homosexuality, women and the NT

[dwilhelmi]

I'd say that objecting to the homosexual marriage based on the possibility of polygamy makes about as much sense as objecting to heterosexual marriage on the possibility of polygamy.

Of course, only heterosexual marriage has actually lead to any kind of polygamy, but who can argue against an irrational fear?

I don't think comparisons between gay marriage and polygamy are based in cause and effect. The heart of the argument is the definition of marriage. Traditional marriage advocates argue that marriage is a commitment between one man and one woman - therefore, restricting gay marriage is not discriminatory, but rather keeping them subject to the same rules as everyone else. Much like it would not be discriminatory to not allow someone without legs to run - it is not possible within the definition of the word. Gay marriage advocates claim that it is not a matter of definition, that it is arbitrary to restrict it to opposite genders, when really marriage should be between any two consenting adults. The traditional-marriage counter to that claim is that "two consenting adults" is just as arbitrary as "one man and one woman", so the exact same arguments used in favor of gay marriage could be used in support of polygamy. Would it not be discriminatory to say that a person could not marry a person that they love, just because they already happen to be married? Isn't that discrimination against married people?

So it's not really "if we allow gays, pretty soon everyone will be marrying multiple spouses and/or dogs" - the argument is given to show the faults in the original gay marriage argument.

[dwilhelmi]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

So you're saying that loving someone of the same sex is ok, religion wise, if you hide it?

No, I'm saying it would still be sin, in the same way that jealousy is a sin. I am saying the reason it gets the attention that it does is that it is portrayed as an acceptable lifestyle. It doesn't make it more or less of a sin, it just changes the focus.

[Woodruff]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

So you're saying that loving someone of the same sex is ok, religion wise, if you hide it?

No, I'm saying it would still be sin, in the same way that jealousy is a sin. I am saying the reason it gets the attention that it does is that it is portrayed as an acceptable lifestyle. It doesn't make it more or less of a sin, it just changes the focus.

I have to admit that this is the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard for this position. I actually applaud you (while still disagreeing with your position completely).

[Symmetry]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

So you're saying that loving someone of the same sex is ok, religion wise, if you hide it?

No, I'm saying it would still be sin, in the same way that jealousy is a sin. I am saying the reason it gets the attention that it does is that it is portrayed as an acceptable lifestyle. It doesn't make it more or less of a sin, it just changes the focus.

Is jealousy a lifestyle? I'm not sure I get your point. Gay folk can be jealous, as can straight folk. Are you saying that homosexuals can stop being homosexual? Or are you saying that their lives are entirely sinful as homosexuals?

[dwilhelmi]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

So you're saying that loving someone of the same sex is ok, religion wise, if you hide it?

No, I'm saying it would still be sin, in the same way that jealousy is a sin. I am saying the reason it gets the attention that it does is that it is portrayed as an acceptable lifestyle. It doesn't make it more or less of a sin, it just changes the focus.

Is jealousy a lifestyle? I'm not sure I get your point. Gay folk can be jealous, as can straight folk. Are you saying that homosexuals can stop being homosexual? Or are you saying that their lives are entirely sinful as homosexuals?

No, the only reason I am bringing up jealousy is due to the comparison made by heavycola. Jealousy is a sin, as is selfishness, as is homosexual behavior - but the last is the only one trying to be posed as not a sin. That is why it gets more attention.

I know that homosexuals can not stop being homosexual. It is incredibly sad that they are wired that way. I have much sympathy for people in that situation. However, just because someone is born with something does not make it not a sin to act it out. Men in general are wired to spread their seed, to be in general more lustful than women. Some are more inclined to promiscuous behavior than others. Regardless, it does not make it OK to be promiscuous. Likewise, some people have a mental condition known as kleptomania, that makes them unable to resist stealing things. This is very sad, but it is still a sin to steal. Being "born that way" does not justify the behavior.

[dwilhelmi]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

So you're saying that loving someone of the same sex is ok, religion wise, if you hide it?

No, I'm saying it would still be sin, in the same way that jealousy is a sin. I am saying the reason it gets the attention that it does is that it is portrayed as an acceptable lifestyle. It doesn't make it more or less of a sin, it just changes the focus.

I have to admit that this is the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard for this position. I actually applaud you (while still disagreeing with your position completely).

My thanks, Woodruff. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, so long as it is respectful. I know that many people disagree with the sinful nature of homosexuality, and I can respect that - their behavior is between them and God. That is why I am never hateful towards homosexuals. I can hardly judge somebody else when I know that I have sin in my own life. I am merely sharing my own beliefs in response to a question posed.

[Symmetry]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

So you're saying that loving someone of the same sex is ok, religion wise, if you hide it?

No, I'm saying it would still be sin, in the same way that jealousy is a sin. I am saying the reason it gets the attention that it does is that it is portrayed as an acceptable lifestyle. It doesn't make it more or less of a sin, it just changes the focus.

I have to admit that this is the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard for this position. I actually applaud you (while still disagreeing with your position completely).

My thanks, Woodruff. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, so long as it is respectful. I know that many people disagree with the sinful nature of homosexuality, and I can respect that - their behavior is between them and God. That is why I am never hateful towards homosexuals. I can hardly judge somebody else when I know that I have sin in my own life. I am merely sharing my own beliefs in response to a question posed.

Although you make it clear that homosexuality is sinful apart from any act. Literally you are saying that being gay is a sin, even if you do nothing.

I think you should be clear on this- that being gay is the sin, apart from acting on it.

[dwilhelmi]

I think you should be clear on this- that being gay is the sin, apart from acting on it.

That is not my position at all. I believe that acting on it is the sin. A person can not help their temptations or their biology - they can help their behavior.

[thegreekdog]

I'd say that objecting to the homosexual marriage based on the possibility of polygamy makes about as much sense as objecting to heterosexual marriage on the possibility of polygamy.

Of course, only heterosexual marriage has actually lead to any kind of polygamy, but who can argue against an irrational fear?

Irrational fears indeed. Phatscotty listed a bunch of economic-type reasons why gay marriage should not be legal, none of which I've ever seen any conservative talk about before. Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

[dwilhelmi]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been proven 31 times so far. Definition of a word used within governmental language should be up to popular vote - providing of benefits should not. I would fully support quests for homosexuals to have their unions be provided with the same benefits as marriage. I would also fully support removing marriage from the government books entirely, and having the benefits either no longer exist or apply only to "all civil unions", of which marriage would be one form. However, it is not the place of the judicial branch to force me to say that something I believe is sinful (homosexuality) and something that I believe is sacred (marriage) is in fact the same thing.

[thegreekdog]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been proven 31 times so far. Definition of a word used within governmental language should be up to popular vote - providing of benefits should not. I would fully support quests for homosexuals to have their unions be provided with the same benefits as marriage. I would also fully support removing marriage from the government books entirely, and having the benefits either no longer exist or apply only to "all civil unions", of which marriage would be one form. However, it is not the place of the judicial branch to force me to say that something I believe is sinful (homosexuality) and something that I believe is sacred (marriage) is in fact the same thing.

You object to gay marriage because the majority objects to gay marriage? I'm not sure I understand that. There are numerous moments in history where the majority's opinion resulted in the oppression of the minority. This is why we have a representative government that consists of three branches, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. As far as I'm concerned (and our forefathers are concerned) that's an invalid argument.

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government. You don't, personally, have to recognize gay marriage if the federal government recognizes gay marriage. It does not impact your religious beliefs in any way whatsoever. You can still believe that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are wrong. There are plenty of examples of this going on right now. For example, I don't believe that people should have premarital sex. It is legal to have premarital sex. The government does not force me to believe that premarital sex is right; they simply recognize that people can have premarital sex.

There is no action you are required to take if gay marriage is recognized by the state. The government is not forcing you to act. What opponents of gay marriage are doing is prohibiting others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship because if offends their religions. Offending a religion is not a compelling state interest and is certainly not, in the history of this country, an adequate basis for the government to prevent someone from doing something.

[Army of GOD]

There are numerous moments in history where the majority's opinion resulted in the oppression of the minority.

Pretty much this. While it's easily corruptible, this is where representative democracy excels over direct democracy. The (allegedly) intelligent representatives that we vote in office are (supposed to) find some sort of middle ground between the groups that vote them in.

[crispybits]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been proven 31 times so far. Definition of a word used within governmental language should be up to popular vote - providing of benefits should not. I would fully support quests for homosexuals to have their unions be provided with the same benefits as marriage. I would also fully support removing marriage from the government books entirely, and having the benefits either no longer exist or apply only to "all civil unions", of which marriage would be one form. However, it is not the place of the judicial branch to force me to say that something I believe is sinful (homosexuality) and something that I believe is sacred (marriage) is in fact the same thing.

You do realise that marriage existed before Christianity, and it exists in non-christian cultures right? This is one of my particular pet hates about the religious objection that "they can have civil unions but MARRIAGE, that's ours!" Marriage is NOT a christian invention, it is a much earlier custom that christianity adopted and integrated into itself because it fitted the overall philosophy. Christianity does not own marriage, and it does not have any claims over any kind of marriage other than christian marriage. Would you tell the Hindu couple that lives across town that their marriage isn't a real marriage because it's not a christian one?

[dwilhelmi]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been proven 31 times so far. Definition of a word used within governmental language should be up to popular vote - providing of benefits should not. I would fully support quests for homosexuals to have their unions be provided with the same benefits as marriage. I would also fully support removing marriage from the government books entirely, and having the benefits either no longer exist or apply only to "all civil unions", of which marriage would be one form. However, it is not the place of the judicial branch to force me to say that something I believe is sinful (homosexuality) and something that I believe is sacred (marriage) is in fact the same thing.

You object to gay marriage because the majority objects to gay marriage? I'm not sure I understand that. There are numerous moments in history where the majority's opinion resulted in the oppression of the minority. This is why we have a representative government that consists of three branches, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. As far as I'm concerned (and our forefathers are concerned) that's an invalid argument.

In what way is defining marriage as one man and one woman oppression, provided that homosexual relationships are provided the same benefits? I see no problem with word definition being driven by majority opinion.

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government. You don't, personally, have to recognize gay marriage if the federal government recognizes gay marriage. It does not impact your religious beliefs in any way whatsoever. You can still believe that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are wrong. There are plenty of examples of this going on right now. For example, I don't believe that people should have premarital sex. It is legal to have premarital sex. The government does not force me to believe that premarital sex is right; they simply recognize that people can have premarital sex.

This I disagree with, given the way the situation is being approached. What do you think would happen to a church today that was unwilling to marry an interracial couple? Would it be OK? I don't think so. When the government labels something as discriminatory, that has very far reaching effects. However, if the definition of marriage was to be voted by the majority to be between any two people, I would not object to that. In that case, I would be content that the government defines it differently than I do, and be relatively content that I would be free to continue in my own beliefs.

There is no action you are required to take if gay marriage is recognized by the state. The government is not forcing you to act. What opponents of gay marriage are doing is prohibiting others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship because if offends their religions. Offending a religion is not a compelling state interest and is certainly not, in the history of this country, an adequate basis for the government to prevent someone from doing something.

I am not at all attempting to prohibit others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship. I have never once claimed that homosexuals should not be allowed to be together. They can have their relationship all they want.

[dwilhelmi]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been proven 31 times so far. Definition of a word used within governmental language should be up to popular vote - providing of benefits should not. I would fully support quests for homosexuals to have their unions be provided with the same benefits as marriage. I would also fully support removing marriage from the government books entirely, and having the benefits either no longer exist or apply only to "all civil unions", of which marriage would be one form. However, it is not the place of the judicial branch to force me to say that something I believe is sinful (homosexuality) and something that I believe is sacred (marriage) is in fact the same thing.

You do realise that marriage existed before Christianity, and it exists in non-christian cultures right? This is one of my particular pet hates about the religious objection that "they can have civil unions but MARRIAGE, that's ours!" Marriage is NOT a christian invention, it is a much earlier custom that christianity adopted and integrated into itself because it fitted the overall philosophy. Christianity does not own marriage, and it does not have any claims over any kind of marriage other than christian marriage. Would you tell the Hindu couple that lives across town that their marriage isn't a real marriage because it's not a christian one?

