The False Parallel Between Interracial and Same-Sex Marriage

One of the chief tactics in the advocacy of same-sex marriage legalization is to point out the supposed parallel with interracial marriage bans. I recently had two separate exchanges on the topic and this argument was the centerpiece of the discussion. The argument is basically that discriminating based upon racial preference is really no different than discriminating based upon gender preference, and since we all now agree that interracial marriage is morally acceptable and should be legal, then there is really no moral or legal precedent for denying same-sex marriage.

Perhaps the argument has merit, but it depends upon the premise that race and gender are categorically the same – that two people of the same sex are socially and functionally the same as a man and woman of different races. I’d like to show now that this is a false premise, and that the parallel between race and gender is only superficial and ignores the profound categorical difference between the two.

For my purposes I’ll take the liberty of distilling the featural differences between the races down to color, which seems uncontroversial since it is a common way of characterizing race. This should be satisfactory unless one holds to the notion that the races are fundamentally different in some way other than superficial variations in appearance. To disagree would seem to put one on the road of racism.

Let me begin with an analogy. If I have a variety of black & white bolts and nuts, which is more meaningful to the nature of nuts and bolts: pairing two of the same color or pairing a nut and a bolt, no matter what the color? In other words, is it really comparable to say that mixing colors in my nut/bolt sets is equivalent to mixing what two objects I make a set out of, e.g., two bolts? We may certainly choose to make sets based upon color, but this is only done at the expense of the basic functional design and purpose of nuts and bolts.

This analogy seeks to illustrate the categorical difference between appearance (color) and physical design. Yes, gender is more complicated than nuts and bolts, and marriage is more than just fitting them together, but the argument being made by same-sex advocates is specifically making a parallel between color and gender, so any meaningful physical differences between the genders would seem to erode the argument.

There is indeed a fundamental difference between the sexes that transcends the superficiality of color differences – a difference upon which the very human species depends. If your parents were black and white (or any other color combination) they could still have had you, but if they did not have nuts and bolts (so to speak), and had not employed them as designed, then that would have been the end of it (and of you). Of course, there is always adoption or artificial insemination for those who insist on pairing “bolt” with “bolts” or “nut” with “nuts,” but these ultimately depend upon the intervention and services of the other gender. By contrast, interracial couples lacked for nothing but acceptance.

Color is a functionally meaningless attributes, whereas there is no more fundamental differentiator among humans than gender. In fact, you cannot even claim to represent humanity without offering an example of each as was done with the Pioneer Plaque. If race were indeed equivalent to gender, then they could just as well have chosen to depict two men of different colors; or if gender were as inconsequential as race, then they could simply have presented a man on the plaque and left it at that.

To disagree with my categorical distinction is to suggest that color is just as important to sexual desire as gender. But who has heard a heterosexual man say that he would rather have another man of the same race than a woman of a different race? And the criterion for homosexuality seems to be a preference for the same gender no matter the color. Gays themselves affirm that gender is the main thing – it is what defines homosexuality. I have never heard of such a thing, but perhaps there is the odd fetishist out there who prefers some particular race above all gender considerations, but I think it is safe to say that gender is in a categorically different place from color. Scientists seem to agree with me, since they rank color considerations as the least important factor in defining species, genus, family, etc. Just image how absurd it would be to claim that grouping cardinals, tomatoes, and rubies because of color is just as meaningful as grouping them by categories of animal, vegetable, and mineral.

The upshot is that race and gender are categorically different things, where the categories are of different consequence and relevance to the institution of marriage. Color is a mere cosmetic property, whereas gender relates to a physical distinction that has always been the prerequisite of marital unions and is necessary for the families that result. Interracial marriage bans were primarily about maintaining racial purity, which presupposes the success of a traditional marriage that is based upon the foundation of gender distinctions. Traditional marriage is about bringing the two distinct genders into a committed, loving relationship resulting in an unparalleled union that is truly and fully human.

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?” (Jesus, from Matthew 19:4-5, quoting Genesis 2:24)


Posted on February 15, 2014, in Homosexuality and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. You don’t know many gay couples, do you. As a nut and bolt are complementary, so are many gay couples. Jesus disapproved of divorce, so your quote exalts marriage, not merely opposite sex marriage, and the quoted passage also says “it is not good for the man to be alone”. Et, pourquoi pense-tu de ce beaucoup?

    • Hi Clare! The kind of complementarity that I describe here is something specific. It’s not just persons that live together or are fond of each other — like two people, three people, a person and an animal, a brother and sister, etc. — it is the functional complementarity of the sexes that I’m referencing. A nut and bolt are not complementary for mere subjective reasons (e.g., because they love each other); they are complementary because, together, they make a unique functional whole. The sexes have a functional complementarity of the same nature. Some may choose not to exercise this, or care that it exists, but it undeniably exists and is the foundational truth of reproduction, parenting, family, and marriage. All these things naturally proceed one from another by virtue of the unique contribution that a male and female provide and which — surprise — can produce the family. This physical complementarity of the two sexes makes perfect sense out of Jesus’ statement that “the two shall become one flesh.” In order for two to become one, mustn’t they each have something about their own *flesh* that is incomplete without another who possesses it?

      As far as what the passage I quote is exalting: unfortunately, it speaks only about marriage in the context of man and woman, so any extension of the boundaries of marriage is simply personal speculation. You can’t take only the word “marriage” out of the text, then define marriage for yourself, and then say that Jesus is on your side because He’s in favor of “marriage.” By this measure one could equally apply the “marriage” label to other curious arrangements and then find Jesus “approving” of all sorts of menageries. It is the very definition of marriage that is the question here. Unfortunately, the Bible lends no positive affirmation for anything besides heterosexual unions. Note that when God made a suitable mate for man that it was a woman. I humbly suggest that what God finds suitable should only be rejected with much fear and trembling.

      Of course, not all believe in God, or find the Bible to be authoritative over their own desires, so I generally do not bring these into the debate. I only did so in my post because my closing thoughts reminded me so strongly of Jesus’ idea of the unique unity achieved only in the joining of the two distinct sexes.

  2. Great post. I have also written about the race/gender comparison (not as eloquently) but this false analogy is so pervasive it’s great to have many voices speak into it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


A place where ideas, not people, are under assault.


...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." - Blaise Pascal

%d bloggers like this: