creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager
22 May 2012
Rational People Fear Big Government, Not Big Business

You cannot understand the left if you do not understand that Leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some Left-… Read More.

15 May 2012
Romney Understands America

On Saturday, Mitt Romney delivered a speech to the 6,000 Liberty College graduates. It was an important speech,… Read More.

8 May 2012
Conservatives and Gays

In addition to labeling conservatives and Republicans "anti-woman" (for opposing government-… Read More.

False Equation: Opposing Same-Sex Marriage and Opposing Interracial Marriage

Share Comment

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).

On the other hand, no religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage.

Whereas advocating interracial marriage was advocating something approved of by every religious and secular moral tradition of America and the West, advocating same-sex marriage does the very opposite — it advocates something that defies every religious and secular moral tradition. Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived.

But as objectionable as hubris is, false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.

The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us — society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage."

Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn't matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.

Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.pragerradio.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
I am so glad you addressed this issue and I am in complete agreement. It's sad really, homosexual's are unable to present a competent argument (because it's flawed) for their lifestyle, so they play the race card. The race card, as we all know, is only played when you've got a bad hand. In all this time, homosexual's have yet to develop a stand-alone ideology supporting their lifestyle. They have hitched their movement to race and I am surprised the more militant black spokesperson's such as Jackson and Sharpton haven't found cause to challenge them. Talk radio will sometimes have one of the militant gay activists presenting this very argument. Unfortunately, whenever a caller challenges their argument as a "false equation", they are verbally bullied or cut off in mid-discussion. Bravo to you for printing this article. This is not a judgement on homosexuality, it is a judgement on their flawed justification and argument.
Comment: #1
Posted by: liz
Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:54 AM
I agree that the argument, as presented above, is flawed. So, I'll make a better one.

God, in His omnipotence gave His creations the right to choose discipleship vs. atheism, cohabitation vs. solitary living, and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. He could have easily programmed us to live as virtual robots, complying with his every wish and desire. However, in his infinite wisdom, he designed us to possess and wield the power to CHOOSE the lives we lead, and to accept related consequences that may come as a result of those choices. If God, himself, allows us to make such choices, why should any human being, political group, or religious sect in this "free society" dictate how fellow citizens should live their lives? The answer is: They should NOT.

Voting on gay marriage/civil unions is not about whether you, personally, agree with the religious "rightness" of gay individuals creating families via marriage or unions. Rather, one's vote should reflect acknowledgement of the fact that gay individuals have the INALIENABLE (God-given) RIGHT to choose for themselves what or whom is right for their lives. No one person or group should be able to dictate whom a legal, consenting adult dates, loves or marries. It is the right of the individual to make such personal decision for his/her life, as God has shown by His own example of tolerance and acquiescence.

So, to all those whom have enjoyed the right to live as you please while supporting efforts of infringe upon the rights of others to enjoy the same freedoms: Do as God does; stay out of the business of others and rule your own lives. Vote unbiasedly, basing your voting decisions upon supporting the human and civil rights of ALL individuals, and not upon your own religious, ethnic, or cultural beliefs. Do not trample upon the rights of others to choose "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These are inalienable rights belonging to ALL of mankind, as stated in the United States Declaration of Independence, and supported by God, as He has demonstrated.
Comment: #2
Posted by: LadyG
Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:42 PM
@ LadytG: If we did it your way America would become like the Scandinavian countries were marriage has evolved into a joke. Why? Because of extreme liberalism. Liberalism does not like religion and if you're religious it does not like you and what you stand for. Stop being a doormat and grow some. Voting IS biased, always will be and always had been, to say otherwise is naive and pollyanna.

You also said: "God said stay out of the business of others and rule your own lives."
What I say: I don't think he did.
Comment: #3
Posted by: John
Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:15 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Dennis Prager
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 May 2012
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 25 May 2012

1 Nov 2011 Four Legacies of Feminism

2 Jul 2011 Do This for 10 Minutes on the Fourth of July

17 Aug 2010 Same-Sex Marriage and the Insignificance of Men and Women