Never said christians invented it - just said that the majority of people today believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I couldn't care less about the history of the institution, I only care how it is viewed today.

[crispybits]

You said you believe it is sacred, meaning your view of it is integral in your religious beliefs, and you're making a claim over the holiness of it in all cases. I'm just saying that there are many many different kinds of man-woman marriage all over the world (including some that by christian standards would be inherently sinful, such as polygamous marriages, but which are perfectly normal within their own cultural contexts), and I do wonder if they should all have to meet your christian value of the world before they are allowed to be called marriage?

[dwilhelmi]

You said you believe it is sacred, meaning your view of it is integral in your religious beliefs, and you're making a claim over the holiness of it in all cases. I'm just saying that there are many many different kinds of man-woman marriage all over the world (including some that by christian standards would be inherently sinful, such as polygamous marriages, but which are perfectly normal within their own cultural contexts), and I do wonder if they should all have to meet your christian value of the world before they are allowed to be called marriage?

While my own personal beliefs on marriage will obviously come through while I am talking about them, what concerns me right now is how the government should define marriage. I think that the government should either get rid of the term marriage in their books, or allow it to be defined by popular vote. As far as I can tell at the present moment, marriage is popularly defined as "a union between one of-age consenting human male and one of-age consenting human female". This makes me happy, because it lines up with my personal beliefs about marriage.

However, if in the future the popular definition of the word marriage would be changed to "a union between two of-age consenting humans", I would respect the will of the people and be content with my own personal beliefs being different.

I just am not convinced that defining marriage one way or the other is a form of discrimination, and therefore I believe it should be defined based off of the will of the people.

[Woodruff]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

That seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the majority of voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman because the majority of voters in this country believe it...well that's a pretty circle.

[Woodruff]

You object to gay marriage because the majority objects to gay marriage? I'm not sure I understand that. There are numerous moments in history where the majority's opinion resulted in the oppression of the minority. This is why we have a representative government that consists of three branches, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. As far as I'm concerned (and our forefathers are concerned) that's an invalid argument.

In what way is defining marriage as one man and one woman oppression, provided that homosexual relationships are provided the same benefits? I see no problem with word definition being driven by majority opinion.

It has been shown in this country (the U.S.) that "separate but equal" does not really result in equality, necessarily. What you are proposing is essentially a situation of "separate but equal".

[crispybits]

Look back 100 years (or maybe more, not sure on when it was actually changed) when inter-racial marriages were illegal, and that was also based on popular opinion. It was only when popular opinion changed that the law changed and they became acceptable. I know the objection to these was purely cultural rather than having any religious element, but the same basic principles apply. Discrimination, even if implemented by populist democracy, is still discrimination. The Nazi party in 1930s Germany discriminated against jews and they were acting under the popular mandate too.

I know we've kinda reached an "we'll have to agree to disagree" point now, so I won't labour it any further, I just hope you can see that there is a good chance (given that in opinion polls acceptance of gay marriage gets much higher every time you go one generation younger, and they will outlive us and form future popular opinion) that the hindsight of future generations will hold the people who oppose gay marriage in the same regard as we hold the racists of that time that discriminated based on skin colour.

[Army of GOD]

I think that the government should either get rid of the term marriage in their books, or allow it to be defined by popular vote.

why are these the only two choices?

[dwilhelmi]

You object to gay marriage because the majority objects to gay marriage? I'm not sure I understand that. There are numerous moments in history where the majority's opinion resulted in the oppression of the minority. This is why we have a representative government that consists of three branches, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. As far as I'm concerned (and our forefathers are concerned) that's an invalid argument.

In what way is defining marriage as one man and one woman oppression, provided that homosexual relationships are provided the same benefits? I see no problem with word definition being driven by majority opinion.

It has been shown in this country (the U.S.) that "separate but equal" does not really result in equality, necessarily. What you are proposing is essentially a situation of "separate but equal".

Strongly disagree. The "separate but equal" that you are referring to was the racial equality fiasco, and this was more in regards to physical separation. They tried saying that black people could be in a different building from white people, so long as both were given the same treatment. That is not the same thing as government benefits in regards to relationship type. It seems like it would be a fairly simple matter to define the laws in such a way that benefits would apply equally to both.

