Maybe We Should Ban Inter Racial Marriage Too?

The issue of gay marriage really isn't an issue at all.

As I was reading an article indicating the Supreme Court will take up the issue of gay marriage, I kept asking myself why and who cares. Does it matter who loves whom? Should not all Americans have certain unalienable rights such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I have met lots of people who favor the marriage between two men or two women. Then there are those who tell me they have lots of gay friends and do not hate gays, yet they are against them marrying. I am not sure how you can say you are okay with your friends living together as partners and not okay with them married. Then there is the other group that is just against it, but why?

As a former classroom teacher, current events, such as this, often came up. I encouraged students to discuss these topics, but to do so with strong arguments, not just opinions. The groups that tend to be against gay marriage mostly falls into two areas. One, they were simply against the thought of displays of affection, or more pointed, bedroom acts, and two, they said it is against the teachings of the Bible.

When looking at the first argument, why are you sitting there thinking about it. "What do you want to do today?" "Oh I am going to think about two men (or women) getting it on." Really, is that how you spend your days, worrying about what two people are doing in their bedroom? That is just weird. Your argument against marriage is due to homophobia.  Because of this, maybe we should make being a doctor illegal because of iatrophobia. All you iatrophobics out there, do not worry, a movement should start soon.

To resolve the issue above, let me tell you a story. Several years back. my wife and I took a trip to Minnesota with a good friend and his partner. At one point in my trip, my friend and his partner were, making out. After an uncomfortable mile, I spoke up and asked that they stop. I do not care who you are, heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, whatever-sexual, DO NOT MAKE OUT IN THE BACK OF MY CAR! Seriously, I do not need to, or want to see it. As far as I am concerned it is like watching my parents putting on a display of heavy affection. I will expand this and say in all public places. I love my wife, but I do not need to mack on her in a public place to prove it. We talked; she feels the same. We are not against two people loving each other. Go ahead, just do so in private.

Then there is religion. If you are against it because the Bible says it is wrong, please ask yourself this. Do you go to church weekly? Do you read the Bible on a regular basis? Do you truly live by the teachings of the Bible or are you one of those who attends church twice a year and calls yourself a true Christian? If you are the later, please do not use this argument. You are using that argument as an excuse to really address your feelings. If you are the former, I can understand your position.

The other part of the religious argument is the one we must address. It is probably at the heart of the issue. It is the issue of the separation between church and state. Who is making the laws, the church? Those days ended with Roger Williams and Rhode Island. Do not use a biblical argument to overturn state laws. Do not use biblical arguments to create federal laws. It is for this reason I feel the Supreme Court has only one path to take. Marriage can no longer be defined as one man and one women, but rather the union between two loving people who want to commit themselves to the other person for their life. 

It used to be illegal for different races to marry. We realized that was due to unjust fear. Let us put our fears aside, address the law from a non-religious point of view and understand this may not be resolved in the upcoming Supreme Court ruling, but gay marriage will be sanctioned in the future.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

