Inter-racial marriage - Page 5

rockyreagan · #41 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nobody";p=&quot

There are actually 2 issues here. 1st, The union of 2 people should be between those 2 people and God or whatever those people believe in. There should not be a fee, a license, a registration or anything. The government should stay out of that aspect of peoples lives. Unfortunately that is not the case.

2nd, same sex marriage is not the real issue here. It is the nationwide recognition, acknowledgment and acceptance of homosexuality. These people in the gay community do not care about marriage. They want everyone to know they are gay and to acknowledge it. Tolerance is not enough for them. They see marriage as the ultimate recognition, not because they even believe in marriage, but because they see it as a justification of their homosexuality itself.

And to the original topic, Interracial marriage, not a thing in the world wrong with it.

Well said Nobody. Although i'm not 100 percetn against govermetn being invovled in Marriage but lets not get in that. AS far as interracial marriage there's nothing against it. But there is a big differnce between race which people can't choose and there sexuality which they can.

mpotter · #42 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpotter";p=&quot

It is fading away, but for a while there, it was a huge issue. My correlation to gay marriage I feel is quite logical. At one time inter-racial relationships were thought of as taboo, and in most cases people viewed it as morally wrong, many still do. Similarly to the issue of homosexuality. While neither is for everyone, to each his own, it is wrong to make claim that either is wrong. If you love someone of a different race, you can't hide it. You can't keep it to yourself. Same goes for gays. You can't help who you fall in love with. You can't hide your desires. The two issues are indirectly related. While we are moving more toward accepting inter-racial marriages and/or relationships, we are moving away from accepting gay relationships and marriages.

It is a very logical jump because the same type of "morality" is used in both instances. There are still places where inter-racial relationships are taboo. Take the white trash portion of my family from Missouri (not saying everyone from Missouri is a white trash, but my mom's side of the family sure as heck is), they are rather racist and firmly believe that races should keep to themselves (I don't think they were pleased when I was dating a girl from India). But if falls under this supposed morality issue where people are so convinced in what they think is right that they don't see the other side. To take it further, they are so convinced that their morality is superior that they wish to prevent other people from pursuing their own happiness in some spiteful attempt to prove themselves correct.

I think I have a unique way of upsetting both Democrats and Republicans on issues (it's the Libertarian in me, I can't help it). But mostly these arguments are devoid of intellect and it bothers me to no end that people will refuse to be rational about things at times (then again, it bothers me that there are people in University that can't do algebra). In matters like this, I really don't see what business of other's it is. If some dude loves a dude, then so be it. It's not my place to say that love is wrong, and it's not my place to forbid them from making a life long (though marriage has become something not so life long these days) commitment to each other. And it's no one else's right to interfere either. It's not like I'm forcing my morality upon another. I do not wish to make any laws that ban a guy and a girl from getting married, nor do I endorse laws that would require a guy marry a guy or a girl marry a girl. Marry whomever you want, go to work, pay taxes, consume, and mow your lawn (for the love of all that is holy mow your lawn!). Beyond that, if you are not hurting others or infringing upon other's rights I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed as to what you do. It's none of my business, and to be honest, I have more things to worry about.

Japanese women are amongst the hottest women on this planet. If anyone knows a cute Japanese girl that wants an American boyfriend, send them to Colorado.....please.

Your statements here sound very well thought out and logical. I see no reason why people should fear gay marriage. I think what people are having the hardest time with is that they still haven't gotten over the fact that some men like to have sex with other men, or some women like to have sex with other women. This whole gay sex thing is still hard for most people to swallow...myself included. I think it is disgusting, however, I accept that this is the way they are. I don't have to engage in it, so what's the big deal?

Now they are throwing in the love factor. People are thinking to themselves, "Not only do these people have sex with one another, but now they love eachother?" At least that is how I see it. People refuse to believe that a man can love a man, or a woman can love a woman to the same extent that a man loves a woman. At least before, people could view homosexuality purely on the physical level. People call them homos, queers, freaks, etc. But now they are starting to see it on a more emotional level...and this scares people for some reason. It scares the bageezus out of them.

mpotter · #43 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by britogal";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpotter";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by britogal";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpotter";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Most people in the US are religious, and the Christian/Muslim/Jewish opinion of homosexuality is very clear.

Permanent change will not happen unless you can convince a majority that you are right. We were actually making a lot of progress (according to the polls) until this judicial activism buIIsh!t started...

I believe Homo marriage will be allowed eventually. But their actions have delayed it by decades.

How do you feel about inter-racial marriage?

What makes girl-boy marriage or black-white marriage any different than boy-boy or girl-girl marriage? Again I proclaim that love is love, and that is that. Get over it...live your life, and let others live theirs.

Marriage wasn't defined by white white and black black...it was defined though by a man and a woman...compltely different things.

