Gay marriage/Interracial marriage

[ypsidan04]

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...-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]

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]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

well, it's a pity that "race mixing" is inavitable

What?! Either I have interpretated it wrong, or that was a pretty racist comment

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 Who gives a shit! Let people be happy, they're not hurting anyone

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

[Kate]

staringelf, no racism from me. 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by forre

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]

Yes, of course not the entire Canada. The main idea remains the same though.

[rosh]

i can almost understand [ not quite but almost ] the furore about gay marriages ... however interracial ?!?!?! why does THAT even feature in this thread ... ?

[ypsidan04]

Originally Posted by rosh

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Khartoun2004,

I just don't see my comment as a racist one. I have no idea where you are comming from. 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... 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by YLuelniaa

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]

Originally Posted by cirrus

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]

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

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 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 ... 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]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

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.