NEWS TALK RADIO Our Hosts
Powered by: Townhall.com
Sign Up
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
False Equation: Opposing Same-Sex Marriage and Opposing Interracial Marriage
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
With the decision in Belmont, CA to ban smoking in condos & apartments, do you think Houston should adopt a similar ban?



The most effective of all morality-based arguments for same-sex marriage, the one that persuades more people than any other argument, is the one that equates opposition to same-sex marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage.

The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter.

Thanks in large part to widespread higher education -- the higher the educational level, the more one is likely to hold this view -- vast numbers of Americans believe in this equation of sex (gender) and race.

But the equation is false.

First, there is no comparison between sex and race.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter). Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Slavery was considered moral for eons
Prager goes on and on about how prohibitions on interracial marriage were always considered immoral. That's a flat out lie. 35 states in the Union had laws on their books prohibiting interracial marriage when the Supreme Court held such laws were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. Moreover, the Bible was regularly used to support anti-miscegenation laws. Same goes for slavery.

Slavery is actually the better analogy. Slavery was widespread on the entire planet until 150 years ago. Every culture practiced it. Slavery is in the Bible (there are long passages devoted to the taking of slaves and the proper treatment of slaves). The fact that eons practiced slavery doesn't make it "moral" under today's sensibilities. The idea that someone could keep another human in captivity, forcing them to serve, is repugnant today. But for many thousands of years, it was completely ok.



So, what constitutes "moral" behavior shifts as the human race matures.


The price of social aprobation
Prager's biggest "sin" is that he ignores the biggest reason for legalizing same-sex marriage: Social aprobation of homosexuality serves no one. It doesn't serve gay people - who are kept marginalized. It doesn't help their kids - who are told their families are less valued than their friends' families. And, it creates a whole host of social ills. In the African American community, AIDS is out of control because gay guys are forced into marriages with women, yet continue to have "down low" sex with men on the side. Families of gay people carry around shame that they've done something wrong by raising a gay kid, and gay people live in fear of violence or hostility for something they were born with.

And, the reality is that social aprobation of homosexuality does not discourage homosexuality. Homosexuality is consistent across races. It's even consistent across animal species. And, it is a characteristic that can't be changed. Just ask a straight person to try to get interested in someone of the same sex. It's laughable.

So, the choice is between accepting gay people as full members of society or keeping them in some measure of marginalization. The latter choice (some measure of marginalization) is demeaning to the humanity and dignity of gay people. It is not an acceptable option.

Prager's argument comes down to tradition. Tradition is a good thing if it serves the present. But like other traditions, such as slavery, stoning, etc., the aprobation against homosexuality doesn't stand up against what many people see as the heavy price of marginalizing gay people.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name: