Two main objections were raised with regards my previous remarks. In Stephen B’s own words:
1. If you follow the logic that current laws do not discriminate against gay as they have an equal right to marry the opposite gender, then you cannot also claim that allowing same-sex marriage is a SPECIAL right for gays, as it would afford straight men like ourselves exactly the same right to divorce our wives and find willing men to marry us.
2. Your argument that inter-racial marriage and SSM are categorically different is dishonest and fundamentally flawed. It’s either:
a) Black person marries white person / Man marries man – i.e. unchanging race and gender; or its
b) Preference for an opposite race spouse / preference for same gender spouse – i.e. A preference that can hypothetically change in both cases.
With regards the first objection, my point was that the homosexual lobby desires to fundamentally revise the definition of what marriage is. They can already participate in civil parternships, which affords to them almost all of the same rights that marriage does. My position does not impede on the right of a group of people to marry. It is the fundamental revision of the very concept of marriage that I and others are opposed to. So far, no reasons have been given as to why this revision would be of any benefit to society, though a number of reasons have been given to the contrary.
On the issue of interracial marriage, again, the justification for opposing interracial marriage has always been for reasons of racism (that is to say, it involved discrimination against persons rather than behaviour). Race is not a fundamental quality of marriage, whereas gender most certainly is. Thus, the comparison between same-sex-marriage and interracial marriage is a very poor one.
Free CrossExamined.org Resource
Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.