FWIS3

A very interesting xkcd. I've been interested in the parallels between interracial and same sex marriage for a while. It kind of surprises me that the proponents of same sex marriage don't use the argument more (that societal acceptance should not be the judge of whether something is legal).

http://xkcd.com/1431/

Sometimes I think any effort to make that comparison would just stir up old racist hatreds and acceptance of interracial marriage would decline.

I really think some right-wing politician will eventually introduce legislation to re-ban interracial marriage.

It might come from a surprising quarter. I've seen occasional arguments from some people on the left, supposedly on my side, that interracial marriages cannot be healthy due to issues of social privilege. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

OTOH I've also seen complaints that gay marriage has only become the issue it has because a bunch of middle-class white guys happened to be gay. From personal experience I suspect there's some truth to that.

... But then again, I don't follow the news on conservative politics, and I live in a pretty liberal area, so there might be some confirmation bias here. Most Republican party talking points are so far out in Stupid Land that they don't quite register in my head as serious positions; so it always comes as a huge shock to me when the Republicans remind us that they're still around doing their mustache-twirling shit.

Hazards of getting one's news from the Internet, I guess. Most of what I see in terms of political discussion is liberal in-fighting, and that is bad enough.

Gullible Jones wrote:It might come from a surprising quarter. I've seen occasional arguments from some people on the left, supposedly on my side, that interracial marriages cannot be healthy due to issues of social privilege. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I have literally never heard this in my life. And if I did I would just call them out on being racist bigots.

@Rommie: I've seen it only two or three times in my life, so... yeah, not common. I don't think the people in question were bigots though, more that they were just so hung up on currently extant privilege issues as to forget where we want to go from there... I think.

I don't know. Internet discussions can really give the wrong impression of who has the most influence sometimes. Anyway I don't really have a right to an opinion on this stuff, so I should probably shut up.

There are two concepts of interpersonal relationships that have occupied my attention in recent times.

I am beginning to understand how it can be that two people of the same sex can be attracted to each other for purposes of emotional and moral support. The physical doesn't enter the picture here.

I have come to the conclusion that (at least on the male side of the equation) the reason that people are/were so opposed to legitimizing gay marriage was that by extension, legitimizing gay marriage automatically legitimizes gay sex. That was what got some folks' undies in a twist...

Rommie wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:It might come from a surprising quarter. I've seen occasional arguments from some people on the left, supposedly on my side, that interracial marriages cannot be healthy due to issues of social privilege. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I have literally never heard this in my life. And if I did I would just call them out on being racist bigots.

Really, you haven't heard this before? I have, many times. And although I'd say the vast majority of those who might express such a sentiment are, in fact, bigots, a few might not be. Those few might just be looking at thing realistically and selfishly - i.e., what is best for my child here and now in order that they live a happy, prosperous life. Marrying out of your race will (ok, probably) have negative implications. The children of the bi-racial couple may well suffer abuses on the school playground from other kids and possibly be ostracized. These are realities of a society that contains a fair proportion of true bigots.

It's much like the arguments against appointing Madeline Albright, and later Hillary Clinton (although less so with her), as Secretary of State. Sure, she's well-qualified, smart, articulate and politically savvy, but she'll be dealing with foreign leaders that don't consider women as their equals and might be offended if the US sent a woman as an envoy. Those were realities then and still remain so. The people that made that argument weren't all misogynists. Some just wanted the most effective person to deal with an imperfect world.

And, because this is the internet, I will add that I endorse/endorsed neither sentiment. Just making the argument that not all endorsers are bigots/misogynists.

cid wrote:I have come to the conclusion that (at least on the male side of the equation) the reason that people are/were so opposed to legitimizing gay marriage was that by extension, legitimizing gay marriage automatically legitimizes gay sex. That was what got some folks' undies in a twist...

I certainly think that is part of it (or maybe all of it for some opponents).

But then one has to ask should the legality of some action be determined by my comfort level with it, particularly when such acts are conducted in private? My answer is no; what you do in your bedroom between or among consenting adults is none of my business (nor anyone else's).

Swift wrote:

cid wrote:I have come to the conclusion that (at least on the male side of the equation) the reason that people are/were so opposed to legitimizing gay marriage was that by extension, legitimizing gay marriage automatically legitimizes gay sex. That was what got some folks' undies in a twist...

I certainly think that is part of it (or maybe all of it for some opponents).

But then one has to ask should the legality of some action be determined by my comfort level with it, particularly when such acts are conducted in private? My answer is no; what you do in your bedroom between or among consenting adults is none of my business (nor anyone else's).

Again, by extension (and generally speaking), this seems to have less to do with someone's comfort level than it does with religion. It's an Old Testament thing, therefore it's a no-no, whether one is comfortable with it (so to speak) or not. "God said it, I believe it, and that's that."
Closed mind, exit stage left.

cid wrote:Again, by extension (and generally speaking), this seems to have less to do with someone's comfort level than it does with religion. It's an Old Testament thing, therefore it's a no-no, whether one is comfortable with it (so to speak) or not. "God said it, I believe it, and that's that." Closed mind, exit stage left.

That to me is a completely different reason to oppose same sex marriage (SSM). Sure, there are some people who are both uncomfortable with the physical acts and are also opposed to it on religious reasons, but I see those as pretty much separate reasons. The first is sort of an "ick" response, the second is a question of belief; sort of a gut reaction versus a thought-out reaction.

But, I have multiple problems with the religious argument against SSM. I don't have a problem with an individual opposing it because that is their religious belief; I just don't think that is a basis for US law.

First, the US Constitution, particularly the First Amendment makes that an unconstitutional argument. One of the more liberal Protestant churches is actually using that argument somewhere in the South as grounds to overturn a state ban on SSM. They argue that their Church recognizes SSM and the law in that state not only bans it, but bans anyone from conducting a SSM ceremony. They argue that by banning their religious practice (officiating SSM ceremonies) that their right to practice their religion is being suppressed by the government.

That points out the fact that not all christian or judaic groups oppose SSM, so it is not a universally held religious belief, even among groups that use the same bible.

Lastly, and this goes back to my OP - biblical and religious arguments were also made against interracial marriage. This is a very interesting legal review of the parallels. From that reference is this quote from a famous Virginia court opinion supporting that state's ban on interracial marriages

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

If we are to ignore god's will on one, why shouldn't we ignore god's will on the other?

Gullible Jones wrote:It might come from a surprising quarter. I've seen occasional arguments from some people on the left, supposedly on my side, that interracial marriages cannot be healthy due to issues of social privilege. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

would these be the same people who oppose interracial adoption?

Swift wrote:Lastly, and this goes back to my OP - biblical and religious arguments were also made against interracial marriage. This is a very interesting legal review of the parallels. From that reference is this quote from a famous Virginia court opinion supporting that state's ban on interracial marriages

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

If we are to ignore god's will on one, why shouldn't we ignore god's will on the other?

i'll take the 'but the bible says' arguments more seriously whan i see that the people who are them are

not rounding the corners of their beards
not mixing milk and meat
not eating pork, shrimp, lobster ...
etc.

eta: i still won't believe that they should determine civil law.

I am still pretty much creeped out by anyone who is overly interested or concerned with the sex life of anyone not himself. Or herself.

gethen wrote:I am still pretty much creeped out by anyone who is overly interested or concerned with the sex life of anyone not himself. Or herself.

Thank you

Swift wrote:A very interesting xkcd. I've been interested in the parallels between interracial and same sex marriage for a while. It kind of surprises me that the proponents of same sex marriage don't use the argument more (that societal acceptance should not be the judge of whether something is legal).

Because societal acceptance drives many of the laws that we observe. In fact, what was surprising about the court siding with the interracial couple in Virginia is that it broke with over 100 years of legal precedence AND social expectations. It wasn't just religious objections that the court overthrew. There were previous high court rulings that essentially sided with the ban on interracial marriage.

