Under what circumstances would opposition to interracial marriage not be racist?

[VMI Dem]

Under what circumstances would opposition to gay marriage not be homophobic?

:shrug:

[dkf]

1. Why all this concern with interracial marriages?

Did something happen?

[EOTE]

31. I think you're missing the point.

If it's racist to be against interracial marriage, it's homophobic to be against gay marriage. Enough said.

[xchrom]

2. because 'well meaning' 'allies' tell us so. nt

[WillParkinson]

3. 2 simple answers...

1) Cuz it's thinking of the children!

2) You ask too many questions. Be glad you get what you're getting and learn to like it.

:sarcasm: (Not that it should really be necessary.)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillParkinson]

5. It's fine to base it on your religion or principles, but...

Only if you're following all the rules, not just the ones you choose to follow. Then it becomes hypocrisy as well.

[LARED]

7. Agreed nt

[CBGLuthier]

6. Culture and religion are excuses for bigotry

There is no reason to oppose interracial marriage. The only reason anyone has is ultimately a bigoted and prejudiced one.

Your statement about gay marriage is just as wrong.

Please show me your easy to make convincing argument against gay marriage. I look forward to it with much anticipation.

[LARED]

10. Sorry you're wrong

Culture and religion is not always an excuse for bigotry.

Bigot; a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

I am not going to defend an opinion that interracial marriage is wrong, I will simply point out the based on the above definition of a bigot one can be against it and not be a bigot. In fact based on that definition most DU'ers are bigoted against conservatives. Again please don't make the mistake I am defending Republican or Conservatives only pointing out that one can take a position against something and not be bigoted.

If you are a devout Muslim and your son came home and announced he was going to marry a Haitian Voodoo priestess, would your opposing this union be bigotry, or would it be based on cultural norms?

Regarding gay marriage. It is a perfectly legitimate position to take that marriage is between a man and a women in our culture, as long as you also take the position the gay unions are afforded the same legal standing as marriage. I find not a thing offensive with that position.

[dgibby]

11. Many things seen as religious and/or cultural norms

are based on bigotry/racism. The fact that they've been adopted as "norms" does not negate that fact. I grew up in the South during segregation, which was the "norm". Do that make it right? How about slavery? That was also a "norm" at one time.

How about ethnic cleansing of the Native Peoples of Turtle Island? That was also a "norm", which, as it turned out cost some of my European ancestors their lives. I guess I should be upset that they were killed, but they were stealing land that didn't belong to them at the time, so all I feel is shame and regret.

My point is that just because something has been accepted as a religious/cultural norm doesn't make it right. It just makes it more insidious and harder to combat.

[LARED]

18. I am not making the argument that cultural norms

justify hate, bigotry, murder, etc. The point is simply that one can be opposed to all sorts of things without it being borne of bigotry.

Let me rephrase my earlier statement. If a family of devout Muslims oppose the marriage of their son to a Haitian Voodoo priestess is that bigotry or something else. If it's not bigotry, what is it in your opinion?

[dgibby]

23. Boiled down to it's purest form,

I believe it's bigotry, based on religious beliefs, and that, among other things, is what disturbs me about organized religions.

[LARED]

26. Ok, do you think it is possible to have other motives

besides bigotry in my example? I do.

I think the term bigotry is grossly overused in political discourse to marginalize people that disagree in good faith.

[uncommon]

55. An individual might *think* it is based on some other motive, but at its core it is

still based on bigotry/racism/fear of the other.

[LARED]

72. Well I guess we will disagee. I don't think people's motivations

and concerns are that simple.

[bullwinkle428]

13. So "separate but equal" is totally cool with you. Got it!

[LARED]

15. Wow did you think of that all by yourself?

Please explain how that applies to the gay marriage issue?

[VMI Dem]

16. "gay unions are afforded the same legal standing as marriage"

From your post.

[LARED]

19. Do you understand the doctrine of 'separate but equal'?

It would seem you don't. No one I know is advocating that gay couples be segregated from married couples.

[GodlessBiker]

21. Do you have a problem with civil unions for black people and marriages for white people?

[LARED]

25. That's a very odd question.

What are you trying to imply?