There are plenty of instances where you can have things that are separate but equal. For example, black history month is separate from hispanic heritage month, but both are perfectly equal. The Olympics is separate from the Special Olympics, and that is not considered discrimination at all. In a slightly less flippant example, there is a separation between Single and Married in the government today, and that is handled quite well as far as I know.

If that was really a hold up, then there are still other solutions, such as making all interpersonal relationships receive the same benefits, and taking marriage out of it.

The point is, though, that we are really defining what marriage is. Once the definition is decided, we can move on to determining the best way to handle benefits in a way that is fair to everyone involved.

[crispybits]

Strongly disagree. The "separate but equal" that you are referring to was the racial equality fiasco, and this was more in regards to physical separation. They tried saying that black people could be in a different building from white people, so long as both were given the same treatment. That is not the same thing as government benefits in regards to relationship type. It seems like it would be a fairly simple matter to define the laws in such a way that benefits would apply equally to both.

So black people and white people can't be treated the same within supposedly identical legal and practical frameworks, but gay people and straight people can? What's the difference between the two?

There are plenty of instances where you can have things that are separate but equal. For example, black history month is separate from hispanic heritage month, but both are perfectly equal. The Olympics is separate from the Special Olympics, and that is not considered discrimination at all. In a slightly less flippant example, there is a separation between Single and Married in the government today, and that is handled quite well as far as I know.

Any examples of actual legal rights and benefits? Single and married don't get treated the same by the way, married people get a whole bunch more benefits from that than single people do, so that's not separate but equal. Events like the Olympics and BHM / HHM are hardly at even remotely the same level in so far as this conversation is concerned. Please give a working example (just one will do), where all sides are happy, of the government maintaining a "separate but equal" policy with regard to legal rights.

If that was really a hold up, then there are still other solutions, such as making all interpersonal relationships receive the same benefits, and taking marriage out of it.

So when does the relationship start? When you have the first date? When you first kiss? When you first sleep together or move in together? All of those hardly seem logical compared to a simple ceremony of commitment like a civil union or a marriage, where both parties enter into it in a considered and thoughtful way (unless you're in Vegas of course)

The point is, though, that we are really defining what marriage is. Once the definition is decided, we can move on to determining the best way to handle benefits in a way that is fair to everyone involved.

We are correcting law based on the basic assumptions of freedom, liberty and equality for all. We're not being pedantic for no reason, we're extending rights that have been denied to a significant minority in society while freely given to everyone else, and semantics is the priority? Really?

[Woodruff]

Strongly disagree. The "separate but equal" that you are referring to was the racial equality fiasco, and this was more in regards to physical separation. They tried saying that black people could be in a different building from white people, so long as both were given the same treatment. That is not the same thing as government benefits in regards to relationship type. It seems like it would be a fairly simple matter to define the laws in such a way that benefits would apply equally to both.

So black people and white people can't be treated the same within supposedly identical legal and practical frameworks, but gay people and straight people can? What's the difference between the two?

There really are a lot of similarities between the civil rights movement and the current situation with homosexuals. Obviously not to the same extreme, and they're not identical...but the similarities definitely exist.

I think this is where Phatscotty chimes in and claims we're playing the race card...

[Frigidus]

Strongly disagree. The "separate but equal" that you are referring to was the racial equality fiasco, and this was more in regards to physical separation. They tried saying that black people could be in a different building from white people, so long as both were given the same treatment. That is not the same thing as government benefits in regards to relationship type. It seems like it would be a fairly simple matter to define the laws in such a way that benefits would apply equally to both.

So black people and white people can't be treated the same within supposedly identical legal and practical frameworks, but gay people and straight people can? What's the difference between the two?

There really are a lot of similarities between the civil rights movement and the current situation with homosexuals. Obviously not to the same extreme, and they're not identical...but the similarities definitely exist.

I think this is where Phatscotty chimes in and claims we're playing the race card...

I have yet to see a compelling argument that differentiates interracial and gay marriage. The opposition to both has been strikingly similar and the argument for why both should be allowed is strikingly similar. The only difference between the two is that one is allowed and one isn't for arbitrary reasons.