ithink: I just think that it's a pity from a biological point of view that we have this gene mixing going on, and in a few of decades, everyone will be of the same race. That's boring. But I have nothing against interracial marriages, and I myself might marry a guy from a different race sometime.

Another point I'd like to make that I really cannot for the life of me understand, so maybe you can clear this up for me. How come you say you are not against a "legal union" of some kind that grants same-sex couples the same rights, priviledges and responsibilities as a married couple, however you're against calling it a marriage?

Marriage is ONLY for a man and a woman. Eng of story for me. Gay couples can have civil unions with identical rights as the married couples, just don't call their union "marriage". I don't know why. That's just how I feel.

dare2dream28
17-06-2004, 02:49
You know what I don't understand? How Bush and so many other people say gays are a threat to the "sanctity" of marriage...yet 50, yes 50 percent of all marriages in the United States end up in divorce! So technically, the people who marry are a threat to the sanctity of marriage because half of them don't take it serious enough anyway to stay commited!! The homosexual couples that I know have been together a *lot* longer than the majority of the heterosexual couples I know. My opinion is that people can marry whoever they want, as long as both partners are willing. It's not like it's hurting anyone. Why is it okay for a man and a woman to be able to marry--and then in some cases to only get divorced---but it's not okay to even give gays a chance to see if a *marriage* can last?

My professor made a good point last semester. He said that how we (meaning us here in the states) view the 1950s-60s integration battles in the South will be how people 50 years from now view our gay marriage debate. In time it will be common. I just hope that we can all live to see that time.

YLuelniaa
17-06-2004, 07:21
Khartoun2004,

I just don't see my comment as a racist one. I have no idea where you are comming from. :ithink: I just think that it's a pity from a biological point of view that we have this gene mixing going on, and in a few of decades, everyone will be of the same race. That's boring. But I have nothing against interracial marriages, and I myself might marry a guy from a different race sometime.

WHOA...thats quite harsh being that I am biracial....and I dont tend to take things to heart too often but damn girl... :mad: that sucks that you see it like that...but whats the big deal if in the future we're all not just one race....that means we've overcome one obsticale...racism will no longer be a factor...I mean when you think about it everyone is mixed in one form or another...

Kate
17-06-2004, 07:34
YLuelniaa, of course, there are pros and cons. But as I said, I myself have nothing against marrying a guy from a different race and having children with him. I, of all people, am not racist, having lived in so many different countries in my life. I just don't see where you're comming from, I wasn't trying to insult you or anyone else... :(

YLuelniaa
17-06-2004, 21:14
ok what i dont understand is if you dont have a problem with marrying a man of a different culture why would you make such a comment as the one you did? Your contridicting yourself...

madeldoe
17-06-2004, 21:26
ok what i dont understand is if you dont have a problem with marrying a man of a different culture why would you make such a comment as the one you did? Your contridicting yourself...

thats exactly what i was thinking..if its no problem fo you ms.kate, then why would it be such a pity?


anyhow, i wouldn't mind so much that people like ms.kate here are able to voice their opinions. People can say they approve or disapprove of something all they want. But when the government, whose supposed to be seperated from church, makes decisions based on their religion, then thats when i have a problem. It's funny that there are laws against sexual orientation discrimination at the work place, but i guess were not human enough to be married? Oh but we are human enough to not be discriminated against..and to have all other rights, but god forbid that we marry and destroy the sanctity of marriage. But when our own president [dont get me wrong, i love Bill but i need to prove a point] commits adultery and lies about it on national television, he isn't destroying the sanctity of marriage, nope not at all. If they want to go religious here, homosexuality is NOT even on the ten commandments of which god wrote himself. BUT adultery, lying, killing are. Bush has lied to america by not fulfilling his promises, he has sent many troops and innocent people to their deaths because of his pursuit of war in the middle east. But yes, i guess being gay is much worse than that..</sarcasm>

YLuelniaa
17-06-2004, 21:49
I think katbeidar means it is a pity that we will all become one race one day. Put aside your notions of universal equality and all that junk, and just imagine a planet where everyone is the same. that's a nightmare! :( there would be no variety, no differences. We'd just be combinations of the same thing. And that would be a pity! I think mixed people can be amazing and beautiful, but once we've all mixed into one, there's nothing beautiful and different anymore.

Like the colors. You mix some here and there and you create pretty combinations, but when you mix all the colors together, you just get a boring neutral mess.

I hardly can imagine a planet where everyone is the same because its impossible....you will always have different cultures with different traditions...that will carry on from generation to generation.. Granted people will get married to people of different cultures it wouldn't make everyone the same.

I mean look at society today no one is just one Culture..look at countries in Africa..they aren't just one tribe...they have married a man or a women from another tribe...so they're mixed. Look at Ireland...people marry someone from another town..they are mixed because everyone comes from a different place....BUT NO TWO PEOPLE WILL EVER REALLY BE THE SAME. Because it will be a constant mixture. So can't really say thats boring...

kr0k0
17-06-2004, 22:17
About that mixing races into a boring one, the main threat, I think, comes from the future manipulation of genes. if the parents will like a well-known woman or man perhaps they'll want their child look like or identical. you'll walk on street and meet with 10-15 Elvis :D

about the gay marriage, I think they'll gain this right in the near future, but of course, they'll want more, to be married in church. I wanna see how long the church will resist to the pressure of the modern society :D because allowing the gay marriage contradicts with categorizing homosexuality as a sin. Difficult times for the church: women priests, gay marriage, all it need is receiving a message from space and cohorts of priests will land on the doors of labour offices :D ... but, as i remember, there's nothing in the original God's or Jesus' words being against homosexuality, so, there is a little door for the church to escape through.

teeny
17-06-2004, 22:53
Maybe gay couples can come up with a name for their union, like "zarriage" (very 21st century, in my opinion), but please leave "marriage" for the old fashioned union between a man and a woman.You do like to alienate don't you? Why is it so important to make people stand out of a crowd? If people want to get married they should be able to do so. And there should be no new word introduced just bacause people want the same rights as a lot of people already have.
Because a marriage has been exclusive for only some it should be no reason for keeping it that way forever. Faults are meant to be corrected. So marriage should be for everyone. No matter what.

nath
18-06-2004, 18:14
I don't think we would really become one giant human race, but if it happened, it would be a shame. Some of the variety between humans would be lost, and that just wouldn't feel right.
Of course, i'm not saying interracial relationships are wrong. I'm just saying that, from Kate's point of view, I agree that having one racial group is quite a disappointment.
So, may be we could just keep Kate and Yourself as "pure specimens"and close you in a scientific laboratory...like that the race would be safe thanks to you..and all the other people could live as they feel without counsciousness problems!... :D
Please Cirrus , you could make this Sacrifice !.....In the name of SCIENCE!!!!...it's without prize!..... ;)
No...don't be scarred...just kidding ! :coctail:

nath
18-06-2004, 18:35
Okay .... :) ..was just kidding..don't worry.... And even if it was the case , after we would get the "under-categories"....the ones of the mixed race who have long feet and the ones who have short feet, and so on....
So , don't worry the Human Mind would have always enough imagination to classify people ...just because making selections is a part of the human nature....Look at the young babies : they are not kind and generous at the origine...they learn to share and to be kind with the education ..it isn't innate, inborn...

cirrus
18-06-2004, 18:40
sunwalk, yeah, you're right. Humans will make other distinctions between people. Sometimes for good, but also for bad. That's a shame. I'm not saying it's important to have distinctions. I was only saying that I love all the variety and possible combinations of races, and I just would be saddened to see that go away one day. I'm beginning to doubt that we would completely lose all races. That seems impossible. And now i'm a little embarassed by my posts, but oh well :)

:rose:

nath
18-06-2004, 18:54
But it's good to be frank when you find the good and correct words to say it....to try to not hurt the others...it's important to be frank with itself and the others...so don't be embarrassed... ;)

haku
18-06-2004, 19:29
Personally, i totally oppose the idea that human "races" exist.

Animal races are the result of the artificial selection of particular species during hundreds or thousands of years. There are no races in the wild, only animals bred by humans have races.