[GodlessBiker]

32. If civil unions are not "separate but equal," are not unlawfully discriminatory in any ...

meaningful way, and are a perfectly acceptable sole alternative to marriage for some members of our society, why limit them to just gay people?

In other words, the reasons it shocks the conscience to consider civil unions for black people and marriage for white people also shocks the conscience to consider civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. If the former is considered racist, then the latter is indeed homophobic.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. Post that as an OP

[LARED]

41. It is not exactly shocking to the conscience

to make a distinction between the union of a gay couple and a straight couple by calling the former a civil union and the latter a marriage.

[GodlessBiker]

50. As Yoda might say: "That is why you fail."

To those who are racist, it is not shocking to the conscience to make a distinction between black marriages and white marriages. To those you are ... well, you can finish the thought.

I'm sure you can make the distinction, but, to go back to the original thought, why would you do so? What reasons are there? What would the explanation be which did not involve treating same-sex couples with less dignity and respect than straight couples? And that's the point right? To somehow, in maybe a subtle yet distinct way, one that appears balanced but underneath really isnt, that would be the point, to publicly establish a clear sign that same-sex couples are different and somehow unworthy, less deserving, of marriage, that the love between sex-sex spouses is, in a qualitative way, different, less meaningful than the love between opposite-sex spouses? After all, if none of this is true, why make this ridiculous distinction in marriage?

Read Judge Walker's decision, he lays it out beautifully.

[laughingliberal]

60. Yes. I posted Judge Waker's ruling about this in #57. Brilliant, he is. nt

[Smashcut]

65. It's not shocking to a homophobe n/t

[LARED]

71. Oh please spare me the drama.

So the homosexuals I know that are not shocked that people make a distinction and don't equate marriage rights to civil rights are what. Latent homophobes, have no conscience, faking homosexuality? Or maybe they are just ok with just having equal standing under the law regardless of what their relationship is called.

[VMI Dem]

73. Well, the separate water fountains did have the same water I guess.

You've convinced me.

[LARED]

75. I really disheartening to see so many automatically

resort to implying sinister motivation if someone just slightly disagrees with the status quo regarding gay marriage.

[GodlessBiker]

76. You haven't quite stated why you think same-sex couples should be denied...

the right to marry, you've just said that it is a reasonable position to take.

Absent an explanation, and in light of the discrimination LGBT people face, I don't think the implication of a sinister motive is unreasonable.

[Jamastiene]

28. Are you the pretzel Bush almost choked on?

You must be all twisted up in knots after that stretch of imagination in your interpretation of separate but equal.

If gay people are not allowed the same marriage rights as straight people, AND allowed to call it marriage just the same as straight people, that is the separate but equal doctrine in a nutshell. It is a separate law for one group of people.

It may seem equal to you, but only because that right is not being denied to you. Don't forget, gay marriage is still not legal. A patchwork of "civil unions" and other bullshit names in only some states does NOT constitute equal under any definition. That's just poppycock.

Put the shoe on the other foot and imagine if you got a completely separate set of laws placed on your life. You'd be pissed too.

[Greyhound]

34. Stunning, isn't it?

The endless search for some way to couch the inexcusable as "the way it is, so it's OK" continues.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillParkinson]

45. Civil unions and marriage will never have equal standing...

Marriage will always trump civil unions just due to the wording. As someone once said in an excellent protest sign, "I didn't ask her to civil union me."

[uncommon]

56. You are advocating that gay marriages be segregated from straight marriages.

That gays be excluded from marriage and given the "just as good" option of civil unions.

[bullwinkle428]

49. Holy crap. I'll just let your subsequent posts speak for themselves!

:rofl:

[stranger81]

46. If you scratch beneath the surface of any of these hypothetical cultural or religious norms,

their underpinnings almost always rely on one form of bigotry or another. I challenge you to name one that doesn't ultimately boil down to that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. I'm not seeing it.

Opposing the marriage of two people solely because of the racial backgrounds of the parties must assume that there's some racial characteristic that one party possesses that either shouldn't be passed on to offspring, or will harm the other party.

The only exception I could imagine is fear that one's grandchildren will get sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. :shrug:

[laughingliberal]

57. Judge Walker Vaughn struck down the notion that civil unions provide equal rights. I agree.

Walker's findings, however, directly contradict Obama's stance on gay marriage. As Marc noted yesterday, Walker found that marriage is a civil institution, subject to religious intervention only when needed. And civil unions aren't the same, Walker finds: "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage...The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/jud...

[GodlessBiker]

14. Care to make those arguments? I don't see how either can be made without ...

being racist or homophobic.

I can't think of any argument which relies on facts that would work.

I believe that it is culturally important to keep the gene pools of the races genetically distinct. Marriage often, not always but often, leads to children, and an interracial marriage would muddy the gene pool.

I believe that children are best served by being raised by a mother and a father. Marriage Equality will lead to more children being raised by two people of the same sex.

The facts indicate both these arguments are ridiculous. First, the races are so close genetically that saying interracial births muddy the gene pool is statistically ridiculous. If we were talking about human/amoeba marriages, then maybe.

And Judge Walker established that the facts do not support the second argument.

All that is left is a belief unsupported by facts to deny people the right to do things other people are able to do, based upon race or sexual orientation. That's racism or homophobia.

I am sure there are cultural and religious reasons to oppose both, but those reasons are racist and homophobic.

[wuushew]

36. delete

[Iggo]

38. Just because someone's religion excuses racism...

...it doesn't mean it's not still racist.

Same with homophobia.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Jesus FUCK, I read that and I can't unread it.

:puke:

[uncommon]

54. Those principles would have to be, at their core, based on bigotry and/or racism.

This doesn't wash.

[Zoeisright]

8. None.

The first stance is racist by definition. The second is homophobic by definition.

[Hepburn]

9. If I knew something that was harmful to the relationship...

...such as one of the partners was still married to someone else, etc. However, the parties being of different races, religions and/or being gay is NOT a basis to oppose a marriage.

[QC]

12. If someone believes that "God is in the mix"? n/t

[baldguy]

17. If the couple were siblings?

Only thing I can think of.

[jgraz]

37. Interracial siblings?

How would that work? :shrug:

[baldguy]

39. The traditional definition of "race" as it is applied to humans is an artificial social construct

Created by Europeans to reinforce their presupposed superiority over the foreign "races" they conquered militarily and dominated economically.

Children will always have a mix of traits from their parents. It's certainly likely that one child would favor one parent while it's sibling would favor the other, even to a degree that some people would consider them to be different "races".

[jgraz]

42. Yeah, I get that.

Just thought the idea of interracial siblings was kinda funny. :D

[Gormy Cuss]

52. Half siblings ?

:hi:
but then again, it would illegal for gay half siblings to marry too.

[TheKentuckian]

67. Half siblings I reckon but that wouldn't be an objection to interracial marriage but to incest

[Fuzz]

20. I'm concerned about the children.

:sarcasm:

That's what I always heard growing up anyway.

Then I married an Asian woman I fell in love with on vacation and I heard "Mixed race children are always the most beautiful".

/sigh

[JustAnotherGen]

24. I heard that too

As a young child with a black father and a white mother. :angry: Uh - when I look at the two little girls from grade school days that said/parroted what their parents said -

And who they are today with little accomplishment.

And where I am today -


What's that about it 'hurting the children' again? It's bigotry and racism that drove that 'statement' - the only hurt I experienced was from racist assholes like that.

[CBR]

43. Oh yes! My husband and I heard that one as well.

Plus my Dad was very concerned that his "grandkids wouldn't look like him." We have not had any kids yet but these comments are so disturbing...

[guitar man]

44. that's an old smokescreen

I've heard that for years and years . "Oh, I have nothing against it per se, but people are cruel and I'm concerned about the torment the children would suffer"

My answer as always been "so then why don't you stop standing there winging your hands and do something about it, make an effort to make the world a better place instead of accepting the status quo?"

Now when somebody tosses that old rotten fish out there, my response is "you know, I'm concerned about the children too they could grow up to be...I don't know...PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!"

:evilgrin:

[pampango]

22. "My culture/religion makes me oppose them. I have no free will." That's the only

circumstance (a weak one at that) I can come up with. (Of course, even then you are a member of a racist culture/religion and accept it so it's a pretty weak defense.)

[Jamastiene]

27. Never.

I cannot think of one single instance where that would not be considered racist as hell. Period.

Same with gay marriage. It's homophobic as hell to tell gay people we should not have the right to marry. Period.

[Gaedel]

29. A lot of otherwise "lefty" women

Seem to be able to tell me that my marriage to a tiny little Asian woman means that I am a latent pedophile.

[rucky]

30. If John Boehner's orange race is involved?

[Prophet 451]

33. Um, because one race was an alien?

Extraterrestrial that is, not illegal (and even with extraterrestrials, if they were consenting adults and physiologically compatible...).

Yeah, that's about all I've got. I had to come up with an absurd situation to even attempt to find a rationale for it.

[anarch]

47. if one were opposed to the concept of marriage itself, than the opposition to specific instances

might be solely motivated by one's anti-marriage stance.

I'm hard pressed to think of any other circumstances....

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. None. Why?

Is your question really a proxy for another question?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

59. Wow... Forkboy... I think you've taken your Obama hatred to it's natural conclusion...

Utter unintelligible gibberish.

Might be time to regroup.

[Forkboy]

61. Every president has sycophants.

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter and beyond. Some have a lot more than others. Obama seems to have an average amount so far. When I see people mocking gay people in defense of a politician though, it's hard not to notice the current batch.

Might be time for those who care more about politicians than equal rights to regroup.

And on edit...it's not hatred for Obama, it's hatred for those who are more interested in covering for him when he's wrong instead of pointing out that he's wrong and maybe seeing a correction in that area...and he's wrong on gay marriage. Or do you like where he stands?

[JuniperLea]

62. Your response has zero to do with the OP...

And your comment was a broad brush attack on those who support Obama... an attack for nothing... a gratuitous attack... nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

If you wanted to draw lines between some dots you wanted to put out there, that would have been something entirely different.

Your last question is utter bullshit, btw.

I expect Obama to do what is right, regardless of his personal and/or religious beliefs.

I'm really growing weary of the infighting here.

[Forkboy]

63. Actually, it did.

It just did so in a way that you don't like, and that can't be my problem. The fact is that there are people right here on DU who do indeed care more about the president than equal rights. When the first response in a thread about the topic is met with, "Oh, it's YOU" than I'm hard pressed to think those people care much about equal rights at all. I know people here who were vocal about the topic before Obama was elected, and now I hardly ever see them say anything on the subject. What changed? Simple, there's a "D" being criticized this time. That is being a sycophant. Yes, we have 'em, too.

Your last question is utter bullshit, btw.

Well, no offense, but I see you expend a lot more energy here defending Obama on the topic than defending those who are actually the ones lacking the same rights as us. Gay people are always being told their turn is coming, any day now, by Democrats. I watched it unfold in the 90's, and I'm watching it unfold much the same way again now. And, quite frankly, I'm not too worried about who offend this time around.

I expect Obama to do what is right, regardless of his personal and/or religious beliefs.

So do a lot of other people here. You seem to be more upset at them for expecting it than you are at Obama for being half-assed about it. If you're weary of the infighting I wouldn't be expecting it to end anytime soon with an approach like that.

[LWolf]

64. Forkboy is a model of restraint and tolerance

at DU in comparison to many. Your over-reaction provides a good example.

[Touchdown]

69. I found his post much more coherent than yours.

... but that's just me.:hi:

[Dark Knight]

66. What happened to the poll?

[Touchdown]

68. When more important things need addressing first... like colonizing Mars.

or the cure for religious belief.

You know! Pragmatism and sensible governing!

[TheKentuckian]

70. No such circumstances that I'm aware of or see possible. Either one is douchebaggery

[Taverner]

74. None and none

If you don't like interracial marriages then you don't like my family

If you don't like my family because you're too ignorant to think otherwise - fuck off and die. Literally. Go find a gun and shoot yourself in the head. You'd be doing the world a favor.

And if you don't support gay marriages, just get over it. It's going to happen, millions of Americans will be happier, healthier and wiser for it.

[Iggo]

78. This.

:fistbump:

[TexasObserver]

77. none