Basically, if SSMers want people who oppose them to be regarded as the equivalent of racists, then they can't wonder why people would fight against ssm. You can't say "it won't affect you, but the idea that you're similar to a racist will be enshrined into law."

As Maggie said, they can't have it both ways.

You make a great point about interracial couples. SSMers talk about them as if they are not biologically complementary.

Needless to say, the idea that interracial marriage justifies redefining marriage is ridiculous. Like Maggie said, there is no correlation. Thankfully, the Supreme Court already rejected the Loving analogy in Baker v. Nelson.

We've got to prohibit same-sex procreation if we want to preserve marriage as a man and a woman! What are you waiting for?? Just say people should not be allowed to procreate with someone of the same sex!!!!!!!

No doubt the Husbands and Brides of Frankenstein will figure out a way to create lab specimens and call them "children," but this horrific moment is thankfully not upon us yet.

I do wonder what will be done with the numerous defective specimens that are invariably a part of any lab experiment. I suspect they'll be fed to the hogs.

This was said by the trial judge Leon M. Bazile who sentenced the Lovings.

Bigotry is bigotry, and in this case the motive us clear. It also mirrors the religious-bias of today.

There IS a threat of same-sex partners attempting to procreate! Google "female sperm" or "same-sex procreation" or "postgenderism" please!

Don't just dismiss this as nonsense, they are serious and they insist on claiming the equal right to conceive offspring, they just don't make the claim very loudly because it is currently legal and they don't want anyone to prohibit it.

But it is easy to prohibit it with an egg and sperm law, and there is no harm in prohibiting it. It is absolutely necessary to prohibit it if we want to preserve marriage as a man and a woman and preserve marriage's meaning as approving and allowing the conception of children of the couple.

"We vigorously reject any attempt to link the discriminatory Anti miscegenation laws in Loving with this State’s DOMA. The Washington Court of Appeals in Singer correctly noted:the Loving and Perez courts [Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)] did not change the basic definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman; rather, they merely held that the race of the man or woman desiring to enter that relationship could not be considered by the state in granting a marriage license. 11 Wn. App. at 255 n.8. Numerous other courts have all rejected the claim that the decision in Loving somehow challenged state laws reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.25 Careful review of the historical context of Loving further undermines the
dissents’ disturbing attempt to link constitutionally void, racist laws with a historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Anti miscegenation laws were anathema to the “color-blind” constitution articulated in Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.26 Anti miscegenation laws infringed upon the union of one man and one woman by injecting racial status as a qualification. Such laws contradicted the fact that a man and a woman of any race have the natural right to marry and have children. This right is protected by the United States and Washington State Constitutions. Racially discriminatory anti miscegenation laws also violate the right to marriage between a man and a woman. Here, in contrast, the State’s DOMA simply confirms the common law understanding of marriage as a union of a man and woman. It is the dissent that would abrogate the common law understanding through judicial fiat."

The problem with the (horribly over used) Loving example is its power comes from mere analogy. The problem with analogy is it is exactly that: an analogy.
Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy. Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation. The point of ant—miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.

Note this quick rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.

“[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.”

The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance…a difference of kind.

As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of things being compared.

The point should be that prohibiting offspring from interracial couples is not morally equivalent to prohibiting offspring from same-sex couples, because the former ban is intended to preserve racial categories and white supremacy and violates human rights, while the ban on SSM is intended to stop unethical experiments in creating people from manufactured engineered gametes, which also violates people's human rights.

Both same-sex procreation and slavery/racism deny that all people are created equal and a based on a materialistic view of people as property.