Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

Destroying credibility of anti-SSM folk

JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:02:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The fact that more or less every single argument used to oppose same sex marriage are ones that were used to oppose miscegenation, the marriage between races.

Nearly all of these following quotes were ones used to oppose interracial marriage, but frankly all of them are interchangeable as ones that can be used to oppose both interracial and gay marriage:

1) "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies not allowing their marriage."

2) [This relationship] "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. [Their children turn out] generally effeminate. [Their relationship is] productive of evil."

3) State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4) "It not only is a complete undermining of.... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down....... It literally is a threat to the nation"s survival in the long run."

5) This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6) This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7) This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8) "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9) "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10) "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

And the answers:

1) ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883)

2) ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869)

3) ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924

4) ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011

5) ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863

6) ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney

7) ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871)

8) ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998, yes, seriously)

9) ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002

10) ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia

So considering how remarkably similar the opposition's arguments against same sex marriage are to the ones used against interracial marriage, isn't it surely the case that since all the anti-SSM side can do is recycle arguments that were used to promote racist policies, that their arguments essentially have zero credibility and, much like the anti-miscegenation arguments, will just end up in the trash can of history, especially since more and more countries and US states are legalising gay marriage?