If Gay couples want to unite like straight couples then they need not call it "marriage". Call it something else and go forward with your right in that aspect but don't call it a "marriage" and everything that a marriage entails.

The problem exists then, that whatever you call it, the union of a gay couple needs to be recognized by the entire nation for it to be equal. It already is referred to as something else. Gay marriage. Can't be any more blunt than that. There cannot be equality by making this a states issue, as some suggest.

As for the correlation of gay marriage to inter-racial marriage, both were setup in an attemp to ban them at one time. This is where the similarity lies. At one time inter-racial marriage was not accepted at all. In fact to this day my girlfriend and I get dirty looks from old men and women sometimes. For what? What is the big deal? How does my being with her hurt these people, or for that matter society? It doesn't. Similarly gay marriage does nothing to hurt these people or society as a whole.

Why do people have to be forced to agree with a union that wasn't created for them? Also when marriage came to it did not say anything about same race conditions...it did however base it's union on the unity of a man and a woman, by the blessing of God. This is a tradition that a lot of people don't feel they need change simply because someone wants it changed, they went recognition...I think the homosexual community, htough I don't have a personal problem with, flaunt their sexuality in everyone else's faces and it just really rubs people the wrong way...do you need to claim a rainbow as a symbol for your sexuality? Do you need to have parades just for your sexuality? Why not have a strictly heterosexual parade or heterosexual symbol flaunted in the heterosexual community? If that happened all hell would break loose and rights activists would be all over it like flies on poop.

Where do you draw the line?

I have long wanted to come up with a symbol for heterosexuality that I could put on the bumper of my car, and if there were a parade for heterosexuality, I would march in it. I don't understand this phenomenon either. Gay pride I think is supposed to be some way to balance out the hate that is placed upon them, in a way to try and displace the shame in it. But I, just as you do, don't understand why they flaunt it in your face. There are a lot of people out there who don't do this however, and I give them mad props for that.

While I see what you are saying about marriage as a defined word for a man and a woman, I do think it matters that the word for gay unions has the same definition. The title can be different, but the meaning should still be the same.

britogal · #44 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpotter";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpotter";p=&quot

It is fading away, but for a while there, it was a huge issue. My correlation to gay marriage I feel is quite logical. At one time inter-racial relationships were thought of as taboo, and in most cases people viewed it as morally wrong, many still do. Similarly to the issue of homosexuality. While neither is for everyone, to each his own, it is wrong to make claim that either is wrong. If you love someone of a different race, you can't hide it. You can't keep it to yourself. Same goes for gays. You can't help who you fall in love with. You can't hide your desires. The two issues are indirectly related. While we are moving more toward accepting inter-racial marriages and/or relationships, we are moving away from accepting gay relationships and marriages.

It is a very logical jump because the same type of "morality" is used in both instances. There are still places where inter-racial relationships are taboo. Take the white trash portion of my family from Missouri (not saying everyone from Missouri is a white trash, but my mom's side of the family sure as heck is), they are rather racist and firmly believe that races should keep to themselves (I don't think they were pleased when I was dating a girl from India). But if falls under this supposed morality issue where people are so convinced in what they think is right that they don't see the other side. To take it further, they are so convinced that their morality is superior that they wish to prevent other people from pursuing their own happiness in some spiteful attempt to prove themselves correct.

I think I have a unique way of upsetting both Democrats and Republicans on issues (it's the Libertarian in me, I can't help it). But mostly these arguments are devoid of intellect and it bothers me to no end that people will refuse to be rational about things at times (then again, it bothers me that there are people in University that can't do algebra). In matters like this, I really don't see what business of other's it is. If some dude loves a dude, then so be it. It's not my place to say that love is wrong, and it's not my place to forbid them from making a life long (though marriage has become something not so life long these days) commitment to each other. And it's no one else's right to interfere either. It's not like I'm forcing my morality upon another. I do not wish to make any laws that ban a guy and a girl from getting married, nor do I endorse laws that would require a guy marry a guy or a girl marry a girl. Marry whomever you want, go to work, pay taxes, consume, and mow your lawn (for the love of all that is holy mow your lawn!). Beyond that, if you are not hurting others or infringing upon other's rights I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed as to what you do. It's none of my business, and to be honest, I have more things to worry about.

Japanese women are amongst the hottest women on this planet. If anyone knows a cute Japanese girl that wants an American boyfriend, send them to Colorado.....please.

Your statements here sound very well thought out and logical. I see no reason why people should fear gay marriage. I think what people are having the hardest time with is that they still haven't gotten over the fact that some men like to have sex with other men, or some women like to have sex with other women. This whole gay sex thing is still hard for most people to swallow...myself included. I think it is disgusting, however, I accept that this is the way they are. I don't have to engage in it, so what's the big deal?

Now they are throwing in the love factor. People are thinking to themselves, "Not only do these people have sex with one another, but now they love eachother?" At least that is how I see it. People refuse to believe that a man can love a man, or a woman can love a woman to the same extent that a man loves a woman. At least before, people could view homosexuality purely on the physical level. People call them homos, queers, freaks, etc. But now they are starting to see it on a more emotional level...and this scares people for some reason. It scares the bageezus out of them.

I totally see your point except I don't care about what anyone does behind closed doors if it isn't hurting someone. I am not scared by gay people and I very much can comprehend a woman loving another woman...this isn't the problem I think except of course with some extreme religious people...my problem is the double standards and the fact that because they want what others have even though it wasn't founded on what they stand for, they want it anyways...they can go through the necessary means of having a union but don't change the definition of a marriage...a marriage is sacred to many people and changing the terms and conditions wouldn't make it a marriage any longer. I really just wanted to point out that I don't feel that a a gay couple is any less then a heterosexual couple but I don't feel they should have the right to change the definition and tradition of a marriage because they want to beable to make it known that they are just as equal as everyone else...there are certain traditions that people want to stay as a tradition.

Sadistic-Savior · #45 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

my problem is the double standards and the fact that because they want what others have even though it wasn't founded on what they stand for, they want it anyways...they can go through the necessary means of having a union but don't change the definition of a marriage...a marriage is sacred to many people and changing the terms and conditions wouldn't make it a marriage any longer.

Is marriage defined by the Church or the state though? If homo marriages are made legal, and they are called marriages, the churches will not be forced to re-define marriage.

myopicmouse · #46 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

I thought you were mentioning Ireland, northern is definitely different!

Hahah, yes....I normally say northern ireland.....but I'm lazy

, and just saying ireland is shorter - since it is actually ireland...but a particular region.

britogal · #47 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Quote:

my problem is the double standards and the fact that because they want what others have even though it wasn't founded on what they stand for, they want it anyways...they can go through the necessary means of having a union but don't change the definition of a marriage...a marriage is sacred to many people and changing the terms and conditions wouldn't make it a marriage any longer.

Is marriage defined by the Church or the state though? If homo marriages are made legal, and they are called marriages, the churches will not be forced to re-define marriage.

Why call it a marriage then? A "marriage" is traditionally built on the union of a man and woman under god...if it isn't under God but just under state laws then what's the point of the tradition?

mpotter · #48 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Quote:

my problem is the double standards and the fact that because they want what others have even though it wasn't founded on what they stand for, they want it anyways...they can go through the necessary means of having a union but don't change the definition of a marriage...a marriage is sacred to many people and changing the terms and conditions wouldn't make it a marriage any longer.

Is marriage defined by the Church or the state though? If homo marriages are made legal, and they are called marriages, the churches will not be forced to re-define marriage.

Right now both Church and state define marriage. All gays are trying to do is to get the government to redefine marriage to include them. The Church definition will remain the same...will it not? I don't see the church ever changing its viewpoint on gays. Hell, don't catholics still believe that birth control is bad and immoral?

mpotter · #49 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by britogal";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Quote:

my problem is the double standards and the fact that because they want what others have even though it wasn't founded on what they stand for, they want it anyways...they can go through the necessary means of having a union but don't change the definition of a marriage...a marriage is sacred to many people and changing the terms and conditions wouldn't make it a marriage any longer.

Is marriage defined by the Church or the state though? If homo marriages are made legal, and they are called marriages, the churches will not be forced to re-define marriage.

Why call it a marriage then? A "marriage" is traditionally built on the union of a man and woman under god...if it isn't under God but just under state laws then what's the point of the tradition?

I don't know what the ultimate goal is with gays here. Are they trying to obtain the "tradition" or not? I have always felt that they just want the same exact benefits that married couples of the opposite sex obtain, and that these benefits are honored in every state of our nation. But I could be wrong.

Sadistic-Savior · #50 (**permalink**) 09-21-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Why call it a marriage then? A "marriage" is traditionally built on the union of a man and woman under god...if it isn't under God but just under state laws then what's the point of the tradition?

I was going to quote Dictionary.com, but it occurred to me that it probably would have been disingenuous to do so, since the definition is what is being discussed. (dictionary.com seems to think that same sex marriages are still defined as marriage)

All I can say is that if I were a heterosexual theist, I dont think I would be comfortable with the government making such distinctions for me. We can and have changed traditions before when we decided they wern't fair. Women voting comes to mind.

As I said though, personally, I dont care what it's called.

Quote:

Right now both Church and state define marriage. All gays are trying to do is to get the government to redefine marriage to include them.

Thats all well and good. But it is wrong to impose that definition on the majority who dont agree with it. Which is exactly what judicial activists are trying to do.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode