Do you think being against homosexual marriage, is becoming a lot like being against interacial relationships.

It is still taboo to a large amount of people, but with the changing social climate I feel like its becoming generally accepted. Just like with interracial relations some people have their personal preferences or prefer to stick to their similar culture, but no one is outright saying its wrong. And honestly if someone came out on camera and said "keep races pure" or whatever then most people in mainstream society would probably disagree with him.

While the topic of homosexual marriage is still polarizing, do you all think it will become genuinely accepted across the board(for the most part) like interracial dating.

Baby Boomers are aging and dying. Meanwhile, millenials are an even larger generation. Gen Z is also, at least for the time being, very socially liberal. Conservatism in general is on its way out in America.

Yeah, it has overstayed its welcome

Pretty much. Both positions against are irrational and based on emotion.

Yup. Same thing in my eyes.

Actually, there are plenty of people who still think marriage between races is wrong. With racists saying it is white genocide.

But same sex marriage will only see more support from here on out.

"Becoming?" It already is.

There are whole churches that go around protesting homosexual weddings. When has someone protested a interracial wedding in the news?

@Mercenary848:

I think it's sad when conservatives consider any showing of gay marriage or their own existence as pushing the liberal agenda. We don't call the embracing of heterosexuality as pushing conservative agenda, why are we denying people the right to be true to themselves?

Don't believe the hardy tough guy narrative they spin. The social conservaive right, is the biggest group of babies ever.

Certainly. There's never been a rational argument against it.

I been arguing this on GS since at least 2009: stoners are the new "gay" people. They have to hide their use. They get discriminated for employment. Society looks down on them. Cmon LGBT community you're good at fighting and legalizing stuff, add an M in there for Mary Jane lovers.

This guy on TED talk below "came out of the closet" about cannabis use (marijuana is a derogatory term used against minorities) it's the f* or n* word.

To answer OP yeah you guys are safe. You can't lose employment over your sexuality. There are other human rights that continue to be violated.

Some prominent Christian televangelist called Obergefell was a "Moral 9/11", taking down the "twin pillars of truth and righteousness".

Lol, they are both roughly equally petty. Both misusing loaded language, to try to make a point, only to look really stupid in the end.

Who has a problem with interracial dating? but the two things can not really be compared.

One is based on a religious text and the other is based on simple racisme.

But both are accepted and to be fair who gives a shit what two people who love each other do? if they want to marry let them.

hahahahahaha what in the hell

... Wait wait wait.. Are you suggesting that only white people are racists, and only white people are against interracial marriage?

I think either way you have to have some serious issues to be against something that has literally nothing to do with you.

People are self-absorbed idiots.

No... What I am suggesting is that you stop trying to take words out of other people's mouths.

Edit: The white genocide thing was an example, not the full story.

Yes, totally, to add my two cents.

Say what you want about Sarah Silverman, but she has a fairly good point in this clip.

As others have said, this white-centric conservatism with so-called Christian values is on the way out. Church attendance is down, people are becoming more open-minded. But it's still not good enough; Prop 8 passed in California not too long ago, I think people forget that. Two large groups (hispanics and blacks) in this country are extremely conservative in that area to the point of being "flaming hetero", to put it bluntly.

But yeah, it is. When I hear people use the F-word that aren't gay, I cringe just like they're using the N-word. When they use "gay" derogatorily I can't help but think they have the maturity of a 6th grader; my boss does that every now and then, and it honestly makes me wonder what I am doing there sometimes working for someone I can't respect, even if I want to.

Is this a joke? Don't get me wrong, I am a huge advocate for cannabis use (I can't admit to its use according to forum rules last time I checked, so I won't) but seriously?

Cannabis users do suffer discrimination: I've felt this way for a long time, but you can't say it because people don't know how to make suffering relative, everyone wants to compare it. So you will say that cannabis users are discriminated against and that people of color and the LGBT community should support them, but then they'll be like "Oh well you weren't whipped or killed for your rights, so you don't even know" or something like that, and you can't really respond to that lol.

I still think that gay people are the "new gay" because they have a long ways to go, not to mention that just about every non-white race in the US still has a long way to go as well despite the progress of the past 50 years...but yeah, you can probably add cannabis users to that list.

