Have you see these comments from Orson Scott Card?

[_The Nehor]

I'm betting that Card's arguments would sound eerily similar to arguments made against desegregation and interracial marriage.

I bet not.

[_beastie]

I bet not.

So you think that opponents of desegregation and interracial marriage were NOT arguing that it would destroy the social fabric of society, defy the will of God, and decent people might have to rise up against the government?

[_scipio337]

I bet not.

So you think that opponents of desegregation and interracial marriage were NOT arguing that it would destroy the social fabric of society, defy the will of God, and decent people might have to rise up against the government?

Apples and rutabagas comparison. Can you point out where a gay union is a criminal offense, punishable by incarceration?

[_CaliforniaKid]

I bet not.

So you think that opponents of desegregation and interracial marriage were NOT arguing that it would destroy the social fabric of society, defy the will of God, and decent people might have to rise up against the government?

And that Negroes were disgusting. And (a la Bruce McConkie and pre-existence valiance) that Negroism was a choice, not just something you're born with. And (specifically with regard to mixing of the races) that it's not "natural".

Yes, there's a definite similarity there.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Apples and rutabagas comparison. Can you point out where a gay union is a criminal offense, punishable by incarceration?

Obviously our society has come a long way in the degree to which it is willing to prosecute its bigotry toward those who don't follow the social mores of the majority. But the bases of that bigotry remain the same, and it is still quite capable of stirring violence at a vigilante level. Such violence is far, far more common in Russia or Eastern Europe than it is here, certainly, but it's not unheard of here. I have friends who sometimes talk about kicking gay people's asses. I have reason to believe that at least one or two of them would even do so, if they felt provoked (say, if they felt "hit on" by a gay person). Hatred remains deeply-rooted, shoddily rationalized, and sometimes violently prosecuted though perhaps to a lesser degree than in our nation's past.

[_EAllusion]

Card is a little more out there.

That said, the typical arguments against gay marriage are essentially the same as those employed against interracial marriage with the notable exception of the "procreation" argument.

In addition to appealing to religious wisdom, what is "natural," and predicting the breakdown of society, the big ones that come to mind are:

An appeal to the long history and tradition of banning interracial/homosexual marriage, including when the 14th amendment was passed - Along with another argument I'll list in a second, this was the main argument Virginia used in Loving vs. Virginia.

An appeal to slippery slopes - If we allow interracial/gay marriage that will lead to having to allow other marriages we find undesirable such as the ever popular man, sofa, zebra marriage or, um, gay marriage.

An argument that everyone already had equal rights and that those seeking legalization are asking for "special rights" - In the case of interracial marriage it was that everyone has an equal right to marry a member of their own race; in the case of homosexual marriage, it is that everyone has a right to marry a member of the opposite sex. This was other main argument used against Loving. (All that Pahoran talk earlier reminds me that this was Pahoran's goto argument.)

An appeal to the right of the majority to determine what marriages it finds acceptable and the wrongness of judges interpreting the constitution to - uh - figure out that the majority has said about equality before the law.

[_scipio337]

Apples and rutabagas comparison. Can you point out where a gay union is a criminal offense, punishable by incarceration?

Obviously our society has come a long way in the degree to which it is willing to prosecute its bigotry toward those who don't follow the social mores of the majority. But the bases of that bigotry remain the same, and it is still quite capable of stirring violence at a vigilante level. Such violence is far, far more common in Russia or Eastern Europe than it is here, certainly, but it's not unheard of here. I have friends who sometimes talk about kicking gay people's asses. I have reason to believe that at least one or two of them would even do so, if they felt provoked (say, if they felt "hit on" by a gay person). Hatred remains deeply-rooted, shoddily rationalized, and sometimes violently prosecuted though perhaps to a lesser degree than in our nation's past.

And how exaclty individual intolerance related to institutional?

EA is perpetrating the same fallacy.

[_The Dude]

EA is perpetrating the same fallacy.

And you haven't heard of the "apples and rutabegas" fallacy?

[_beastie]

Anyone else enjoy this part of Card's essay?

Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.

These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions -- even, in many cases, death.

:::cough::polygamy::::cough:::

[_EAllusion]

The fact that there were criminal penalties for interracial marriage rather than simply refusing to recognize it is not relevant to the comparison being made.

With that out of the way, just as a heads up for Tarski and Zombie Dude, what Orson was arguing with his "fact of nature" comment was that marriage, by universal, incorrigible definition, entails a relationship between a man and a woman (and sometimes a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman), therefore a court declaring legal recognition of gay marriage is like a court legally recognizing married bachelors or four-sided triangles. You might be thrown off, since more informed people probably recognize that such a tautology isn't a "fact of nature" and while the court does not have the power to determine the meaning of words by fiat, it does have the ability to set proper interpretation of the meaning of words like marriage as they are used in law.