Why does the LGBT community feel persecuted by the religious community, when there are perfectly non-religious reasons in other countries for feeling it isn't natural?

Because this isn’t China.

In the United States, discrimination against LGBT people is driven almost entirely by religious groups. Look at Proposition 8 in CA, as just one example. Close to 100% of the funding for Prop 8 came from religious groups.

Because in this country it is the religious community that is doing the persecuting 99% of the time. Regardless of what happens in other countries, the battles being fought right in front of you are the ones you feel the most and in America those battles are being thrown at the LGBT community by religious organizations. If the association of __________(fill in the blank) started making a huge fuss over the GLBT community and were suddenly incredibly vocal in their persecution of that community than the GLBT community would feel just as persecuted by them as they do the religious community.

Because religion is an easy target. People often miss the bulls eye by aiming so carelessly.

In addition,I am no expert on the subject, but it looks like, at least in historical China, homosexuals were tolerated as long as they bore children.

@NaturalMineralWater
Can you point to any political or social anti-homosexuality campaigns in the U.S. that are not, openly or covertly, conducted/funded by religious groups or individuals? Religious groups are only easy targets here because they are legitimate targets.

I have yet to hear any reasonable reasons for “feeling it isn’t natural”.
The basis for all these feelings is always some sort of “I’m not used to it, therefore it is disgusting.”, which makes resentment of Homosexuality a pretty pathetic stance.

Remember, people in asian countries find cheese disgusting.

Because the vast majority of people in the United States identify as Christian, fundamentalist Christians make up a higher percentage of the population in the US than in any other industrialized country, and it is essentially impossible to have a political career without being a Christian or Jew. Thus, all politicians are Bible-believers, all of their constituents are Bible-believers, a significant percentage of their constituents are fundamentalist Bible-believers, and therefore the politicians pass laws that are in accordance with the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity.

@crisw It isn’t the “religion” that is being hateful and intolerant. It is those who are ignorant and take things to an irrational extreme. “Religion” shouldn’t be guilty by association here imho. There are extremists of all varieties.

Half of the third world countries find women disgusting. China has traditionally treated women and female children badly and had rigid rules for public displays of affection between hetero couples.

And to answer your question, they feel persecuted by the religious because it IS the religious that do the persecuting in the western world.
I don’t hear you complain about Jews complaining about feeling persecuted by the (right wing) Fascists in Nazi Germany when they were also hated for other reasons in the (religious right wing) Islamic world.

@NaturalMineralWater
You are avoiding the question. Once again, if this is true, where are the atheist anti-homosexual groups- or, for that matter, where are the anti-homosexual campaigns from more moderate and sensible religious groups like the Quakers or Unitarians?

That’s right- they don’t exist.

And why is it that secular countries like Sweden and Denmark grant far more rights to the LGBT community than the U.S. does?

Sure, it’s individuals committing the anti-homosexual actions- but those individuals are almost all fundamentalist Christians or Mormons, and they all feel that their religion not only sanctifies and justifies what they do, they feel it’s an obligation to do it. Their pastors are calling for it, their church groups demand it, their prayer groups obsess over it…it’s disingenuous to claim that religion isn’t the major factor here.

Someone could post that Bible verse that gets posted every other day here. You know, that one that slides out of Christian’s brains like butter.

@crisw I’m not part of any of those churches.. but I’m a christian. Am I part of your generalization?

@NaturalMineralWater
Well, what is your position on gay marriage?

@crisw I don’t think it’s natural to be gay .. and by extension to be married gay.. but you won’t find me picketing the courthouse.. others have other opinions.. they are welcome to them.

I thought this question was deliberately trying to avoid religion.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic:

They only focus on the keywords that mean something to them. /sigh

If you want the discussion to follow a straight line it’s going to be rather boring.

Honestly, I’d like answers. I really asked it to get answers… not to really start a discussion. Of course, if discussions ensue, that’s great, as long as answers are presented.

I believe you already got your answers.. then the conversation continued.. but obviously that’s just me. =)

More to the intent of the question I can’t think of a non religious reason people would oppose alternative sexual lifestyles. I’m a heterosexual man working in San Francisco, possibly the gayest place on the planet and the sexual preferences of people has not impacted my life in any way.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic Society has for so long despised homosexuality.. it’s understandable that it will take time to adjust to a new way of thinking.

For me it just doesn’t seem natural.. I don’t despise the people.. I just don’t understand them.. like a person wearing sunglasses indoors .. it doesn’t make sense to me.. but I don’t hate them.

As for a non-religious reason.. well I’ve said one of them twice.. and others have said it as well: It doesn’t seem natural. It’s different.. it doesn’t compute.. it seems biologically counter-intuitive… another reason may be an inherent testosterone instinct that says men shouldn’t act like women nor women like men.

It’s instinctual for me to cringe if a dude comes walking into my house complimenting my drapes or gawking at my wife’s shoe collection..

I really lost my train of thought here but oh well…

The reason that religions are attacked is because they are the force behind the ignorant. Religions offer a shield for anti-LGBT activists to hide behind. They use it as an excuse for their intolerant behavior. It isn’t fair to judge ALL individuals that are a part of the religion, but it IS logical to say that certain religions are a part of the problem.

@NaturalMineralWater

How do you jump from “I just don’t understand it” and “I find it strange due to instinct” to “They shouldn’t be able to marry.”

@NaturalMineralWater Homosexuality occurs in the natural world. Several species of animals engage in homosexual acts.

More to the point, it may seem counter intuitive on an evolutionary level because homosexuality doesn’t produce offspring but it doesn’t affect me or you in any way. There are several gay men at my job and most likely some gay women and they are very open about it. To no one’s surprise, work still gets done. They’re not interior designers or porn producers, or whatever other stereotypes people have about gay people. They’re just hard working people like you and me doing the same jobs that you and I do. I guarantee they’re not afraid of heterosexuals save for the ones who are openly hostile towards them.

If the thought of a gay person talking to you makes you cringe, then I don’t know what to tell you. Just because a man is gay doesn’t mean he wants to rape you.

They’re just people. They don’t want to may you gay or destroy the things you hold dear. They just want to live their lives just as you do.

@Ivan That’s just like two people walking hand in hand with sunglasses on indoors.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic I apologize that my example was stereotypical .. but it was just an example.

As far as likening us to other animals.. that just seems odd. That would excuse a wife of eating her husband after mating with him.. because animals do that too.

@NaturalMineralWater I think that homosexuality is “natural.” I think it’s a perfectly natural variation from the norm much like left-handedness in a lot of ways. A relatively small but relatively constant percentage of people are born left-handed, and a relatively small, but constant percentage of people are born homosexual.

@NaturalMineralWater but people should be guaranteed the right to wear sunglasses inside if they want to, as it harms no one else and makes them happy

@NaturalMineralWater

OK… and the problem with that is what exactly? I don’t understand how thinking that something is weird is justification for making it illegal. Do you think that it should be illegal for people to wear sunglasses indoors?

TCH was using the example of homosexuality in the wild to illustrate that it is, in fact, natural.

@lillycoyote Cool!

@benjaminlevi I agree.. as long as it doesn’t reach a point where wearing sunglasses indoors makes them run over other people because they can’t see.

@Ivan If people were to always wear sunglasses indoors and they began trampling unsuspecting old ladies due to their blindness.. yes.. I think it should be illegal. TCH’s example didn’t include a preying mantis munching the melon off her husband .. it’s natural too.. is it not?

@The_Compassionate_Heretic Sigh… I’ve created a monster.. lol.. GANG TACKLE!

@NaturalMineralWater You didn’t offend me. We’re just having a discussion. You said homosexuality was unnatural. It clearly is not. I will admit that I’m not understanding why a gay person would make you so uncomfortable. I think our experiences in life may differ. I grew up in the SF bay area where gay people are fairly commonplace so two men wanting to have sex behind closed doors doesn’t offend me though it’s not a choice I’d make for myself.

I think it’s important to point out that my intent is not to harass or denigrate you in any way. We’re just talking about differences in opinion.

Let me ask you this: Are you entertained by the thought of two naked college girls kissing each other? That’s pretty gay right there. In fact this is a fantasy for a lot of men and we don’t feel particularly grossed out by that.

It just doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.

@NaturalMineralWater Right, but gay marriage does not infringe on anyone elses rights.

Sorry you’re so outnumbered, its more fun when the “teams” have an even number of players

@The_Compassionate_Heretic Of course the image of two hot females kissing doesn’t make me cringe.. but I believe that we all have a sinful nature.. of which that’s a part.. if we want to go down that road.. you know.. the “religious” road.. this is going to be quite a long conversation indeed =)

You keep saying it’s natural .. but you didn’t explain the whole eating the husband thing.. for that matter the flinging of poo by a monkey. =) That’s all natural.. shouldn’t we all just throw poo then?

@benjaminlevi For the most part I agree. But if a gay couple moves in next door to me and is making out on their front lawn… sure.. I may be ok with that.. but I don’t necessarily want my children imitating it… watching it.. anymore than I’d let them swear or watch an R rated movie. It’s at that point that the poor old lady gets trampled.

@NaturalMineralWater It is my belief that all living creatures possess consciousness and that consciousness stems from a source that supercedes our understanding but is ultimately good. I think we agree that all life has some value. Two people of the same sex making each other happy doesn’t seem like an awful thing if they’re not hurting anyone in the process. There’s plenty of straight people that have bizarre sexual fetishes that are far more disgusting than the thought of a same sex couple pleasuring each other.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic To that I agree.. let them eat cake. Just so long as we protect the little old lady. We don’t need any bizarre sexual fetishes seeing the light of day either. xD

@NaturalMineralWater What does them making out on their front lawn have anything to do with if they are homosexual or not?

@NaturalMineralWater I’ll agree on that. Hooray for common ground! :)
I’m content to let people do what makes them happy so long as it hurts no one and it is a private affair. Public sex = ewww!

I’m interested in no one’s sexual exploits save for my own and the person I decide to have sex with.

@benjaminlevi I don’t want my children thinking it’s natural for two men or two women to kiss each other any more than I want them thinking it’s natural to swear or throw poo around like a monkey. They will develop their own opinion when they get older.. for now.. no swearing.. no rated R movies.. and no men making out next door… my house my rules. =D

@ragingloli
Actually, Muslims do not hate Jews, they have an issue with Isrealies! It is a Political dispute not an idealogical hatered.
Historically, whenever Jews were persecuted anywhere around the world, they have always found a safe haven amongst Muslims! This a historical fact.
In Islam, Jews and Christians are known as “Ah-lil Kitab”, or People of “The Book”, meaning Gods words. They are held in high regards and are to be respected. Unforunetly that message has been forgotten by most Muslims due to ignorence and confusion. And now the Religion suffers due to the ignorence of it’s practioners.

@NaturalMineralWater

How will you treat your children if one of them turns out to be gay? Do you believe it’s “a choice/a lifestyle”?

@NaturalMineralWater I am really curious about your idea that everything be what you feel is “natural”. Why? Is what you consider “unnatural” inherently inferior?
What would you tell your children if the two men who lived next door were making out?

@NaturalMineralWater
benjaminlevi said “What would you tell your children if the two men who lived next door were making out?”

In addition, would you be just as disturbed if it was a man and a woman making out?

@crisw I love my children unconditionally.

@crisw and @benjaminlevi If they saw two men next door I’m not sure what I would say.. luckily the odds of that happening are extremely low. If it was a man and a woman I certainly wouldn’t prop up a lawn chair and let them watch… neither would I be mortified. It seems natural.

@benjaminlevi Well I could always move to your neighborhood and start making out with other men, that would improve the odds.

@benjaminlevi Is that a gay for pay sort of thing? (I’m joking)

@NaturalMineralWater
So if one of your children was gay and wanted to be married, you’d be happy that they found someone and wanted to form a stable, loving, lifelong relationship, right?

Why not extend that same consideration to everyone else? They are all someone’s children. They all deserve to be happy.

@benjaminlevi Could be, depends on the salary.

@benjaminlevi Meh.. go for it.. I move every year or so anyway. LOL

@crisw No, I’d quietly wish they weren’t gay and that I didn’t have to deal with this.. but I’d love them just the same. As I said before… I don’t hate gay people.. I just don’t happen to think it’s natural. I’m not sure where you’re getting that I don’t want them to be happy.

@benjaminlevi

Maybe that’s what could be planned for the church down the street that was one of the biggest contributors to Prop 8! Maybe you can stage a “Gay Be-In” in their parking lot one Sunday! :>D

I’d pay to see that :>)

@NaturalMineralWater
“I’m not sure where you’re getting that I don’t want them to be happy.”

Because you don’t want them to get married.

@natural. If being NATURAL is your main believe on how people should live their lives. I find it odd that you are OK with someone can turn water into wine, heal the sick with bare hands and come back to life from dead. I don’t mean disrespect in any way. Just pointing out the “facts”.

@crisw Every day at my church is “Everybody who wants to be in is welcome” day.
I didn’t say I didn’t want them to get married either… I only said it didn’t seem natural.
If you’ll notice I specifically said: “others have other opinions.. they are welcome to them”

@ckinyc Au contraire monsieur.. that was simply supernatural.

I’m disturbed that being gay was compared to throwing shit around like a monkey.
Nice way to breed intolerance.~

@NaturalMineralWater

“no men making out next door… my house my rules.”

How about the gay people? Their house, their rules?

@casheroo Don’t be sillly… you know that I wasn’t comparing the two as equals.. read the context… why do people do this?

@Ivan Sure.. as long as their porch doesn’t spill over into my front yard if you know what I mean..

@Everyone Look… I’m not interested in “breeding intolerance” or bashing homosexuals or anything of that nature… if anyone thinks I am you are mistaken and you haven’t been paying attention.. It’s not something I believe is right or natural.. that’s my opinion.. you are welcome to your own.. let’s not start hating each other just for having a different take on this..

@NaturalMineralWater “Don’t be sillly… you know that I wasn’t comparing the two as equals.. read the context… why do people do this?”

Because of statements like, If we let them get married, next they’ll want to marry their pets. and such. Homosexuality is constantly compared to things like bestiality and pedophilia, and what you said does, in fact, compare the LGBT community to animals.

@NaturalMineralWater

This is an issue regarding whether or not a certain group of people should receive certain rights. The issue is being voted on in propositions and in legislatures. You (presumably, potentially) vote for propositions and for legislative representatives. You also (by your own admission) pass your views on to the next generation. Therefore, you have an impact (albeit small) on whether or not someone has the right to get married. Therefore, this is not merely a meaningless difference of opinion. This has real, tangible consequences regarding people’s lives.

@MacBean Don’t lump me with the rest. I am me.

@Ivan I wasn’t belittling the issue. I was merely making the point that there is no reason to start intellectual-name-calling (by that I mean.. people tend to start rebutting the person.. not the argument).

People vote on all kinds of issues that affect people’s lives. If you are talking about America and democracy than the “meaningless difference of opinion” is exactly what makes democracy beautiful. Separately we differ.. but as a whole we come to a consensus. Our differences balance out the system and keep it in check. If I vote against gay marriage.. someone else is surely going to vote against a gun law I support.. that’s just how it works. One group will scream intolerance intolerance.. another will scream constitutional rights constitutional rights.. Our differences keep the teeter totter balanced (for the most part).

@NaturalMineralWater

“If I vote against gay marriage.. someone else is surely going to vote against a gun law I support.. that’s just how it works.”

However, that isn’t exactly how it’s supposed to work. The problem here is that voting shouldn’t be based on whims or personal likes and dislikes. I assume (and please forgive me if I am wrong) that your politics lean towards the conservative end of the spectrum. As such, I assume that, in most cases, you agree with the conservative mantra of less government is better government, and that the government, in general, should keep its nose out of most things and legislate only when there is truly an urgent need to do so.

Banning gay marriage is unneeded governmental intrusion. It fulfills no urgent societal or governmental need, It’s simply legislating prejudice. Why should that be the job of the government?

@NaturalMineralWater

The fact that your opinion might be in the minority or that you might lose a vote on another issue does not change the fact that you would discriminate against a group of citizens. You can’t just brush that away by saying “Eh, you win some, you lose some.” This isn’t about keeping the “teeter totter balanced.” The government does not serve to keep a balance between conservatives and liberals, it serves to protect its citizens and ensure their rights, regardless of whether or not conservatives want that to happen.

@NaturalMineralWater I won’t lump you with the rest if you stop using the same language as the rest.

@crisw If voting is not based on someone’s principals and beliefs what are they based on? Principals and beliefs in no way equate to a “whim”.

@MacBean Don’t paint something red and then blame it for being red. The words you associated me with came from you.. not me.

@NaturalMineralWater
“If voting is not based on someone’s principals and beliefs what are they based on? ”

Ideally, they are based on ensuring a just society. Just as any individual decision should ideally always be to do what is right and ethical, so should a voting decision. Since the purpose of the government is to protect and ensure the rights of everyone, just voting decisions are those that will forward the cause of protecting rights for everyone.

I don’t see where you’ve given any reasons that preventing gays from marrying should be a concern of the government. Why should it?

@NaturalMineralWater I didn’t make you compare homosexual affection to monkeys flinging feces. You did that all by yourself.

@crisw The ideal means of “ensuring a just society” differs for each person. That is where the principals and beliefs come in. The government should be involved in such things as abortion, gay marriage and gun control because like it or not.. these things don’t occur in a vacuum. People.. society as a whole are affected by “the rights” of others.

@MacBean Again with the poo… is intellectual discernment illegal these days? I’m spinning my wheels with you MacBean.. so I think I’ll get a tow truck.

@NaturalMineralWater

“society as a whole are affected by “the rights” of others.”

Any negative effects on society that would result from gay marriage would certainly be outweighed by the negative effects on homosexuals that would result from banning gay marriage. Are you implying that the rights of heterosexuals are more important than the rights of homosexuals?

@Ivan—Welll, we’re unnatural. Why should we matter?

@Ivan It seems that there is supposed to be some agenda that my statements are implying.. I’m not sure why my statements can’t be just taken at face value.

Let’s try and make this more simple:

1. We possess different principals/beliefs: yes/no?
2. We will vote differently based on those principals/beliefs: yes/no?
3. We realize that others are going to vote differently and it’s obvious that we shouldn’t hold it against those who vote differently: yes/no?
4. Homosexuals have the right to vote just the same as heterosexuals: yes/no?
5. Homosexuals and quite a few heterosexuals will vote for gay marriage because they believe it is a natural thing and they shouldn’t be denied the right to this union with their significant other based solely on the gender between them: yes/no?
6. Many heterosexuals vote against gay marriage because they don’t think it is a natural thing. Allowing it to become commonplace is a danger not because of the simple gender issue.. but because of the gradual saturation of tolerance which will eventually lead society down an inadvisable path. These heterosexuals may also vote as such because their belief system points homosexuality out as a sin.. or as something to be frowned on for whatever reason their belief system points out: yes/no?
7. Many heterosexuals don’t think homosexuality is natural but also recognize that people are different. The lifestyles of others shouldn’t necessarily be dictated by someone else’s principals. They do, however, believe there comes a time when the lifestyles of others should necessarily be dictated by someone else’s principals (e.g. tv ratings: some parents have no problem with showing their children late night hbo.. other parents do). These heterosexuals may vote for or against gay marriage depending on the individual. yes/no?

Can we at least agree on these basic points? Oh.. and before I forget…

“Are you implying that the rights of heterosexuals are more important than the rights of homosexuals?”
No.

@NaturalMineralWater

“Allowing [gay marriage] to become commonplace is a danger not because of the simple gender issue.. but because of the gradual saturation of tolerance which will eventually lead society down an inadvisable path.”

How can there be too much tolerance of gay marriage? Exactly what “inadvisable path” will society be led down? You aren’t trying to use a thoroughly-discredited slippery slope argument, are you?

” These heterosexuals may also vote as such because their belief system points homosexuality out as a sin.. or as something to be frowned on for whatever reason their belief system points out.”

Once again, I refer back to the original question, therefore trying to keep this discussion at least slightly on track :>) It’s thinking like this that reinforces the idea that the LGBT community is being persecuted by the religious.

”. They do, however, believe there comes a time when the lifestyles of others should necessarily be dictated by someone else’s principals”

The only time that morality should be legislated is when doing so prevents a greater harm to other sentient beings. Banning gay marriage doesn’t qualify. Your hurt feelings or queasiness don’t outweigh the rights of gays to experience the same happiness in marriage and the same rights of marriage as everyone else.

@NaturalMineralWater The whole thing is kind of irrelevant because the government should not even be issuing marriage licenses in the first place.

@benjaminlevi
Also true. There’s actually an initiative going around right now in CA to change all references to marriage to domestic partnerships instead (and, of course, to allow domestic partnerships for all couples.)

Civil unions/domestic partnerships are a valid governmental interest due to the tax benefits and other legal and governmental benefits accrued by the partnership. “Marriage,” however, is a purely religious term, and it would be best to remove references to it from governmental affairs.

@NaturalMineralWater

“1. We possess different principals/beliefs: yes/no?
2. We will vote differently based on those principals/beliefs: yes/no?
3. We realize that others are going to vote differently and it’s obvious that we shouldn’t hold it against those who vote differently: yes/no? ”

As I have explained. This is not a mere difference of opinion. You can’t just say “to each their own” when people’s lives are being directly affected. A similar situation arose in Iraq recently, where a law was passed that essentially allowed husbands to rape their wives. You could just say “Well, people vote on different principles and we shouldn’t hold it against people who vote differently.” But that’s not a valid argument, because women are getting raped over this. Similarly, you can’t just brush away voting against gay marriage by citing a mere difference in opinion. People’s lives are being affected by this.

“6. Many heterosexuals vote against gay marriage because they don’t think it is a natural thing. Allowing it to become commonplace is a danger not because of the simple gender issue.. but because of the gradual saturation of tolerance which will eventually lead society down an inadvisable path. These heterosexuals may also vote as such because their belief system points homosexuality out as a sin.. or as something to be frowned on for whatever reason their belief system points out: yes/no?”

Here we arrive at the actual argument. You are attempting to brush this off as merely another opinion that I happen to disagree with, but shouldn’t hold against anyone who supports it. However, this belief put forward here is illogical and disgusting. It adversely represses and persecutes citizens. The belief should be criticized on its merits, just like any other belief. We are talking about human rights here. This is not something we should just sluff off.

@benjaminlevi – And how. I think if people are so dead set on making a marriage something that happens under God, go ahead, make marriages the exclusive domain of the church. But God doesn’t issue tax breaks or outline divorce law. None of that has anything to do with joining souls in a covenant before God. If you want that you’ll have to get a civil union from the state.

Once the matter of who exactly defines the instituion of marriage is cleared up we’ll be able to get back to marriage as God intended it. This could be tricky for things like figuring out the modern conversion rate for the 50 shekels rapists are required to pay the fathers of their victims before they marry them, but no one ever said following God’s law was easy.

edit: of course not everyone’s god says the same thing about marriage, so each religion would have to separately define it. We couldn’t very well have Muslims, and Hindus and Wiccans getting married according to the commandments of the Christian god could we? Which could make things tricky for couples with mixed faiths. Of course God doesn’t want them marrying any ways so it doesn’t really matter.

Just as I thought… you automatically went for number 6 as if that was me. I just don’t have the energy for this anymore. You insist on making me someone I’m not.

@crisw See, if we were good about keeping the separation of church and state initiatives like this would have passed long ago. That way we can all get our tax benefits, we can all be equal under law, and if you belong to a homophobic church you don’t have to marry gay people. Do you know of any national initiative to put this in the US Constitution?

@fundevogel Right we can leave the church to figure out all their silly little details.

@benjaminlevi
“Do you know of any national initiative to put this in the US Constitution?”
Nope. It’s darn hard to amend the Constitution these days. I think, unfortunately, that for the foreseeable future this is a battle on the state level. I did read an article recently that predicted that most state legislatures would remove bans on gay marriage by 2010!

@crisw Right but not all will remove bans by 2010, and it would be nice if we could amend the constitution we could get it all done at once. I think separating marriage from domestic partnerships would be better than just allowing same sex marriage.

@benjaminlevi

I agree. I hope that day will come!

Marriage was once not allowed between blacks and whites. It took till 1967 for the U.S. supreme court to overrule laws against so called “miscegenation” marriages.

In the 1950s it made perfect sense to millions of racists that interracial couples were unatural.

I see no difference between the prejudice of then and the prejudice of now. It’s just bigotry dressed up as morals.

‘I don’t want my children thinking it’s natural for black and white people to kiss each other any more than I want them thinking it’s natural to swear or throw poo around like a monkey. They will develop their own opinion when they get older.. for now.. no swearing.. no rated R movies.. and no mixed races making out next door… my house my rules. =D’

1. We possess different principals/beliefs: yes/no?
2. We will vote differently based on those principals/beliefs: yes/no?
3. We realize that others are going to vote differently and it’s obvious that we shouldn’t hold it against those who vote differently: yes/no?
4. Mixed couples have the right to vote just the same as racially pure couples: yes/no?
5. Mixed couples and quite a few racially pure couples will vote for mixed race marriage because they believe it is a natural thing and they shouldn’t be denied the right to this union with their significant other based solely on the colour between them: yes/no?
6. Many whites vote against mixed marriage because they don’t think it is a natural thing. Allowing it to become commonplace is a danger not because of the simple race issue.. but because of the gradual saturation of tolerance which will eventually lead society down an inadvisable path. These whites may also vote as such because their belief system points mixed race couples out as a sin.. or as something to be frowned on for whatever reason their belief system points out: yes/no?
7. Many whites don’t think mixing races is natural but also recognize that people are different. The lifestyles of others shouldn’t necessarily be dictated by someone else’s principals. They do, however, believe there comes a time when the lifestyles of others should necessarily be dictated by someone else’s principals (e.g. tv ratings: some parents have no problem with showing their children late night hbo.. other parents do). These whites may vote for or against mixed marriage depending on the individual. yes/no?

It dismays me to think that people have so little understanding of history to continue to use “what they feel as natural” as a justification for restricting the rights of other people.

Many people were unhappy to give women the vote, to let Jews into the golfclub, to let blacks sit at the bar..etc. etc..I’m sure it once felt unnatural to think of a black person without having a white owner.

“Natural” is just saying that this is the prejudice of the moment and I’m happy the way things are because Im not the one who’s rights are infringed. As past evidence demonstrates all that does is entrench the prejudice of the day. This is a “what is, is ought.” fallacy. To rely on this is to rely on the judgements of the past to differentiate right from wrong. As history shows we can’t hold the morality of our ancestors in such high regard as to let their pointless prejudices rule our societies without challenge.