Foofie wrote:cyphercat wrote:
There's a lot of research in the field of psychology that shows that in order to change the public's opinion in areas of prejudice, legislation has to lead the way; then public opinion follows suit. Interracial marriage is an example of this. Public opinion was strongly against it; it was only after the laws were changed that the populace overcame its racist aversion to interracial couples... Sometimes it's healthy for society if the laws change in favor of tolerance before popular opinion does.
I believe the above is specious; interracial marriage and gay marriage cannot be compared. In interracial marriage, children are born that are just humans of mixed parentage. When were two individuals of the same gender able to copulate that resulted in a pregnancy with a child born?
You are discussing a comparison of the "naturalness" of interracial unions and same-sex unions; "nature," fertility, etc, has nothing to do with my comparison. I was pointing out that there have been previous cases in marriage law where the law was changed before public opinion supported it. This was in response to a poster asking why the law should change if public opinion doesn't support it. Fertility is unrelated to that.