I don't accept the theory that humans have applied an artificial selection to themselves, to me there are no human races, only one human species.

Furthermore, there are no such thing as a "pure" human "race". The human species appeared in Africa several millions of years ago, all humans are descendants of that original group. The fact that there are so many different human groups on the planet now can actually be seen as a very "unpure" situation, blending all human groups that currently exist on the planet into one would actually take us closer to the original "purity".

Anyway, we are not cats or horses whose races have to be kept pure because of whatever usage we have for them.

teeny
18-06-2004, 19:34
Anyway, we are not cats or horses whose races have to be kept pure because of whatever usage we have for them.
and look what happens to pure cats and dogs: they go mad, have to be fed to survive or bones go crazy. Really glad that I'm a mixture of most cultures and species.. whatever:D

rosh
18-06-2004, 20:04
my experience with thoroughbred animals ... esp dogs :

my one puppy was so inbred that she died 10 days after i got her, due to a weak immune system and inability to fight an illness she had before i even got her.

in my own family [fathers side] -- so much inbreeding takes place that the children are now being born with birth defects - faulty heart valves , downs syndrome, etc etc. there have even been a few deaths as a result.

draw your own conclusions.

teeny
18-06-2004, 20:34
draw your own conclusions.
:( Thats sad. Really sad. My brother has a heart malfunction. It's nothing really serious, but he used it to avoid being forced to join the army for a year (and ever). Don't think it's because of genes though. It's just because my parents was in a hurry durring the creation proces I tease him with :lalala:

rosh
18-06-2004, 20:37
:( Thats sad. Really sad. My brother has a heart malfunction. It's nothing really serious, but he used it to avoid being forced to join the army for a year (and ever). Don't think it's because of genes though. It's just because my parents was in a hurry durring the creation proces I tease him with :lalala:


i can blame interbreeding for a number of things i suffer from as well. i wont mention what they are as that in itself is irrelevant. im just grateful my father didnt end up marrying one of his cousins as well or who knows what else could have gone wrong. one of my half sisters died as a very young child, from an inherited disorder she got from my father ... something which he passed on to every single daughter of his. too bad it was only discovered after she was already dead and my father had lost a child.

ypsidan04
19-06-2004, 02:08
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/05/EDMEYER.DTL

Take a careful look at what's going on in each square.
its bad enough youre gay ... but why are you going out with an indian ?!"

Nothing wrong with that. I know a White gay man who prefers Black men. ;)
Marriage is ONLY for a man and a woman. Eng of story for me. Gay couples can have civil unions with identical rights as the married couples, just don't call their union "marriage". I don't know why. That's just how I feel.

If you see two ducks, and decide to call one duck a chicken, the fact still stands that they are both ducks.

Why bother with two names for the exact same thing?
but, as i remember, there's nothing in the original God's or Jesus' words being against homosexuality, so, there is a little door for the church to escape through.

It's in Leviticus somewhere:

"Men shalt not lie with men. God hates that." (playing devil's advocate, and paraphrasing)

Kate: If you'll allow me to quote myself from something I said on another forum:

In summary - "it's just a couple things they would gain, and therefore its not necessary." Not only is that not true, but if it were true, it still wouldn't matter. You know there's a huge difference between being able to call s/o your wife as opposed to just a girlfriend. Just that alone is enough reason.

"dont mess with something that has worked for 1000s of years" - Well clubbing a girl over the head and raping her worked for thousands of years too. But is that still legal?

Kate
19-06-2004, 02:34
nataku, YLuelniaa, Your contridicting yourself... I was just saying that it's a pity because the children of our children probably won't be able to see the diversity of the human race as we see it now. People will be of the same race. It's inavitable and it's a pity, but there's nothing wrong with it. :) Hope you understand what I was trying to say now.

teeny, You do like to alienate don't you? Why is it so important to make people stand out of a crowd? If people want to get married they should be able to do so. And there should be no new word introduced just bacause people want the same rights as a lot of people already have.