To the very, very, very bottom of that list, if we are being totally honest.

You know why don't we just add it on later, we are legalizing it state by state and I'm sure the feds will wise up soon enough.

Just don't, dude, the guy only sees one half of the argument because you A.) mentioned that half first or B.) omitted the other half, and assumes you're Hilary Clinton's pen pal and it triggers his faux impartiality.

Not worth the time.

.... Ok so lets break this down.. You talk about interracial marriages being against it a group.. You then state that racists, not WHITE racists, but racist as a catch all term call it white genocide.. We live in a political climate in which quite a few people have voiced this sentiment that only white people can be racist due to a supposed power structure.. I asked a question to confirm your statement, you then make a snide comment about reading comprehension.. Suggesting that it's so obviosu, yet you have to edit again because YOU YOURSELF don't feel it was obvious.. All I asked for was a confirmation, nothing more.. I asked a question I did not make a statement, in no way did I put words in your mouth.

@mrbojangles25: I asked a question about a poorly worded statement.. And which is it guys? Am I a far right winger extremist or Bernie Bro or fake liberal?

@sSubZerOo: you tell us :D

I think you are...lawful neutral? If this were an RPG...

In ancient Greece where homosexuality was accepted, marriage was between a man and a woman, which is the natural order of things.

@JimB: They also had slaves, should we really be using ancient cultures as examples?

In general, from what I've seen, the Conservative argument is that it should be up to the religious institution whether they allow for same sex marriage or not, and shouldn't be forced by the government. A very reasonable, non-bigoted argument. That's part of the point of America. Freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. In the UK, it's probably a different situation. Since the government and the church are nearly the same, you could easily make the argument that not allowing gay people to get married is a form of bigotry.

Are we acting like religion was never used to justify racism here?

It's always been an issue and it's probably not going anywhere, but people like myself who have been doing it really don't give a F???! ....Sorry for the bad language, I just find it hard to believe that this is still an issue in the 21st century

I agree, but I will say now its way more accepted. While now you can meet seemingly good hearted people with a blindingly bad hatred for homosexuals.

That being said you are right, there are still those backwoods idiots that don't believe the races should mix.

@perfect_blue: @mrbojangles25: ugh okay let's keep those battles separate.

In regards of this thread, I agree with what Dave Chappelle said in his recent stand up on Netflix.

The thing is, I took white supremacist's opposition because that is what would most likely be the most familiar to most users. I could go on with more examples (hello there anti-miscegnation laws in the middle east), but I would rather not waste everyone's time.

Oh, now? I'm pretty sure that a great deal of the opposition to interracial marriage was religion based.

I mean, not too long ago I remember it being on the news that an interracial couple got kicked out of their church because their church didn't agree with it.

Whenever there is discrimination and hate, you can bet your butt there are people using the Bible to justify it. The book is archaic and really, really, really bad in terms of morality, so it always works f or them.

Than why did you not say white supremacists? You just said racist, with no adjective, so heck yeah that can be comprehended quite a few ways.. Especially as stated earlier there is a regressive belief circulating in which it is viewed only white people can be racist.. Hence why I asked you to clarify.

Fair enough.

To answer your question, if I said white supremacists, someone out there, would go "what about the black supermacists", ect. So I picked racists as an overall catch-all term and then picked the most familiar situation to most people on this board.

Edit: Hell, I did type white supremacists, before I changed it to racist, because I am not in the mood right now to go into a long discussion to justify my use of language. Ironically it turns out my other usage lead to that effect instead... heh.

@Maroxad:

Not a problem, thank you for clarifying.

you are welcome.

And sorry for being a bit condenscending. I guess your question just reminded me a bit too much of a certain other user, who WOULD actually take words out of my mouth, occationally even misinterpret them. Trying to make me defend a strawman of my position.

Hmm, never heard anything about that but if you find a credible link, please do share.

Because the only resistant i've heard against interracial and what iv felt myself is based on racism and that applies to both sides,

While you can blame religion for a lot, as iv said i have never seen opposition against interracial based on that, so it sounds more like a pet prejudice you have.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples/story?id=15065204

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8930754/US-church-bans-interracial-couples.html

The bible is a pretty racist book so I can see how people would use it to justify their racism.

