Is the fight for same-sex marriage similar to the fight for interracial marriage?

  • Human beings have human rights and by law in America, civil rights.

    To you people who think that God created "Adam and Eve but not Adam and Steve", do some research. There are many types of relationships in the animal kingdom. (And aren't we humans animals who think we're better than those other animals because we're "civilized"?)

    Some of those types of relationships may include what humans term "homosexual" sex. (Because y'all really think it's all about sex, dontcha?)

    Do you believe God created every living thing on the planet? Yes? So tell me again how "homosexuality" is against His plan...

    Check out the links below at the risk of expanding your mind!





  • It is a fight for rights that people have been denied.

    There isn't much to say either than people simply wanted to love one another and be married, but people continue to deny them that right. Interracial marriage used to be called an abomination and immoral like gay marriage is. These people were denied the right to marry because it's "not natural" and it isn't "a traditional family." They were born a certain way as well, which contributes to why they were discriminated against (but being gay is easier to hide than being a minority.)
    Also it's for the best that they are allowed to married because with interracial marriage it allows the gene pool to expand and since gay couples can't have children they will adopt children that really need a good home.

  • Some would say same sex marriage is the civil rights issue of the 21st century

    It all comes down to equality. What right does anyone have to tell someone they can't marry someone else? Love is love. It spans sex, gender, race, creed, and even rationality. Just let it be. Anyone who says that bestiality is next is being ignorant. Human relationships between consensual people is the matter here.

  • Its about equality

    At one point non-European descendants were not considered persons, so it was "against God's will" and illegal to marry someone of another skin pigmentation. For example: First Nations in Canada were not "given personhood" until the 1950s. Those who were tanned were considered "lesser" because they were seen as workers or "the help". They were "different". It is similar for same-sex relationships. Those who are not of hetero-normativity or "mainstream sexuality" are considered "deviants" and "lesser", or "against God's will". If we as HUMANS take out all characteristics of everyone and look at the basics of emotions in marriages, its about LOVE. We all LOVE. So why is love of a person with different skin pigmentation or of the same reproductive organs wrong?

  • respect is equality.

    We as a society should not be against the equality of others. We are all humans, and we have civil rights that should be respected by one another. We have to accept that marriage between one man and one woman should not be the only form of marriage. There are others out there that wish to be happy with marrying the same-sex, what is it to anyone else of their decision. We no longer judge those who marry interracially now do we?

  • Both fight for equality

    It is up to the individual to decide who they may want to marry. Society should not put restrictions on it to reflect individual opinions on the subject of race and sexuality. It is common knowledge in most developed and underdeveloped nations that equality should be guaranteed. People fought to be married to a different racial group and the LGBT community fought for same-sex marriage. Due to this factor it can be said that both encompass the so called guarantee of equality for all.

  • The issues are exactly the same.

    Both the fight for interracial marriage legality and the fight for same sex marriage legality involve equal protections under the law for consenting adults who are being discriminated against purely for a biological component.
    Race is inborn. Sexual orientation is inborn. Both groups deserve equal protections and rights under the law.

    Interestingly those against same sex marriage are even using the same spurious arguments about "nature" and "gods" that opponents of interracial marriage did in the sixties.

  • It is very similar.

    Yes, I think that the fight for same-sex marriage is very similar to the first for interracial marriage. In both cases, you have the government telling you who you can and can not marry. I believe that like interracial marriage, this will be corrected and everyone will be able to marry who they wish.

  • Yes the issues at hand are similar.

    One is not born choosing heir skin color and as such one is not born choosing what orientation they are and who they love. Therefore the fight for same-sex marriage is similar to the fight for interracial marriage. Both have similar issues, and that the right to marry should be open to all.

  • No, it is not similar because interracial marriage is about race.

    The fight for interracial marriage is one for equality among races. All races are equal, and thus deserve a chance to form lasting bonds with one another. Same-Sex marriage, on the other hand, is a debate over whether or not it's right for people both nature and God deem inappropriate to form lasting commitments.

  • Redefining marriage is about pushing an unfair agenda.

    Some critics may argue that Christians used religious reasons to oppose interracial marriage, by calling it "immoral." Regardless of how ethical or unethical we think that a black person marrying a white person, they can still fulfill the biological necessities of a marriage. The idea that two men or two women can marry goes against the biological necessities.

    African-Americans were counted as 3/5ths of the population. They were historically not allowed to vote, let alone run for political offices. It was only after the Civil War that Black people were granted civil rights. To compare same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is absolute non-sense and an insult to the struggles that African-Americans have faced.

    I believe that sexual minorities should be treated with dignity and respect. There is no place for bullying or name-calling. If two men or two women want to live together, then I believe that they have a right to pursue a romantic relationship. However, redefining marriage isn't about civil rights for homosexuals. It's really just a sneaky way that the Left is trying to destroy the institution of marriage and to demean Christians.

  • I'm starting to believe this site is run by socialists.

    What a dumb question.

    Is an apple similar to an orange? A socialist will say yes, cause it's round. Others will say no cause it is orange in colour and apples are red, yellow, green or blended colours of the three (I have yet to see and taste an orange apple). The socialist will insist we should work on getting an apple similar to an orange just because it could be possible, never mind it could create problems in the human body as other foods that are genetically modified. Let's create people with no brains so we can program them as we see fit. Frankenstein anyone?

  • Not the same

    Marriage is between a man and a woman this is what true marriage is regardless of race. Man with man or woman with woman is not and never will be marriage but a perversion no matter what the law might say. "So called same sex marriage is not a human right"

  • Not the same

    Marriage is between a man and a woman this is what true marriage is regardless of race. Man with man or woman with woman is not and never will be marriage but a perversion no matter what the law might say. "So called same sex marriage is not a human right"

  • Marriage requires two different genders to become one in flesh, race difference does not change this, two people of the same gender does.

    Same sex marriage changes the whole meaning of marriage. Sexually, man complements woman and the two become one, with the ability to reproduce, their children are closely connected through the genes they share. This is impossible with same sex relationships, they are different. A man and a woman of different races does not change the concept of what marriage means. Can you honestly say that two men experience the same feelings as two women or with a man and a woman who complement one another. These are different relationships and should be treated accordingly.

  • Same sex marriage is DIFFERENT from the issue of INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE

    Same sex is unnatural. Against God's Order. Inter racial is two people from different human races so to speak. Jesus Christ says there is no more Jew or Gentile. I can interpret that to be no more black or white. Jesus through His death and Resurrection has broken the dividing wall of nationality and race inclusive.

  • Same sex is not the same as interracial.

    That doesn't make sense, it is different races for interracial but it's same sex were taking here. The point of analogy, of course, is that the two things being analogized will not be the same in every respect.

    The author then makes an extraordinarily strained attempt to compare same-sex marriage with anti-miscegenation laws: “Anti-miscegenation laws, therefore, were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law.”

    The awkward wording of this sentence gives away its strained reasoning. Why unnecessarily complicate things? The point of anti-miscegenation laws was to restrict peoples’ ability to marry to serve some perceived social purpose. And that is exactly where the analogy between restrictions on same-sex marriage comes in.

    And this part is similarly tendentious: “Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage.”

    I know some people who advocate a “separation of marriage from state.” If that’s the direction we go in, then obviously same-sex marriage would be unnecessary. But that is not, in fact, the direction we appear to be going in. The state formally recognizes some marriages and not others. Indeed, there are some marriages (such as between a brother and sister of those involving a child) the state should emphatically not recognize. The point is that a concrete reason for restricting marriage

  • It us definitely not.

    It's not the same thing because we're dealing of two gender of the same sex trying to marry. Interracials were two of the opposite sexes that are legally now able to marry. This is a big difference. Wrong comparisons here. It's kinda hard to try to compare same sex marriage to interracial marriages which consisted of two of the opposite sexes.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.