Not at all. It is remarkably simple to refute the argument in the title by accurately noting that skin color is morally neutral while sexual behavior is not.
But there is another interesting argument that goes even further, and it highlights how the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is actually the one similar to the racists who opposed interracial marriage.
Here’s why: The Left is (successfully) lobbying for coercive government force to change the meaning of marriage. The racists changed it to mean “only same-race couples” instead of just a union of one man and one woman, and the Left is now using it to change it to mean, “not just the union of a man and a woman.”
Marriage is what God defined it to be. It describes a thing — a union of a man and a woman. The term didn’t pre-date the institution, such that we get to define it any way we like.
If anyone is behaving like those that opposed interracial marriage it is the Left. They are the ones abusing the original and obvious definition.
Eternity Matters 
Exactly. I was about to make some of the same points when I saw the title of your post, but you beat me to it.
Here’s one I can’t quite figure out – why does the Left insist that denial of gay marriage recognition is a “violation of civil rights?” Exactly where is marriage w/ civil recognition, gay or otherwise, granted or recognized as a “civil right?”
Why do they refuse to accept the obvious truth that homosexuals and heterosexuals already have the exact same marriage “rights” and that it’s wrong to demand special treatment based on your sexual proclivities? Instead, when I say this I’m treated as if I were making a joke or trying to by a wise guy. I’m completely serious when I say it.
LikeLike
The Left just uses their “rights” language ad nauseum until people reflexively assume it must be legitimate. They have all sorts of deadly/evil phrases like that, such as “reproductive rights.” Yes, they have a right to reproduce, but no, they shouldn’t have the right to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.
LikeLike
Good point here Neil.
The other point on this is that everyone has a line to what marriage can mean. Obviously using race as a line was wrong and is wrong. However, redefining marriage to allow for other things than 1 man and 1 woman opens a whole new door, and is an extremely slippery slope.
How about 2 men and 1 woman? Or 1 man and 3 women? How about a woman and a dog? How about a man and a tree? When you start redefining marriage past 1 man and 1 woman the sky id is the limit.
LikeLike
LoneWolf, expect those on the left to decry the “slippery slope” argument as being alarmist, or something else, as they slide on down…
LikeLike
You can avoid the charge of “slippery slope” by pointing something out. Their claim is that marrying whoever one wishes is a right. If that is true, then if one wants to marry an underage child, multiple people, a close relative, or a non-person, then that must be a right too. So either there is a right to marry whoever one chooses – which means literally anything goes and can be called marriage – or there is no such right. That’s not a slippery slope argument. It’s simply a deduction from their claim.
Of course, they also like to claim that preventing homosexuals from marrying is “unfair.” But no one is preventing homosexuals from marrying. They can marry if they want to. All they have to do is find a single person of legal age, of the opposite sex, who is not a close relative, and who consents to marry them. This is true for all people, even homosexuals. The law treats everyone the same. Of course, if they don’t want to marry a person of the opposite sex, that’s their choice. But they made the voluntary decision not to partake of marriage. No one is preventing them.
To make an anaolgy, it’s like someone who is afraid of water saying they want to go canoeing. So their friend takes them down to the water and shows them a canoe. And they say, “No, I don’t like water, I won’t get in the boat. I want to canoe without being in a boat on the water.” It would be absurd for that person to claim that someone was preventing them from canoeing by insisting that canoeing involves being in a boat on the water. No is preventing them from canoeing. They just don’t actually want to canoe. They want to do something else and call it canoeing. The same is true of those advocating same-sex marriage. They don’t actually want to marry. They want to do something else and call it marriage.
LikeLike
Lindsay, thanks for also pointing out the marriage already has restrictions in place. It is already defined and restricted. the problem is that the LEFT doesn’t want any restrictions whatsoever.
LikeLike
Great points, Lindsay, thanks!
LikeLike
Lindsay, I just popped back on to say what you said about homosexuals being permitted to marry (someone of the opposite sex), but you not only beat me to it, but said it better than I. 🙂 Love the canoeing analogy too. I may steal it and post it on f/b. 😀
LikeLike
We know God looks at the heart and not our physical appearance. In this way, interracial marriage has no real bearing on our spiritual health. Though much of the OT and some of today’s religious sects hold to a standard of racial purity, I think it is more a racist or tribal tendency. Within the NT I find Paul’s letters regarding marriage to be relevant. His concern was WITHIN the church, not toward those in the secular or Judaic community. His stricter requirements were for those in or chosen for leadership, ie: to be the husband of but one wife, etc. Obviously, by stating these recommendations there must have other types of ‘marriages’ at the time.
It has also been documented that the religious priesthood during the time entertained other sexual practices and the synagogue and religious shrines housed male prostitutes, mostly young boys. These were not provided for women, who, at the time, were considered more equal to one’s livestock. One can look at the history of the Catholic Church to see how this practice followed Christianity and is still an active and controversial issue today.
I still think our mission is to present Christ to the world and those that DO accept Him WILL change their practices. The charge over the years has been to try to change cultures and habits of people first and then save the soul, whereas the righter way is to save them right where they are and allow the Holy Spirit to do the purifying work within. Like Jesus did. He met people right where they lived. Like Paul reiterated. Again Paul talks about becoming all things to all people in order to lure them into the flock. Once in, then sin can be recognized, dealt with, and stripped away from one’s lifestyle. It should be an ongoing process to live holier in ALL who believe.
The world system is evil and is only getting worse as we get closer to the day of the Lord. There has been an orchestrated deterioration of the family structure in our society that has successfully brought us to these conflicts and the blatant immorality we encounter today. There are so many laws today and yet we are NOT more moral. Redefining the words we use has been a very effective form of propaganda, blinding us to truth. Laws don’t make a society moral. Actions always speak much louder than our words or edicts.
Just watch a little TV to experience the moral low we have arrived to as a nation.
LikeLike
Pointing out the obvious here: race is mostly a human construct. (Bi-racial Obama ought to prove that nicely.) It wasn’t humans who assigned meaning to the types of chromosomes they have, nor is procreation a human concept. Call it science, God, Mother Nature, whatever, but the ability to procreate with a member of the opposite sex is a fundamental law of nature, not a human construct.
LikeLike
Pointing out the even more obvious: many heterosexual couples cannot procreate, either due to sterility of one or both partners, or due to age. Should they not be allowed to marry? This is not a viable argument for opposing SSM, as Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan effectively and simply pointed out a few weeks ago. You’ll have to come up with more compelling evidence than this.
LikeLike
What is really obvious is that your argument deliberately ignores our reasoning. Anyone advancing it has never taken the time to hear the response, or like Kagan, knows the response and disingenuously pretends she hasn’t.
We never, ever, claimed that you had to have children to be married. Never. We claimed that the reason the gov’t has an interest in these unions is that because, by nature and design, they are the only unions that produce children and the only unions that can provide a mother and a father to a child. The gov’t has no interest in promoting gay unions. Gays don’t want real marriage, they want to undermine it — https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ebw3hEeU5KE . Sadly, too many people only consume the mainstream media and are clueless about the real drivers.
LikeLike