I know toast_burner just gave you some links as you requested but did you seriously think this shit doesn't happen? Based on your other posts I have to say you're one sheltered child.

Thanks for the links.

But not quite sure where you see the justification from the bible in this local matter. It seems more like a racist former pastor who used his power and racism among his fellow churchgoers.

But i do agree that the bible is a shit book.

Not sure where you get the idea that a story from 2011 about a racist guy using his "power" as a former priest to get one couple banned, to be a widespread church problem with interracial couples.

Especially when the official statement from the main Church association is

The National Association of Free Will Baptists in Tennessee has no official position on interracial marriage for its 2,400 churches worldwide, executive secretary Keith Burden said. The denomination believes the Bible is inerrant and local churches have autonomy over decision making.

"It's been a non-issue with us," Burden said, adding that many interracial couples attend Free Will Baptist churches. He said the Pike County church acted on its own. Burden said the association can move to strip the local church of its affiliation with the national denomination if it's not resolved.

"Hopefully it is corrected quickly," Burden said.

But hey enjoy your tunnel vision.

@Jacanuk: Curse of Ham, was sometimes used to explain black skin.

Two gay muslims got married in UK recently which is cool but the response by other muslims has been less cordial.

Ok?

Interracial marriages are rising but it's still pretty taboo among, well, any group of people. That and you have misconceptions and stereotyping that persist thanks to racist beliefs in the past and pop culture. Just because it's not against the law doesn't mean that everyone is going to be okay with that. But do you need their approval? No.

As for the comparison to homosexual marriage, a comparison could be made. Individual states that legislate who people could marry, as well as legislating who could receive tax breaks and certain benefits such as welfare. While gay marriage is legal, you have certain states legislating homophobic laws barring gay couples from adopting or receiving any tax relief whereas a straight couple wouldn't have any trouble.

The definition of marriage has changed numerous times to suit the needs of changing time periods. Whereas marriage today can be seen as a contract between two people who truly love each other, marriage back then was seen as a contract between two families to wed their sons and daughters to create alliances or halt conflicts.

What are you, the liberal gestapo?

Oh wait, I just violated Godwin's Law!

It often is, and its more often used for some kind of political power. But the reason this is true is because of how inherent bigotry is in biblical texts. In a book that tells you to murder gay people (not to not allow them to marry but to murder them and its okay) youre a half step away from translating say... Deuteronomy 7:1-6 (Israelites to to commit genocide against the Canaan and shall not breed with or marry the female survivors because its a sin against god) to be interracial marriage racism. Obviously this will always be a major problem when people attempt to implement fantasy stories by bronze age desert goat herders into their modern lives. Add that to what i mentioned before about the inherent nature of bibles, to separate people, promote bigotry between them and then promote genocide, and its pretty easy to see how this stuff happens. At least for followers.... currently im convinced most pastors and preachers are simply exploitative and simply seeking money or power.

We are using interracial marriage as a support for gay marriage which is comparing apples and oranges. Interracial marriage is between a man and a woman.

No its not, the premise is exactly the same. You are attracted to, who you are attracted to and no man has a right to stop two consenting adults. **** it, make it 40 consenting adults. The point is you have zero right to tell any consenting adult who they can or cannot love. You have no right to barge into peoples bedrooms and demand they conform to your totalitarian bullshit that you constructed from bronze aged idiots.

Its also worth mentioning that the arguments against both were exactly the same. That really just goes to show the blind ignorance and parroting of either.

I can't imagine the mindset of someone perfectly content with the notion that lgbt youth gladly volunteer to die for this country every day, but somehow should be treated like a second-class citizen because of their choice to love. That's pretty bonkers.

As long as no ones getting hurt do whatever the **** you like just stop asking for special treatment. If my friend came up to me and said he/she was gay or having a sex change I probably would not care or bothered by it. It's not the reason I would befriend someone, personality and common interests is what does.

Interracial relationships don't bother me, diverse genes are a good thing.

Is becoming? It is. It's just the next generation's thing to hate.