CowDung December 11, 2012 at 02:12 PM
What's wrong with polygamy, Keith?
Brian Dey December 11, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Lyle - Peace be with you during the celebration of Hanakkuh. There is no doubt that this topic is of some controversy even amongst the various denominations of Christianity. In the Episcopal Church, homosexuality has caused a great divide between the the Church of England (traditional) and the American Episcopal Church. The Church of England still condemns homosexuallity, while in the American Church, the practice of gay marriage is generally accepted, provided the laws of the state coincide. There is even a divide in the American Church over the elevation of gays to the rank of Bishop. The controversy seems to stem from whether homosexuality is a life choice, or preordained from birth. The Church of England, as well as the Roman Catholics and Lutherans, lean heavily towards life choice. As you know, for a time I was was a Youth Minister. Several times, I had been faced with questions from our teens regarding this topic. As instructed by my Bishop at the time, the stance of our Dioceses was that "homosexuality was an "unnatural act" considered a sin by God. Man is tempted in many ways in the realm of sexual behavior, but acting on such temptations violates God's law." While there may be evidence in nature that may support those who believe homosexuality is preordained, I have several examples in my aquaintances that show that it was a lefestyle choice.
FreeThought Troy December 11, 2012 at 03:06 PM
Craig - I always find your posts very enlightening. Indeed, many of them have modified my opinions and made me see things in ways I didn't allow myself and we have (I being very liberal) come to concensus on many issues. I do agree with 98% of your post, here. The 2% I would suggest updating is that if civil unions are the best solutions to address gay marriage, then I would eliminate marriage all together. If civil unions are the solution to gay couples, then civil unions should be the sole solutions to straight couples.
CowDung December 11, 2012 at 03:16 PM
I think I'm in agreement with FTT on this one. Either everyone should be able to marry, or nobody should be allowed to marry. I see no reason to have 'civil unions' for some and 'marriage' for others.
Brian Dey December 11, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Free Thought Troy and Craig: I agree. I think all unions between adults, hetero or homosexual, should be called civil unions that are done outside the church. The church can still call it marriage and deal with their own beliefs. Yet civil unions will satisfy the equal status of not being able to discriminate based on sexual orientation. For those with religious beliefs, the government would recognize your relationship a civil union for legal purposes, and the church would consider your marriage as recognized by the sacraments.
Steve ® December 11, 2012 at 04:15 PM
I wouldn't honestly know as I am unmarried. I am more bringing up the point that gay marriage is a luxury and as Obama ha put us in and extremely dire financial state we do not have time to talk about this luxury right now. Plus, the women's work around my house doesn't seem to happen with enough efficiency. I figured 1-2 more employees focused in that area would yield better results.
Randy1949 December 11, 2012 at 05:16 PM
Stop the presses! Here is another of the rare instances where Bob McBride and I are in complete agreement -- and for the same reason. I'm married to a person of the opposite sex, in a civil ceremony,, and when I see people arguing that if those dratted gays want to marry then we should do away with civil marriage altogether in favor of religious ones, it ticks me off. I want the legal and social recognition of being husband and wife regardless of whether the priest who married us was authorized to do it by his church. (He actually got into trouble for doing it one too many times, poor guy.) I like assuming the mutual rights AND obligations with one license and ceremony. I have always taken that promise very seriously. My gay brothers and sisters deserve the same rights as well.
Randy1949 December 11, 2012 at 05:22 PM
@Brian Dey -- " Should incestuous couples be allowed to marry? Polygamists?" Not to cloud the issue, but the state does not forbid two carriers of a recessive genetic disease to marry each other. It does not forbid a person with a dominant genetic condition to marry, period. And it shouldn't. So how is it the state's business to limit a couple's degree of consanguinity because of potential birth defects? Yes, the thought is 'icky', but we might want to look at things logically. 80 years ago the idea of white people marrying black people was 'icky' too.
Steve ® December 11, 2012 at 05:55 PM
I'm with you there. My GF works for a cleaning company. At first it was cool when she got the job a few months ago but at times it becomes the mechanics curse. Guess it comes down to sending her packing or hiring out the services.
Lyle Ruble December 11, 2012 at 06:23 PM
@Brian Dey...Thank you for the blessing.
Bob McBride December 11, 2012 at 07:44 PM
I don't know if we're in complete agreement, Randy. I'd be wiling to have my marriage called something else if it would take the religious element out of the argument. I'm not sure "civil union" is ideal, as then I'd feel I'd have been forced into a union against my will. However, I might be more amenable to the term if I was guaranteed certain benefits and protection against unreasonable workload requests.
CowDung December 11, 2012 at 08:16 PM
I guess I don't see the term 'marriage' as a religious term. The county currently issues 'marriage licenses' rather than 'civil union licenses', so I think that the term 'marriage' can and should remain to describe the legal union between two people.
CowDung December 11, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Perhaps this is slightly off topic, but I found something that was worth sharing on this thread as some have been claiming that homosexuality was a 'choice'... http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay "Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children. A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother."
Nuitari (Grand Master Editor) December 11, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Bottom Line December 12, 2012 at 04:51 AM
I maintain that the problem isn't with the variant couplings ... it is with the resulting encumbrance because we no longer hold people accountable to their choices. Since we have devolved into a culture that exacts no measure of responsibility for a persons choices in life ... since we believe society must resolve issues they did not manifest ... this secular issue is pertinent ... if we are to start expecting individuals to suffer their life choices without societal umbrella's ... it is a non issue. None here are accepting the cost to society for encouraging behavior without expecting people are held responsible for the result. It is exactly why we are in debt beyond our capacity. Go ahead ... continue to have these meaningless conversations of religious and anti-religious nonsense about emotional and temporal conditions of man. Continue to argue the language and purpose of religions and whether one can cleverly enumerate a position .... We have quickly devolved into a society that is distracted by nonsense while we evaporate the foundation provided us ... pity.
Common Sense Conservative December 12, 2012 at 04:58 AM
If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? Would you say "Baby....what we have together is so good, we have to get the government in on this. We can't just share this commitment between us, we need to get judges and lawyers involved in this"