I know it's wrong of me to be so possessive about the term "marriage", and I know that you are right: everyone, gay or straight, should be allowed to get married. But that's just how I feel, and I admit that I am ashamed that I feel this way. Maybe it'll change as I grow up.

haku
19-06-2004, 03:09
Why bother with two names for the exact same thing?
I'm only going to speak for my country here, but maybe that applies to other countries too.

Here, the debate is not really about marriage itself, but about the rights that marriage gives to married couples, namely the rights to adoption and artificial insemination.

I think that marriage will be extended to same-sex couples in the not so distant future, so that homosexuals can have the same rights in terms of inheritance, social security, that kind of stuff... *but* i suspect the law will be modified so that adoption and artificial insemination are only available to opposite-sex couples.

So it will be the same name, but not the exact same thing.

ypsidan04
11-07-2004, 23:12
Well, the United States Senate has begun discussions over the proposed Consitutional amendment to effectively ban same-sex marriage. :rolleyes: They could reach a conclusion as soon as Wednesday.

Thankfully, it is quite hard to pass a Consitutional amendment. First it has to pass both the Senate and House of Reps. by a 2/3rds majority. Then it has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States.

This should really be left up to the States however. Marriage is a state or even a county or city issue. The federal government has no business whatsoever with anything to do with marriage. But the reason they are probably doing this is that federal law currently says that States have to uphold and respect other States laws, if the State(s) in question don't have the same law. Meaning that all 49 other states currently have to recognize same sex marriages done in the state of Massachusetts, whether they want to or not - and of course they don't like this.

And I found Homo Prevention (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html) (this is a joke made by a website that makes fun of right-wing Christians ;) )

haku
12-07-2004, 00:49
Homo Prevention
Oh god... I do several of the things they mention as being gay... :none:

nath
12-07-2004, 05:28
Homo Prevention
I just hope this a site is a joke.... :rolleyes: ...if not, it looks more as a secte than as a normal site about religion...
Not only about this stupid test/recommandations... :D ...but too about its full entity...i don't feel faith in it just organisation of a mini sociey with terrible laws :bum:

EDIT: Oh i read again your post tonight....:D ..an i'm happy to see it is just a joke!!! cause I was enough terrified....

ypsidan04
13-07-2004, 16:09
I just hope this a site is a joke.... :rolleyes:

Trust me. :D

kr0k0
13-07-2004, 20:41
"If your boy has a young sister, forbid him from entering her room except for the purposes of the type of ordinary heterosexual experimentation that occurs in any Christian household." :D :D

ypsidan04
15-07-2004, 02:52
Measure to Ban Same Sex Marriage defeated in Senate

The vote was 48 for, and 50 against. 60 yes votes were needed to advance to the House of Representatives. Six Republicans "crossed over" and voted "No".

This is definitely a blow to Bush, and the religious right in general, but it's not that big of a deal. They didn't even pass the first step to making an amendment. I'm just glad there won't be discrimination in the US Constitution anytime soon.

Some stupid Senator whose name I forget, but that's important, had this to say: "No one here wants to discriminate against gays and lesbians. We just want to protect an age old institution." (he wrongly assumes you can do one without doing the other. :rolleyes: )

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Gays_and_Lesbians

rosh
15-07-2004, 13:17
Oh god... I do several of the things they mention as being gay... :none:


which things ? *curious* :p

Endri
07-08-2009, 04:59
My country is going to legalize the marriage between people of same sex. It has caused a lot of complains from common people and it has been created a very annoying atmosphere. :bum:

volk1
07-08-2009, 05:16
I really don't see why people are so bent out of shape about gay marriage. It's not YOUR marriage, it's not YOUR life, stay out of it. It all comes down to religion being the basis of a lot of decisions made by the government and I think it is very very wrong and misguided.

A lot of people believe gays should be allowed "civil unions" instead of marriage. We ALL are aware how the whole "separate but equal" concept worked in the past...it did not. Marriage has changed throughout centuries. Interracial marriage was not allowed, women were married off like property, and divorce was illegal. If the U.S. is so focused on keeping with the past and doing things how our forefathers did it...well why not just reverse a lil bit and adopt all of our previous policies....god forbid two gay people love each other enough to get married and make that commitment.