To those who are against same sex marriage, do you feel that interracial marriage should not have been legalized either?

If you feel differently about both, why?

To those who are against same sex marriage, do you feel that interracial marriage should not have been legalized either?

If you feel differently about both, why?

I didn't give a crap then about who people married,
and I don't give a crap now.

It's no skin off my nose who you want to have sex with.

There is a difference between being opposed to the practice of something and being opposed to the outlawing of something.

For example, a person in the USA may be opposed to the use of alcoholic beverages but also be opposed to the outlawing of alcoholic beverages.

The reason for the former opposition may be due personal beliefs, while the reason for the latter opposition may be due to a respect for the liberty of individuals.

In other words, I may think that what you are doing is wrong to do, but I will support your liberty to choose what you do.

Thus, the statement in the OP addresses two issues.
The first issue is whether or not people are opposed to interracial marriages.
The second issue is whether or not people are opposed to the legal permissibility of interracial marriages.

To those who are against same sex marriage, do you feel that interracial marriage should not have been legalized either?

If you feel differently about both, why?

because others defined race and put people in those categories based upon things they have no control over, not on actions, or preferences, or tastes,,but on BIOLOGICAL HISTORY

because the product of too many interracial unions , children, prove that they are no different than intraracial unions,,,,,


all that matters is man and woman, they create life, and they are the foundation to be cherished and protected,,,

i may not like it but i will support it, why be cause the
constitution protects the rights of the minority. i have
yet to hear a nonreligious argument for preventing it from
being permitted.

someone once told of anal penetration being a health risk
but when i asked does that mean hetro. couples should be
punished for that act the answer was no. what is the difference


so till a good convincing argument can be made without the use
of religion i will be and i should be on the ok side and will be
what about you

a man and a woman... who cares other than that?

I've never heard a reason why they shouldn't be able to marry other than someone's religion is against it. Religion is a personal thing and should not be pushed on others, so that should have nothing to do with it.

A person can make a moral or religious argument against something without making a legal argument against it.

However, the topic of this thread is the legal arguments, if any, against same-gender marriages or interracial marriages.

Can a legal case be made against either?

A person can make a moral or religious argument against something without making a legal argument against it.

However, the topic of this thread is the legal arguments, if any, against same-gender marriages or interracial marriages.

Can a legal case be made against either?

The only reasons I hear same sex marriages should not be legal are religious.

Uh, just who has been trying to use religious beliefs in a legal argument against same-sex marriage?

because others defined race and put people in those categories based upon things they have no control over, not on actions, or preferences, or tastes,,but on BIOLOGICAL HISTORY

because the product of too many interracial unions , children, prove that they are no different than intraracial unions,,,,,


all that matters is man and woman, they create life, and they are the foundation to be cherished and protected,,,

How are they threatened because two men or two women can marry? Tell me how. They'll still have the same right to marry as they do now, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Letting others do the same doesn't mean they're not protected, they always have been and will be.