Common Sense Conservative December 12, 2012 at 05:00 AM
While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years. Studies also prove that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Netherlands study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.
Common Sense Conservative December 12, 2012 at 05:04 AM
As for interracial marriage.....Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely accepted biblical teaching.
Common Sense Conservative December 12, 2012 at 05:05 AM
As for gay marriage being a civil rights issue......Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals any basic civil rights that other citizens have. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
Lyle Ruble December 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM
@Dave....When the government started to give special treatment to couples, then it was an acknowledgement of the civil contract between consenting parties. Within all civil contracts there are rights and responsibilities. Government assures that those rights and responsibilities are practiced and observed. It is, quite simply, the authority of law to support the party's compliance. Ultimately, sanctioned contracts (relationships) empowers the government (community) to support unions of individuals.
Lyle Ruble December 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM
@Dave...We also have enough "short term" relationships between heterosexual couples. Most single parent households started from a traditional marriage between a woman and a man. When one classification of society is granted special privilege over another, then there is societal oppression. It wasn't that long ago that LGBTQ individuals were forced to remain in the closet to gain employment and remain employed. The worth of a person should not be determined by sexual preference, but by their character and social functioning. As far as taking a position of not allowing adoption by members of the LGBTQ community, other research doesn't support your statement.
Lyle Ruble December 12, 2012 at 12:54 PM
@Dave...If the marriages of those described biblically were to occur today, they would be found not to be legal. Abraham and Sarah's union wouldn't be allowed due to close kinship. He could have been her uncle, half brother or first cousin. Marriage has always been a social institution to guarantee property rights and responsibilities. Only until the emergence of Romanticism, marriage was between families and was primarily a business contract.
Lyle Ruble December 12, 2012 at 01:02 PM
@Dave...Reading the constitution, I don't find anything that prohibits gay marriage. Marriage is covered under the 10th amendment, with the states determining such civil contracts. There is nothing to deter same sex unions except the desire of the will of the state's electorate. Such, it is a function of a state's will, then if the electorate so chooses, gay marriage can be permitted.
babecityrollers December 12, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Sadly, Siri is incapable of consent.
babecityrollers December 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Why is marriage a legal institution at all? Why do people who found "the one" deserve more rights than those who haven't found (read: conned) someone into marrying them? Marriage should be between two individuals who have for whatever reason agreed that they love each other and are willing to put up with each other until they die and the religious institution that recognizes them as such. Next of kin and emergency contacts should be assigned by the individual and agreed upon by the responding party. And as far as insurance benefits -- well I believe in single payer so as far as I'm concerned that's a nonissue; and as far as my argument of no marriage period goes, well I'm sure the majority of the population disagrees with that logic too, especially in April. But by the government not recognizing marriage as a legal contract, the argument of "who's being discriminated against now?" is rendered obsolete. Plus, the divorce rate (and sub sequential legal fees) would go way, way down.
Common Sense Conservative December 13, 2012 at 05:17 AM
@Lyle Ruble... Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating. Since legalization, the out-of-wedlock birthrates and the divorce rates have risen sharply. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. These high rates of divorce lower cultural esteem for marriage. Worse, gay marriage separates marriage from parenting. It says that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of children. Scandinavians are buying that message, and marriage is in a steep decline, as is child well-being.
Lyle Ruble December 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM
@Dave...Your citing Scandinavian cultural practices is interesting, but doesn't really prove anything. The four nations making up this region have seen a decline in traditional marriage for decades. This parallels the same trends that are found in other first tier nations. In Scandinavia, children's welfare is guaranteed by the state minimizing the financial impact on children. Therefore, relationship stability doesn't have quite the devastating impact that we experience in this nation. My close friends living in the region are not bothered by the nature of the relationships, especially since it actually impacts so few individuals. Citizens have decided that the assault to individual human rights far outweigh any social costs incurred.
Common Sense Conservative December 13, 2012 at 12:58 PM
"Citizens have decided that the assault to individual human rights far outweigh any social costs incurred." There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
Common Sense Conservative December 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM
The "social costs" you're so quick to dismiss are important. Exparementing with the well-being of childeren is wrong on so many levels. Thousands of conclusive social science, medical, and psychological investigations published in hundreds of professional journals have shown that children without fathers are half as likely to do well in and graduate from school; they are more likely to require professional attention for physical or emotional problems; they are at an elevated risk for physical abuse or death; they are less likely to develop empathy for others; they are less confident; and they are more likely to spend time in jail and have children out of wedlock. All things being equal, children raised apart from their fathers—even if that father is replaced by another loving parent figure suffer serious declines in every important measure of well-being. Let us be clear: A good, compassionate and just society always comes to the aid of fatherless or motherless children. But a good, compassionate, and just society never intentionally creates fatherless and motherless children.
Common Sense Conservative December 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Fathers matter as male parents, not just as a second set of unisex hands to chip in with the housework and childrearing. Child psychologists for 40 years have been telling us how mothers and fathers parent differently, and how healthy child development demands this difference. Fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A scientific review of more than 100 published studies on the benefits of child-parent relationships found that “overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being and health.” Very simply, the same-sex family is problematic because same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father just because adults want it that way.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »