Sunday, March 20, 2016

One more time

The stated rationale of the anti-miscegenation laws was to keep the races separate. Advocates of the patent absurdity of the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” insist upon a parallel between the criminalization of interracial marriage and the non-reccognition of same-sex “marriage”. But this is nonsense. If there were a parallel, then the rationale for the non-recognition of ss’m’ would have been parallel to that of the anti-miscegenation laws, i.e. just as the reason for the latter was the separation of the races, so the reason for the former would have to be the separation of the sexual orientations. But actually one of the arguments for “marriage equality” was that the sexual definition of marriage led to pathological mixed-orientation marriages. In other words, the non-recognition of ss’m’ is alleged to have done the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the anti-miscegenation laws did; the former led to a mixing of traits, the latter to their separation. Clearly and obviously the anti-miscegenation parallel is a category mistake, and the only reason why advocates of “marriage equality” insist upon using it is not to illuminate the matter of “equality” (it does no such thing) but simply to slander their opponents as racists and segregationists. The anti-miscegenation parallel, even if it is now court-approved dogma, is simply a very sleazy slur, and I resent it.

No comments: