Whether or not you believe that the Bible prohibits interracial marriage is irrelevant to the question of whether anti-miscegenation bigots have appealed to the Bible.Calculus Crusader wrote:EAllusion wrote:Yeah, I'll give you seven common arguments currently used against gay marriage that were used just the same against interracial marriage:
1) An appeal to established religious wisdom / scriptural intepretation
Scripture does not prohibit interracial marriage, unless, perhaps, you are talking about Jews and Moabites.
2) An appeal to the practice being "unnatural."
This is a fine example of an argument being legitimate in one context but not another.
And THIS is a fine example of special pleading.
The mere fact that people from different races can produce viable children demonstrates that there is nothing unnatural about interracial, male-female coupling. By way of contrast, homoeroticism is completely incongruous with the proper procreative ends of our generative organs and thus a violation of ordo naturalis.
Hmm... let's try a little experiment:
By way of contrast, old people sex is completely incongruous with the proper procreative ends of our generative organs and thus a violation of ordo naturalis.
Yup! That works, too!
So if, say, gay marriage has existed in Massachusetts for five years and the state hasn't descended into chaos yet, you'd have no problem with gay marriage?3) Predicting that recognizing (or allowing) the practice will lead to a breakdown in society
That argument is not necessarily illegitimate in this context. The data from countries where gay "marriage" is established will decide it.
4) An appeal to a longstanding social tradition of banning the practice
This is actually important in establishing the correct socio-historical context for state and federal constitutions. When read in their proper contexts, it is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that any constitution demands gay "marriage."
Hrm... let's try a little experiment:
This is actually important in establishing the correct socio-historical context for state and federal constitutions. When read in their proper contexts, it is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that any constitution demands interracial "marriage."
Yup! That works, too!
You have not distinguished these rulings from the rulings that legalized interracial marriage over the protestations of an even larger supermajority..7) An appeal to the right of the majority to determine what marriages it finds acceptable and the wrongness of judges to interpret the law in a way that violates this majority will.
Many make that argument; I do not. My argument is simply that in no case where gay "marriage" was imposed by judicial fiat were the judges exercising legitimate constitutional authority.