The analogy of the interracial and gay marriage is a universal argument. Its ubiquitous usage in gay literature is astonishing. Homosexuals know to win the debate they must conjure up the notion that they have been oppressed and that they are the new civil rights movements. If they can obtain that position, all that oppose them are bigots and it seems as though the homosexuals would have the moral high ground. In most public policy debates, homosexuals (and their supporters) tend to use this analogy that it is used in most court cases. The courts have ruled multiple times it is unconstitutional to not allow interracial marriage, therefore homosexuals attempt to have the same status given unto themselves. What is interesting, however, is why these laws were put into place.
These laws had no place in British common law, in common law all that was requited was the male and female complimentary which would promote procreation and child rearing. However these anti-miscegenation laws should be opposed by people against homosexual marriage for one good reason: they go against what we argue today. Yes, what we argue is totally different. We argue marriage, like in common law, is to promote a proper view of human nature by pushing male and female complimentary. These inter racial laws injected certain aspects of marriage that are not viewed as natural. They separated this complimentary nature because of race. The purpose of these laws were to promote racial purity. But as Francis Beckwith notes, "It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory."[1]
This, in sum, destroys the analogy. The only reason these laws existed was because it was possible (and natural) for these kinds to marry. People that support traditional marriage today oppose it because we see it as intrinsically impossible for homosexuals to meet the same conditions as a heterosexual union. This simple but compelling logic cripples the analogy. It's simply brilliant. I will again reiterate: they had those laws because they could meet the conditions of marriage; now I oppose same sex marriage because they cannot meet those conditions in principle. As we can see, the two situations are totally different.
The famous "What is Marriage" paper also presents a similar argument. Instead they argue the point of the interracial laws is to separate people of two kinds; the current debate is not saying gays should be kept apart at all costs, rather they do not fit the essential criteria for marriage [2].
Both of these lines of logic refute the analogy, and it really annoys me that it is still often used.
1. Francis Beckwith, Public Discourse, 2010, "Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage" http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/
2. The HTML format of the paper can be found here, but the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy version (where it was originally printed) can be also found online as a pdf if you wish to view it that way.
These laws had no place in British common law, in common law all that was requited was the male and female complimentary which would promote procreation and child rearing. However these anti-miscegenation laws should be opposed by people against homosexual marriage for one good reason: they go against what we argue today. Yes, what we argue is totally different. We argue marriage, like in common law, is to promote a proper view of human nature by pushing male and female complimentary. These inter racial laws injected certain aspects of marriage that are not viewed as natural. They separated this complimentary nature because of race. The purpose of these laws were to promote racial purity. But as Francis Beckwith notes, "It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory."[1]
This, in sum, destroys the analogy. The only reason these laws existed was because it was possible (and natural) for these kinds to marry. People that support traditional marriage today oppose it because we see it as intrinsically impossible for homosexuals to meet the same conditions as a heterosexual union. This simple but compelling logic cripples the analogy. It's simply brilliant. I will again reiterate: they had those laws because they could meet the conditions of marriage; now I oppose same sex marriage because they cannot meet those conditions in principle. As we can see, the two situations are totally different.
The famous "What is Marriage" paper also presents a similar argument. Instead they argue the point of the interracial laws is to separate people of two kinds; the current debate is not saying gays should be kept apart at all costs, rather they do not fit the essential criteria for marriage [2].
Both of these lines of logic refute the analogy, and it really annoys me that it is still often used.
1. Francis Beckwith, Public Discourse, 2010, "Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage" http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/
2. The HTML format of the paper can be found here, but the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy version (where it was originally printed) can be also found online as a pdf if you wish to view it that way.
wow its a interesting post on this blog. I was read and watch lots of post something like this but your post is amazing. My Self Nikita from Delhi the capital of India. If you are looking for Female Escorts in Delhi then please our website Nikitaescortsdelhi.in
ReplyDelete