How are arguments against gay marriages different from the arguments against

interracial marriages?

People used The Bible to justify the prohibition of interracial marriages-how is the argument against gay marriage any different from the arguments used against interracial marriages?

August 18, 2003 PRESS RELEASE (version française disponible)ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE THE SAME AS THOSE AGAINST INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE—I speak today as a Christian who believes that same-sex marriage is an idea whose time has come,“ saidDr. Richard Birney-Smith, founder and Artistic Director of the Hamilton-based Te Deum Orchestra& Singers. —When I got married in 1963 in the state of Connecticut, my marriage was illegal in 24 states of the union. It was argued that our marriage was unnatural, un-Christian, and a bad example forchildren. Our marriage remained thus illegal until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that use racial identity as a basis for defining who may marry.“—Now we hear the same concerns raised about letting same-sex couples marry,“ Dr. Birney-Smithadded. —The reality is that same-sex marriage won‘t hurt anybody.“ —The idea that letting same-sex couples marry is anti-religion is just not true,“ said DouglasElliott, a lawyer with McGowan, Elliott and Kim and counsel for the Metropolitan Community Churchof Toronto. —Many religions want to marry same-sex couples and those that don‘t will not be forced to.Affirming this diversity of opinion is something Canadians should value, celebrate, and protect."—Denying access to marriage and creating a separate partnership registry is segregation, and thecourts recognize that,“ he added. —They have likened it to the racial segregation that used to exist inschools in the southern United States.“—The most fundamental problem legally,“ said Mr. Elliott, —is that the federal government doesn‘thave the Constitutional power to give registered partners the same rights and responsibilities asmarriage. To do that would require the cooperation of all the provinces and territories.“—Creating a separate registry for same-sex couples, rather than giving them access to marriage itself,only sends the message that there‘s something wrong with being gay,“ added Jim Callaghan ofPFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) Canada. —I‘ve seen the harm that causesto children and to families. We can‘t let that happen.“—There‘s nothing anti-family about recognizing non-traditional families,“ said Marilyn Byers, amember of PFLAG York Region. As a parent, I want all my children and grandchildren to enjoy happy,fulfilling lives in an accepting society. Any one of us might have current or future children orgrandchildren who are gay or lesbian. It‘s only fair that all of our children and grandchildren have thesame choice to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation.“
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
—Studies show that children raised by same-sex parents do just as well as children raised by opposite-sex parents,“ said Laurie Arron, Director of Advocacy of Egale. —That‘s one reason why the Canadian Psychologists Association supports extending equal marriage to same-sex couples.“—Children of same-sex couples don‘t need protection from their parents; they need protectionfrom discrimination, stigma and prejudice. This is not a theoretical argument, it‘s a fact that was noted by the Canadian Association of Social Workers in their presentation to the Justice Committee inApril.“—When you cut through the fear and rhetoric,“ Mr. Arron continued, —permitting same-sex couples tomarry is good for society. We‘re not asking to change the institution of marriage, only to take the —noqueers“ sign off the door. If marriage is such a good thing, why deny us access? Why deny ourchildren the protection of marriage?“ - 30 - For more information:Richard Birney-Smith:905 628-4533 Douglas Elliott, McGowan, Elliott & Kim:416 362-1989 Marilyn Byers, PFLAG York Region: 416 929-2022 Jim Callaghan, PFLAG Canada: 416 651-8387 Laurie Arron, Director of Advocacy, Egale: 416 839-7178 1-888-204-7777 www.casw-acts.ca/advocacy/samesexpressrelease_E.pdf -

catlover said:

interracial marriages?

People used The Bible to justify the prohibition of interracial marriages-how is the argument against gay marriage any different from the arguments used against interracial marriages?

Click to expand...

Awesome post, kittie!

The scriptures used to defend such things, to start. You do know that we're not Israelites, right? People can improperly employ the words of the bible to condemn someone from eating the green part of a watermelon or putting shoes on. Use your imagination from there.

I went to a civil union a couple of weeks ago. One of my best friends decided to tie the knot with her long term partner.


It was very cool, and just as much of a tear jerker as a hetrosexual wedding


I think there is alot of intellectual dishonesty from those who oppose gay marriage or allowing gay couples legal recognition of their relationship. I was asked to analyse a piece by one of the most vocal churches in New Zealand about gay marriage and how it would lead to a decline in western civilisation as we know it


Quite frankly it was embarassing, out of the entire article, there was perhaps 5% that was factual the rest was just untruthful

Ishida said:

The scriptures used to defend such things, to start. You do know that we're not Israelites, right? People can improperly employ the words of the bible to condemn someone from eating the green part of a watermelon or putting shoes on. Use your imagination from there.

Click to expand...

Yes, the specific Bible verses quoted were different, but the hermeneutics used to interpret those verses was the same.

And it's funny how our understanding of the Bible is flawed, and the racists' understanding of the Bible was flawed, but your understanding of the Bible is perfect. Especially when you consider that many of the same churches which were teaching the flawed racist gospel are the ones (with many of the same congregants, or their children) who are preaching the "perfect" anti-gay gospel.

Ishida said:

The scriptures used to defend such things, to start. You do know that we're not Israelites, right? People can improperly employ the words of the bible to condemn someone from eating the green part of a watermelon or putting shoes on. Use your imagination from there.

Click to expand...

but...how can we tell the difference between the arguments against interracial and gay marriages?

I understand Scripture can be used to prohibit many things-but for those who find dietary restrictions as part of Scripture how are these arguments different?

I believe there is a lot of Spiritual dishonesty from those who support it
and recognize their relationships as anything other than what God says it is,
and what those who practice them and support them, can expect to hear
and receive from Jesus as has also been made known to us.

Only secondarily is it also intellectual dishonesty, as our bodies bear witness and
testimony of God's intent as is disclosed to us in the Book of Genesis and reiterated
by Christ in the Book of Matthew.

We need to stop deceiving ourselves and get our hearts pure before the Lord, because
no matter how "well intentioned" folks may "feel" they are, The Lord has said that we
make ourselves His enemies if we embrace the things of the world, that oppose Him.

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.
Jesus is coming soon.

Tenebrae said:

I think there is alot of intellectual dishonesty from those who oppose gay marriage or allowing gay couples legal recognition of their relationship.

Click to expand...

Very simply. By the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the counsel of the
whole Word of God. God's concern was never the color of one's skin.
Ever.

The Israelites were not to yoke themselves as we are not to yoke ourselves to
unbelievers in marriage. They were told not to yoke themselves to named peoples
as they worshiped OTHER Gods and this was because the bond of matrimony
(not the ceremony, but the soul ties when you become "one flesh") could
end up costing one their soul if they were to abandon God for their wife's "god".
That was the REAL problem.

catlover said:

but...how can we tell the difference between the arguments against interracial and gay marriages?

I understand Scripture can be used to prohibit many things-but for those who find dietary restrictions as part of Scripture how are these arguments different?

Click to expand...

Very simply. By the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the counsel of the
whole Word of God. God's concern was never the color of one's skin.
Ever.

Click to expand...

uhmmm these guys would argue about that with you:
http://jacobsheirs.com/artman/publish/article_54.html

tulc(has actually heard sermons like this when he was a baby Christian)

IamRedeemed said:

Very simply. By the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the counsel of the
whole Word of God. God's concern was never the color of one's skin.
Ever.

The Israelites were not to yoke themselves as we are not to yoke ourselves to
unbelievers in marriage. They were told not to yoke themselves to named peoples
as they worshiped OTHER Gods and this was because the bond of matrimony
(not the ceremony, but the soul ties when you become "one flesh") could
end up costing one their soul if they were to abandon God for their wife's "god".
That was the REAL problem.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

The racist gospel of miscegenation laws was based on the verses forbidding mixed marriages with unbelievers. Many of those verses explained that the reason for the ban, reasons which the racist gospel ignored.

Likewise, the anti-gay gospel is based on verses forbidding pagan sexual practices and (politically and religiously based) maltreatment and rape. The reasons for the ban are not always spelled out as clearly because anyone living in that culture would know exactly what the verses are talking about and why they are wrong.

Turning a blind eye on the focus and reason for the ban is exactly why the racist gospel was a false gospel. It is also the reason why the anti-gay gospel is a false gospel.

And again I point out that many of the same people in the same churches that preached the racist gospel, are in the forefront of preaching the anti-gay gospel. If they got the one wrong, how did they suddenly get the other right?

IamRedeemed said:

I believe there is a lot of Spiritual dishonesty from those who support it
and recognize their relationships as anything other than what God says it is,...

Click to expand...

You are most welcome to your own opinion.

However, you should know that many of us would be spiritually dishonest if we FAILED to ackowledge the fact that God brought us together with our partners, and has blessed us immeasurably over many years.

Indeed, I am deeply grateful to God for the amazing life he has brought to me and my partner of 24 years.

God created it, blessed it, and calls it good, profoundly good.

May you be blessed with such a relationship some day, sister.

catlover said:

interracial marriages?

People used The Bible to justify the prohibition of interracial marriages-how is the argument against gay marriage any different from the arguments used against interracial marriages?

Click to expand...

The arguments were essentially the same and both marked by expressions of self-righteousness and indignation, and both occurred as a reaction to the process of social change.

We have Galatians 3:28, but nothing supporting homosexual union..
It's not the same. Not at all, we're not even using the same scriptures.
'anti-gay gospel', what a ridiculous term. So how many homosexual couples wait to get married before having sex, anyway? The answer will affect my opinion.

Then again where in the bible do we have scripture that supports the definition that marriage is the walking down the aisle, swapping on rings, and exchanging of vows


The bible says that the two become one flesh, however no where does it outline or advocate marriage is being what is essentially a western construct

Ishida said:

We have Galatians 3:28, but nothing supporting homosexual union..

Click to expand...

There was nothing support interracial marriages either. There's nothing saying it's okay to travel on airlines, either. The suggestion that somehow some magic words in an ancient text are somehow necessary is absurd.

It's not the same. Not at all, we're not even using the same scriptures.

Click to expand...

Exactly. You are misusing scriptures in the same manner as racists of old did.

So how many homosexual couples wait to get married before having sex, anyway? The answer will affect my opinion.

Click to expand...

How many heterosexual couples do? What an absurd comparison. Considering how LGBTs are demonized by vocal political preachers it is no wonder so many reject religious tradition and its trappings. To somehow demand adherence to such after attack after attack from the advocates of it is to assume all PTSD sufferers need to be given a puppy and voila, then their PTSD will vanish like magic.

Ishida said:

We have Galatians 3:28, but nothing supporting homosexual union..

Click to expand...

Galatians 3:28 said:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

For years, the last pairing in this verse has been ignored to allow unequal treatment of women. Now it is being ignored to allow unequal treatment of marriage. Why should it matter to you, if someone you don't know, in a city far away wants to marry the person she loves, that the person is another woman, and not a man? Especially if we are all one in Christ, and race, color, religion, national origin, and gender do not matter?

Ishida said:

It's not the same. Not at all, we're not even using the same scriptures.

Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I use the AV (also known as the KJV) as my main quoting Bible, but for study I use several translations, both literal and dynamic, an interlinear Greek-English Bible, and several commentaries, traditional and modern, "conservative" and "liberal." I also use both sides of the Stong's concordance (English and original language).

If we are not using the same scriptures, I must wonder what it is you use.

Ishida said:

'anti-gay gospel', what a ridiculous term.

Click to expand...

Galatians 1:6-11 said:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Click to expand...

Since it is not the gospel Paul preached, it is a different gospel. Naming it by its prominent deviation from the truth is one way of identifying it. I notice that you had no problem calling the earlier version of almost the same "different gospel" a racist gospel.

So how many homosexual couples wait to get married before having sex, anyway? The answer will affect my opinion.

Click to expand...

If they are not Christians, what does it matter? They don't care about Biblical morality. If they are Christians, how are they any different from all the cross-sex Christian couples who did not wait for marriage?

Many of them were married in the presence of the Lord in churches which blessed their union, even if the government refuses to recognize their marriages as such. In any case, Paul recognizes that most people cannot keep a lifelong vow of celibacy, and gives as the solution, marriage.

God promises a way out of every temptation, but if you refuse to allow someone to use the way out that God provides, you are placing a stumbling block in his path. (1 Cor 10:13; Romans 14:13; See also Matthew 18:6)

Texas Lynn said:

There was nothing support interracial marriages either. There's nothing saying it's okay to travel on airlines, either. The suggestion that somehow some magic words in an ancient text are somehow necessary is absurd.

Click to expand...

Galatians 3:28 says exactly that. No Jew nor Greek. It does say no male or female either, but I doubt Paul had sexuality on his mind when writing that, but it's something to consider nonetheless. (But then we have Romans.. )
Magic words in an ancient text, huh? The bible is God's revelation to us, no matter if you take it literally or not. At least I would think so if you called yourself Christian..

Exactly. You are misusing scriptures in the same manner as racists of old did.

Click to expand...

How much did your mind reader cost?

How many heterosexual couples do?

Click to expand...

Quite a bit, but not enough.

What an absurd comparison. Considering how LGBTs are demonized by vocal political preachers it is no wonder so many reject religious tradition and its trappings. To somehow demand adherence to such after attack after attack from the advocates of it is to assume all PTSD sufferers need to be given a puppy and voila, then their PTSD will vanish like magic.

Click to expand...

You're reading too much into it so you can attack. I stated that because I really wanted to know. If the majority of those who are gay (and date the same sex) and claim to be called to follow the Lord(As you and I probably do, so this isn't an attack on Christian homosexuals) , how many wait for marriage to have sex? If it's a tiny minority, this gay marriage thing is irrelevant, because the sin happens whether they marry or not. If people do wait.. well, that would be interesting.

Tenebrae said:

Then again where in the bible do we have scripture that supports the definition that marriage is the walking down the aisle, swapping on rings, and exchanging of vows


The bible says that the two become one flesh, however no where does it outline or advocate marriage is being what is essentially a western construct

Click to expand...

Bible does say we shouldn't take vows.
Let our yes mean "yes", and our "No" mean "no". Who are these two described that "become one flesh", what's the process?

OllieFranz said:

For years, the last pairing in this verse has been ignored to allow unequal treatment of women. Now it is being ignored to allow unequal treatment of marriage. Why should it matter to you, if someone you don't know, in a city far away wants to marry the person she loves, that the person is another woman, and not a man? Especially if we are all one in Christ, and race, color, religion, national origin, and gender do not matter?

Click to expand...

Religion sort of does matter there. What I've learned about that verse is that it's kind of going off a pious Jewish man's prayer that goes something like this.

"Thank you Lord for making me a Jew and not a Gentile, a free man and not a slave, a man, rather than a woman."
Paul has specific instructions for men and women, husbands and wives, the gender distinctions are still sort of there, but he did this to present equality.

I don't know about you, but I use the AV (also known as the KJV) as my main quoting Bible, but for study I use several translations, both literal and dynamic, an interlinear Greek-English Bible, and several commentaries, traditional and modern, "conservative" and "liberal." I also use both sides of the Stong's concordance (English and original language).

Click to expand...

If we are not using the same scriptures, I must wonder what it is you use.[/quote] Is this equivocation or amphiboly? I don't remember, but by scriptures, I mean whatever the racist people used to defend their views are not the same scriptures.. I'm sure the racist or normal person who believed that didn't quote "He made them male and female" to defend his viewpoint.

Since it is not the gospel Paul preached, it is a different gospel. Naming it by its prominent deviation from the truth is one way of identifying it. I notice that you had no problem calling the earlier version of almost the same "different gospel" a racist gospel.

Click to expand...

I don't think we're allowed to say stuff like this in here. And do you not agree that it is a racist gospel when the command clearly isn't there, unlike here?

If they are not Christians, what does it matter? They don't care about Biblical morality. If they are Christians, how are they any different from all the cross-sex Christian couples who did not wait for marriage?

Click to expand...

I'm discussing Christian homosexuals. They are not any different, but my point is that it is still fornication.

Many of them were married in the presence of the Lord in churches which blessed their union, even if the government refuses to recognize their marriages as such. In any case, Paul recognizes that most people cannot keep a lifelong vow of celibacy, and gives as the solution, marriage.

Click to expand...

What works works, I guess.

God promises a way out of every temptation, but if you refuse to allow someone to use the way out that God provides, you are placing a stumbling block in his path. (1 Cor 10:13; Romans 14:13; See also Matthew 18:6)

Click to expand...

We just have to disagree here, I do not believe myself to be a stumbling block.