While science may have proven that we were all from the same species many people still view the fact that we have different skin colors and other physical characteristics as evidence that we must be different species because they don't understand that race and species are not interchangeable.

SciFiFisher wrote:

Swift wrote:A very interesting xkcd. I've been interested in the parallels between interracial and same sex marriage for a while. It kind of surprises me that the proponents of same sex marriage don't use the argument more (that societal acceptance should not be the judge of whether something is legal).

Because societal acceptance drives many of the laws that we observe. In fact, what was surprising about the court siding with the interracial couple in Virginia is that it broke with over 100 years of legal precedence AND social expectations. It wasn't just religious objections that the court overthrew. There were previous high court rulings that essentially sided with the ban on interracial marriage.

While science may have proven that we were all from the same species many people still view the fact that we have different skin colors and other physical characteristics as evidence that we must be different species because they don't understand that race and species are not interchangeable.

Let me make clear that I meant exactly what I wrote - societal acceptance should not be the judge of whether something is legal. I've made enough solar laps to know that the reality is far different. Without the growing societal acceptance, the laws on homosexuality would not be changing in the US, and it rather surprises me how quickly they are.

I should note that both Ohio's governor and AG announced within the last day or two that they will continue to defend Ohio's ban on SSM in court challenges, because it is their jobs to "uphold the law" and because it is their personal beliefs.

Our Republican senator, Portman, was strongly anti-gay-rights until his son came out. Now he is all pro marriage equality. Funny the way that works.

Apparently rights are only to be defended when you personally benefit from that defense.

Swift wrote:I should note that both Ohio's governor and AG announced within the last day or two that they will continue to defend Ohio's ban on SSM in court challenges, because it is their jobs to "uphold the law" and because it is their personal beliefs.

Our Republican senator, Portman, was strongly anti-gay-rights until his son came out. Now he is all pro marriage equality. Funny the way that works.

Apparently rights are only to be defended when you personally benefit from that defense.

all politics are local.... and very personal

The people who actually believe nutjob rethoric DO remind me of the "Star Folk" in the "Ballad of Beta 2".

Swift wrote:Let me make clear that I meant exactly what I wrote - societal acceptance should not be the judge of whether something is legal. I've made enough solar laps to know that the reality is far different. Without the growing societal acceptance, the laws on homosexuality would not be changing in the US, and it rather surprises me how quickly they are.

I am surprised as well. Even though I was a child in the eighties, I remember that shows like Soap were gaining ground in making homosexuality okay and mainstream. Then AIDS came along, and that really slowed things down. The fact that the movement for SSM has gained such traction in thirty years is pretty impressive.

(The fact that I'm able to view the world in the decades that I've lived still freaks the fuck out of me. I should still be 25!)

Sigma_Orionis wrote:The people who actually believe nutjob rethoric DO remind me of the "Star Folk" in the "Ballad of Beta 2".

You're going to make us google that, aren't you?

SciFi Chick wrote:(The fact that I'm able to view the world in the decades that I've lived still freaks the fuck out of me. I should still be 25!)

I'm still thinking it should be 1972.

geonuc wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:(The fact that I'm able to view the world in the decades that I've lived still freaks the fuck out of me. I should still be 25!)

I'm still thinking it should be 1972.

Damn geonuc - I was two in 1972. Thanks for making me feel younger.

SciFi Chick wrote:

geonuc wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:(The fact that I'm able to view the world in the decades that I've lived still freaks the fuck out of me. I should still be 25!)

I'm still thinking it should be 1972.

Damn geonuc - I was two in 1972. Thanks for making me feel younger.

Yer welcome. Hey, the Apollo 11 moon landing [allegedly] predates you!

That's a bit off topic, isn't it?

geonuc wrote:

Sigma_Orionis wrote:The people who actually believe nutjob rethoric DO remind me of the "Star Folk" in the "Ballad of Beta 2".

You're going to make us google that, aren't you?

Damned straight Skippy

One of Samuel R. Delany's Sci Fi first novels, written in 1965. Although it's not considered all that great I thought it was pretty good, and that's ALL I'm going to tell you