Discussion:
Interracial mariage and gay marriage.
(too old to reply)
RP
2008-05-23 23:31:33 UTC
Permalink
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.

Especially the focus on sexuality. Most aknowledged that whites and blacks
could be friendly......But the thought that white and blacks were having sex
was intolerable to many people...no matter how much they loved each other.

People opposed it even in the name of religion...and more specifically
Christianity.

And now....40 years later interracial marriage is no big deal to most
people....even religious people.

The woman who's case let to the end of the ban recently passed away.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/05/mildred_loving_matriarch_of_interracial_marriage_dies?mode=PF

Mildred Loving, matriarch of interracial marriage, dies
By Dionne Walker, Associated Press Writer | May 5, 2008

RICHMOND, Va. --Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia's
ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking
down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Peggy Fortune said Loving, 68, died Friday at her home in rural Milford. She
did not disclose the cause of death.

"I want (people) to remember her as being strong and brave yet humble -- and
believed in love," Fortune told The Associated Press.

Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws
banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.

"There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because
of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal
protection clause," the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

Her husband died in 1975. Shy and soft-spoken, Loving shunned publicity and
in a rare interview with The Associated Press last June, insisted she never
wanted to be a hero -- just a bride.

"It wasn't my doing," Loving said. "It was God's work."

Mildred Jeter was 11 when she and 17-year-old Richard began courting,
according to Phyl Newbeck, a Vermont author who detailed the case in the
2004 book, "Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers."

She became pregnant a few years later, she and Loving got married in
Washington in 1958, when she was 18. Mildred told the AP she didn't realize
it was illegal.

"I think my husband knew," Mildred said. "I think he thought (if) we were
married, they couldn't bother us."

But they were arrested a few weeks after they returned to Central Point,
their hometown in rural Caroline County north of Richmond. They pleaded
guilty to charges of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and
dignity of the Commonwealth," according to their indictments.

They avoided jail time by agreeing to leave Virginia -- the only home they'd
known -- for 25 years. They moved to Washington for several years, then
launched a legal challenge by writing to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy,
who referred the case to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorneys later said the case came at the perfect time -- just as lawmakers
passed the Civil Rights Act, and as across the South, blacks were defying
Jim Crow's hold.

"The law that threatened the Lovings with a year in jail was a vestige of a
hateful, discriminatory past that could not stand in the face of the
Lovings' quiet dignity," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director for
the ACLU.

"We loved each other and got married," she told The Washington Evening Star
in 1965, when the case was pending. "We are not marrying the state. The law
should allow a person to marry anyone he wants."

After the Supreme Court ruled, the couple returned to Virginia, where they
lived with their children, Donald, Peggy and Sidney. Each June 12, the
anniversary of the ruling, Loving Day events around the country mark the
advances of mixed-race couples.

Richard Loving died in a car accident that also injured his wife. "They said
I had to leave the state once, and I left with my wife," he told the Star in
1965. "If necessary, I will leave Virginia again with my wife, but I am not
going to divorce her."
Matthew Johnson
2008-05-26 18:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
What similarities? I don't see any. Neither did the Judicial Watch lawyers who
wrote the Amicus Curiae brief on this case. It is at:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/SameSexMarriageAmicus%20--%20WithExhibits.pdf

Now I have to add: before I read this, I always dismissed Judicial Watch as just
another right-wing think tank. But their position on this court case is _so_
eminently reasonable, I have a great respect for them now.

[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Rrraado Rn
2008-05-27 01:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/05/mildred_loving_matriarch_of_interracial_marriage_dies?mode=PF
What similarities? I don't see any.
after reading the article it looks like there were smililar in the way these
couples were/are treated

-ultra right wing christians using their faith as an excuse to treat them
poorly. (didn't the kkk use their faith as an excuse for their hatred?)

-pre-occupation of the oppostion with what went on in the bedrooms of
others.

-loving people who just wanted the same rights as anyone else


i can't imagine why anyone wouldn't see these similarities, unless, of
course, they choose not too see them.
Post by RP
Now I have to add: before I read this, I always dismissed Judicial Watch as just
another right-wing think tank. But their position on this court case is _so_
eminently reasonable, I have a great respect for them now.
so the fact that they now agree with you...makes them now legitimate?

i hardly see them as an unbiased analyssis...by their very nature they have
formed an opinion before they even look at the issue.
RP
2008-05-31 03:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
What similarities? I don't see any. Neither did the Judicial Watch lawyers who
http://www.judicialwatch.org/arcive/2007/SameSexMarriageAmicus%20--%20WithExhibits.pdf
Now I have to add: before I read this, I always dismissed Judicial Watch as just
another right-wing think tank.
If every one of their analysis (analasii's?) is 'right-wing'...then I think
they are well deserving of the title "right wing think tank"!

Have they ever looked at an issue with anything but a right wing persepctive
(and foregone conclusion)?
Anonymous
2008-05-31 03:19:15 UTC
Permalink
The very fact that authorities barged into their bedroom to "catch them in
the act"...shows that their interest was more prurient than noble.

The sodomy case in Texas was very similar...and even if they are not barging
in....most people are hung up on the sex.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/05/mildred_loving_matriarch_of_interracial_marriage_dies?mode=PF
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/05/mildred_loving_matriarch_of_interracial_marriage_dies?mode=PF
Post by Matthew Johnson
What similarities? I don't see any. Neither did the Judicial Watch lawyers who
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/SameSexMarriageAmicus%20--%20WithExhibits.pdf
Now I have to add: before I read this, I always dismissed Judicial Watch as just
another right-wing think tank. But their position on this court case is _so_
eminently reasonable, I have a great respect for them now.
[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-05-31 03:19:15 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Rrraado Rn
after reading the article it looks like there were smililar in the way these
couples were/are treated
That may be true. But if Tom and Harry are treated in similar ways, does that
make Tom and Harry similar? Of course not.


[snip]
Post by Rrraado Rn
-loving people who just wanted the same rights as anyone else
No, the "loving people" _you_ are talking about want a _new_ right, a right to
take the benefits that pertain to married people, though they cannot themselves
be married, since marriage is always "a man, a woman".
Post by Rrraado Rn
i can't imagine why anyone wouldn't see these similarities, unless, of
course, they choose not too see them.
You are still confusing similarities with how they are treated, with
similarities in them themselves.
Post by Rrraado Rn
so the fact that they now agree with you...makes them now legitimate?
No, the fact that they agree with me so _well_ using only sound arguments,
clearly expressed. Have you read it yourself yet? Or did you just _assume_ that
I recommended them only because I agree them?
Post by Rrraado Rn
i hardly see them as an unbiased analyssis...by their very nature they have
formed an opinion before they even look at the issue.
How ironic. You accuse them of bias, yet when you say, "by their very nature..."
you reveal your _own_ bias.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-02 09:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
The very fact that authorities barged into their bedroom to "catch them in
the act"...shows that their interest was more prurient than noble.
It shows no such thing. It shows only to what they were willing to resort to
enforce the law. Only in the imagination of a slanderer can this be "prurient
interests".
Post by Anonymous
The sodomy case in Texas was very similar...and even if they are not barging
in....most people are hung up on the sex.
No, it is not similar at all. Acts of sodomy, repellent though they are, hve
little to do with marriage as an institution. But the so-called "gay marriage"
has a _lot_ to do with marriage as an institution. This alone is enough to make
a BIG difference.

Tampering with the institutions of society is a dangerous thing to do,
_especially_ when it is done by people who don't even realize they are doing it.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-02 09:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
What similarities? I don't see any. Neither did the Judicial Watch lawyers who
http://www.judicialwatch.org/arcive/2007/SameSexMarriageAmicus%20--%20WithExhibits.pdf
Now I have to add: before I read this, I always dismissed Judicial Watch as just
another right-wing think tank.
If every one of their analysis (analasii's?) is 'right-wing'...then I think
they are well deserving of the title "right wing think tank"!
'IF' is such a big two-letter word;)
Post by RP
Have they ever looked at an issue with anything but a right wing persepctive
(and foregone conclusion)?
Why, yes. They have. But will you recognize this, or will you resort to circular
reasoning and dismiss _all_ of their analysis as "right wing"?

Consider this example: they hold up the current compostion of the California
Court as an example of why we _cannot_ rely on Republicans to be
constructionist.

Now what is "right wing" about that? Or will you insist that all
constructionists are "right wing"?

There is also the example of their exposing corruption in both US and Mexican
governments in border issues.

You can run in circles with your circular reasoning, but you cannot hide; the
truth is that Judicial Watch is right. This was an audacious power grab by
judicial activists, offensive both to Christians and to anyone else who
understands why real marriage is such a fundamental institution in human
society.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
RP
2008-06-03 03:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Have they ever looked at an issue with anything but a right wing
persepctive
(and foregone conclusion)?
Why, yes. They have. But will you recognize this, or will you resort to
circular
reasoning and dismiss _all_ of their analysis as "right wing"?
Well, if given the proof.

Can you name an issue that they came out supporting on the "liberal side"?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Consider this example: they hold up the current compostion of the
California
Court as an example of why we _cannot_ rely on Republicans to be
constructionist.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat....it's right-wing conservative vs.
liberal.
Post by Matthew Johnson
There is also the example of their exposing corruption in both US and
Mexican
governments in border issues.
This is not a left or right issue.
Post by Matthew Johnson
You can run in circles with your circular reasoning, but you cannot hide;
the
truth is that Judicial Watch is right.
The truth is Judicial Watch is Right (with a capital 'R'.)
RP
2008-06-03 03:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Anonymous
The very fact that authorities barged into their bedroom to "catch them in
the act"...shows that their interest was more prurient than noble.
It shows no such thing. It shows only to what they were willing to resort
to
enforce the law.
The law could have been enforced many ways...yet they chose to 'catch them
in the act'.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Anonymous
The sodomy case in Texas was very similar...and even if they are not
barging
in....most people are hung up on the sex.
No, it is not similar at all. Acts of sodomy, repellent though they are,
hve
little to do with marriage as an institution.
Of course it's similar. Obsession with what goes on in the bedroom.

Barging in to "catch them in the act".

If you don't see the similarities, you are closing your eyes to it
purposely.
Post by Matthew Johnson
But the so-called "gay marriage"
has a _lot_ to do with marriage as an institution. This alone is enough to
make
a BIG difference.
Intermarriage bewtween the races was also seen as an attack on an
'instituion'.

So was the abolishment of slavery. Same excuses were used.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Tampering with the institutions of society is a dangerous thing to do,
_especially_ when it is done by people who don't even realize they are
doing it.
Tell that to the slaves that were freed when that "instituion" was 'tampered
with'. Terribly dangerous....
Anonymous
2008-06-03 03:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Anonymous
The very fact that authorities barged into their bedroom to "catch them in
the act"...shows that their interest was more prurient than noble.
It shows no such thing. It shows only to what they were willing to resort
to
enforce the law.
....they are willing to resort to barging in to a coupes bedroom ?

u are defending this?

whats next...checking to see if they were using birth control ?

(that was illegal at one time.)
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-06 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Anonymous
The very fact that authorities barged into their bedroom to "catch them in
the act"...shows that their interest was more prurient than noble.
It shows no such thing. It shows only to what they were willing to
resort to enforce the law.
The law could have been enforced many ways...yet they chose to 'catch
them in the act'.
You are showing your ignorance of the case. The law had very strict
standards of evidence, hard to meet any other way. In practice, they
had no choice, if they wanted a conviction.
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Anonymous
The sodomy case in Texas was very similar...and even if they are
not barging in....most people are hung up on the sex.
No, it is not similar at all. Acts of sodomy, repellent though they
are, have little to do with marriage as an institution.
Of course it's similar. Obsession with what goes on in the bedroom.
No, that does not make it similar. As I already explained, the
difference it that between a single act and an institution. Why is
this so hard for you to understand?

Nor is it 'obsession' to go to the lengths required by the rules of
evidence. But that is all they did.
Post by RP
Barging in to "catch them in the act".
If you don't see the similarities, you are closing your eyes to it
purposely.
You are the one closing your eyes to it purposely, closing your eyes
to the difference between a single act and an attack on an institution
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
But the so-called "gay marriage" has a _lot_ to do with marriage as
an institution. This alone is enough to make a BIG difference.
Intermarriage bewtween the races was also seen as an attack on an
'instituion'.
No, it was not. Nor could it have been, since other countries had been
practicing "intermarriage between the races" for centuries. You are
misrepresenting the history to make excuses for your false analogy.
Post by RP
So was the abolishment of slavery. Same excuses were used.
No, not the same at all. Don't you know _any_ history? Then, the
'excuse' was fear of 'mongrelization'. But even if that had been a
legitimate concern, it had little to do with marriage as an
institution -- or with its corruption. How could it, when other
Christian countries had allowed miscegenation for centuries?
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Tampering with the institutions of society is a dangerous thing to
do, _especially_ when it is done by people who don't even realize
they are doing it.
Tell that to the slaves that were freed when that "instituion" was
'tampered with'. Terribly dangerous....
Again, you don't know the history. If you did, you would realize that
a lot of blacks didn't feel their freedom was real until _decades_
after the Emancipation Proclamation. Some even said not until the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So yes it was terribly dangerous. If they had been freed in another
way, they might have really enjoyed their freedom long before 1964.

Also, though this is getting more and more off topic, the institution
of slavery was already dying due to economic reasons; it was already
on "life-support" in the South, causing a lot of suffering as it was
itself suffering a slow death.

So just as I have said so often, this analogy between the fight
against slavery and that for "gay marriage" is a false analogy.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-06 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Have they ever looked at an issue with anything but a right wing
persepctive
(and foregone conclusion)?
Why, yes. They have. But will you recognize this, or will you resort to
circular
reasoning and dismiss _all_ of their analysis as "right wing"?
Well, if given the proof.
Do your own homework. You are dragging this thread off-topic.
Post by RP
Can you name an issue that they came out supporting on the "liberal side"?
Again: do your own homework. You are dragging this thread off-topic. But I will
give you a hint: look at what they said about the claim that Niger tried to sell
"yellow-cake". They most certainly did _not_ toe the neo-con party line on this
one.
Post by RP
The truth is Judicial Watch is Right (with a capital 'R'.)
So close and yet so far! No, they are right with a small R, and on this issue.

Read the brief yourself. If you ever _have_ read Montesquieu and the Federalist
Papers, you will be able to see for yourself that they are _much_ more faithful
to the legal tradition that produced the Constitution than the California
Supreme Court was.

That _is_ the proof you ask for. Do you have the stomach for it, or will you
refuse to do it, and come back with a long list of lame excuses?
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Rrrado Rn
2008-06-06 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
But the so-called "gay marriage"
has a _lot_ to do with marriage as an institution. This alone is enough
to
make
a BIG difference.
Intermarriage bewtween the races was also seen as an attack on an
'instituion'.
It surely was! It was considered an attack on Christianity and the "ordered
world". It was considered an attack on the country. It was going to lead
to the downfall of humanity! It was against God's design!

How silly it all looks now.

I hope Christians of this generation don't look silly when future
generations look back.
A Brown
2008-06-06 02:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
What similarities? I don't see any. Neither did the Judicial Watch
lawyers
Judicial Watch = RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES.
A Brown
2008-06-06 02:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Anonymous
The very fact that authorities barged into their bedroom to "catch them in
the act"...shows that their interest was more prurient than noble.
It shows no such thing. It shows only to what they were willing to resort
to
enforce the law.
If they broke the law by simply being married. The authorities could've
knocked on their door during daylight hours

It was no secret they were married.

Instead, they had to (wanted to) catch them in bed together. (I wouldn't be
surprised if they brought a news reporter with them.)

yes, it's amazing what extent they will go to to 'enforce the law'.
A Brown
2008-06-09 00:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Have they ever looked at an issue with anything but a right wing
persepctive
(and foregone conclusion)?
Why, yes. They have. But will you recognize this, or will you resort to
circular
reasoning and dismiss _all_ of their analysis as "right wing"?
Well, if given the proof.
Do your own homework. You are dragging this thread off-topic.
Let's review.

It was stated that there are similarities....

You stated that there were not similar...citing a Judicial Watch as a
non-partisan analysis.

It was pointed out that virtually everything they do is Conservative and
(ultra) right wing.

You bugged out of the discussion.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Can you name an issue that they came out supporting on the "liberal side"?
Again: do your own homework. You are dragging this thread off-topic.
See above. The thread is following thru to it's illogical conclusion...and
you are running from the answers.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
The truth is Judicial Watch is Right (with a capital 'R'.)
So close and yet so far! No, they are right with a small R, and on this
issue.
But with a BIG 'R' on every issue they "analyze".
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
You see "murdering and dismembering people" on an equal footing with
same-sex marriage?
Steve said no such thing. Rather, he was using his rather extreme example
to
illustrate...
To illustrate his emotions and opinions without anything to back it up?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
The law could have been enforced many ways...yet they chose to 'catch
them in the act'.
You are showing your ignorance of the case.
I am very familiar with the case...having studied it in college.
Post by Matthew Johnson
The law had very strict
standards of evidence, hard to meet any other way. In practice, they
had no choice, if they wanted a conviction.
Wrong. But feel free to make up anything else that you feel supports your
position.

Using the WWJD model....would Jesus barge into someone's bedroom?
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-09 00:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
What similarities? I don't see any. Neither did the Judicial Watch
lawyers
Judicial Watch = RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES.
Simple minded equations like that just don't cut muster. They expose corruption
among both conservatives and liberals, and they exposed evidence that Bush
misled the country about Nigeria and yellow cake.

So they have shown MUCH more open-mindedness than you ever have. All the more
reason to read their Amicus Curiae brief explaining why the CA Court majority is
wrong, the Court minority is correct: 'marriage' is and always has been between
a man and a woman, the majority _is_ redefining it. This redefinition is an
incredibly reckless example of 'social engineering'.

There is and can be nothing Christian about such social engineering. Christians
cannot support it any more than we can devil-worship.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
RP
2008-06-09 00:23:31 UTC
Permalink
This should settle things about this side-issue, which Matthew had hoped to
From Wikipedia..."Judicial Watch receives funding from mainly conservative
sources. "

It's founder: "Larry Klayman - founder of Judicial Watch and a key figure
seeking Clinton's impeachment --"
"The right-wing litigation group Judicial Watch made it known that that
among their top targets are immigrants looking for work when they"
From Direct Democracy: "Right Wing Judicial Watch Files FEC Complaint
Against McCain"

NYTimes: "Judicial Watch, home of the frivolous right-wing lawsuit as
publicity campaign"
From Public Eye.org: "To enter the world of Tom Fitton, President of the
conservative, D.C.-based group, Judicial Watch, "


Do we need more references?
RP
2008-06-09 00:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Anonymous
The very fact that authorities barged into their bedroom to "catch them
in
the act"...shows that their interest was more prurient than noble.
It shows no such thing. It shows only to what they were willing to
resort to enforce the law.
The law could have been enforced many ways...yet they chose to 'catch
them in the act'.
You are showing your ignorance of the case. The law had very strict
standards of evidence, hard to meet any other way. In practice, they
had no choice, if they wanted a conviction.
Where do you get this stuff?

The law outlawed marriage between interacial couples. There was no other
way to prove this than barging in in the middle of the night?

What did they prove in the night they couldn't prove during the day?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
No, it is not similar at all. Acts of sodomy, repellent though they
are, have little to do with marriage as an institution.
Of course it's similar. Obsession with what goes on in the bedroom.
No, that does not make it similar.
It's similar in that it deals with an obsession by others with what goes on
in the bedroom.

You can't see that?
Post by Matthew Johnson
You are the one closing your eyes to it purposely, closing your eyes
to the difference between a single act and an attack on an institution
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
But the so-called "gay marriage" has a _lot_ to do with marriage as
an institution. This alone is enough to make a BIG difference.
Intermarriage bewtween the races was also seen as an attack on an
'instituion'.
No, it was not.
Of course it was. Marriage was seen as something that existed for the
longest time ONLY betwen the same race.

Keeping the instiituion of marriage from being challenged or attacked...or
going after the "sanctitiy of marriage"...

The "instituion" at the time was the races keep to themselves. The blood
couldn't/shouldn't mix.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
So was the abolishment of slavery. Same excuses were used.
No, not the same at all.
Of course it was. THe KKK used religion to try to keep the races
apart...and to "protect their women".
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Tampering with the institutions of society is a dangerous thing to
do, _especially_ when it is done by people who don't even realize
they are doing it.
Tell that to the slaves that were freed when that "instituion" was
'tampered with'. Terribly dangerous....
Again, you don't know the history. If you did, you would realize that
a lot of blacks didn't feel their freedom was real until _decades_
after the Emancipation Proclamation. Some even said not until the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Your argument was about attacking institutions....When they were freed
doesn't matter.

If they had used your logic "you can't atack an institution!"...then we'd
still have slaves.

Some instituions need to be attacked. For many they are an excuse.
Post by Matthew Johnson
So just as I have said so often, this analogy between the fight
against slavery and that for "gay marriage" is a false analogy.
I have shown over and over that it's similar. SImilar excuses were used to
retain bigotry and bias.

Not very Christian.
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-09 00:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Anonymous
The very fact that authorities barged into their bedroom to "catch
them in the act"...shows that their interest was more prurient than
noble.
It shows no such thing. It shows only to what they were willing to
resort to enforce the law.
If they broke the law by simply being married.
yes, it's amazing what extent they will go to to 'enforce the law'.
More amazing is the extent you will go to to use confused versions of
the 'facts' to rationalize your propaganda campaign.

There is simply no valid anaogy between interracial marriage and "gay
marriage".
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-09 00:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rrrado Rn
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
But the so-called "gay marriage" has a _lot_ to do with marriage
as an institution. This alone is enough to make a BIG difference.
Intermarriage bewtween the races was also seen as an attack on an
'instituion'.
It surely was! It was considered an attack on Christianity and the
"ordered world".
You miss the point: it was so 'considered' only by people with the
_worst_ possible credentials to claim to speak for Christianity. And
they were always a small and bizarre minority among Christians.
Post by Rrrado Rn
It was considered an attack on the country. It was going to lead to
the downfall of humanity! It was against God's design!
Can you name even _one_ Christian preacher outside the US who believed
this? NO? I didn't think so.
Post by Rrrado Rn
How silly it all looks now.
Again, you miss the point: most Christians realized even then how
silly it looked. So again, not analogous to the current debate.

But perhaps it was not as silly as your attempt to forge a link
between interracial marriage and "gay marriage"...
Post by Rrrado Rn
I hope Christians of this generation don't look silly when future
generations look back.
They will if they support "gay marriage". Marriage has always been
between a man and a woman. Trying to change _that_ is what looks
silly. It is a silly as calling a rabbit a bird!
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
B
2008-05-31 03:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
B - absolutely. Even though you don't find it as much in my country
(Canada) it still exists. For the life of me I can't understand how
what a person does with another adult ...not related to them...in
their bedrooms etc. has anything to do with anyone else. Perhaps they
have no life I don't know. I find that these folks that get in your
face over this thing claiming it's against the Bible...well first
off..hello, not everyone is Christian and second...why are they so
interested in the material world bypassing the spirit that they claim
to be into? I would think the body parts are so superficial when it
comes to learning about love and spirit and what really matters.

Many of my gay friends shake their heads at the politics surrounding
their lives..as do I. What is the fear? NO one chooses it...they only
choice they make is to come out of the closet if they have ever been
there. No one recruits....I can't be changed into a lesbian no matter
what another does..why? because I was born loving men. I wish they
would get to know more gay people instead of yacking about it from
outside the zone with what they THINK are gay interests etc.
Anyway...god bless all my two spirited friends ..I hope all of the
U.S. makes marriage open to all adult and non-related human beings
regardless of their sex,gender or what have you.
Bren
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-02 09:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by B
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
B - absolutely. Even though you don't find it as much in my country
(Canada) it still exists. For the life of me I can't understand how
what a person does with another adult ...not related to them...in
their bedrooms etc. has anything to do with anyone else.
Perhaps if you were a Christian, and understood the notion of Christian
Marriage, then you would realize it has a great dealt to do with other people.

But in fact, you don't even need to be Christian to realize this: all you need
to do is realize that not only in US Law, but in all its predecessors,
'marriage' has been not just a pact between a man and a woman, but an
_institution_.

A little reflection on these four words "marriage is an institution" goes a
along way.

[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Steve Hayes
2008-06-02 09:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by B
B - absolutely. Even though you don't find it as much in my country
(Canada) it still exists. For the life of me I can't understand how
what a person does with another adult ...not related to them...in
their bedrooms etc. has anything to do with anyone else.
So can I take it you would have no objection to my murdering unrelated adults
in my bedroom and dismembering their corpses for disposal, even if some people
said it was against what the Bible teaches?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
RP
2008-06-03 03:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by B
B - absolutely. Even though you don't find it as much in my country
(Canada) it still exists. For the life of me I can't understand how
what a person does with another adult ...not related to them...in
their bedrooms etc. has anything to do with anyone else.
So can I take it you would have no objection to my murdering unrelated
adults
in my bedroom and dismembering their corpses for disposal...
You see "murdering and dismembering people" on an equal footing with
same-sex marriage?

And, again, you want to obsess about the bedroom.

How you equate that to two loving consenting adults wanting to comitt to
each other for life faithfully...is beyond me, and not worthy of further
response.

But then again, South Africa has a long history of hanging onto
institutional thinking......without logic.
Steve Hayes
2008-06-06 02:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by B
B - absolutely. Even though you don't find it as much in my country
(Canada) it still exists. For the life of me I can't understand how
what a person does with another adult ...not related to them...in
their bedrooms etc. has anything to do with anyone else.
So can I take it you would have no objection to my murdering unrelated
adults
in my bedroom and dismembering their corpses for disposal...
You see "murdering and dismembering people" on an equal footing with
same-sex marriage?
I didn't say that, did I?

I was merely pointing out that what people do with unrelated adults in their
bedrooms can sometimes convern other people.
Post by RP
And, again, you want to obsess about the bedroom.
Really?
Post by RP
How you equate that to two loving consenting adults wanting to comitt to
each other for life faithfully...is beyond me, and not worthy of further
response.
Well, how you can equate that with manufacturing terrorist bombs to blow up
innocent people in public places is beyond me (that's another thing one can do
with unrelated adults in bedrooms).
Post by RP
But then again, South Africa has a long history of hanging onto
institutional thinking......without logic.
Gaudeamus sequitur, juvenes dum sumus.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-06 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by B
B - absolutely. Even though you don't find it as much in my country
(Canada) it still exists. For the life of me I can't understand how
what a person does with another adult ...not related to them...in
their bedrooms etc. has anything to do with anyone else.
So can I take it you would have no objection to my murdering unrelated
adults
in my bedroom and dismembering their corpses for disposal...
You see "murdering and dismembering people" on an equal footing with
same-sex marriage?
Steve said no such thing. Rather, he was using his rather extreme example to
illustrate the fallacy behind your appeal for us to believe that what happens
behind closed doors is not our business.

[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
RP
2008-06-09 00:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by B
B - absolutely. Even though you don't find it as much in my country
(Canada) it still exists. For the life of me I can't understand how
what a person does with another adult ...not related to them...in
their bedrooms etc. has anything to do with anyone else.
So can I take it you would have no objection to my murdering unrelated
adults
in my bedroom and dismembering their corpses for disposal...
You see "murdering and dismembering people" on an equal footing with
same-sex marriage?
I didn't say that, did I?
I was merely pointing out that what people do with unrelated adults in
their
bedrooms can sometimes convern other people.
Well, it's not what the room is called...could be the dining room or the
kitchen.

Two adults making love to one another is not something the government should
be pokingit's nose (or anything else) into.
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
And, again, you want to obsess about the bedroom.
Really?
Some people just can't get it out of their mind.
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
How you equate that to two loving consenting adults wanting to comitt to
each other for life faithfully...is beyond me, and not worthy of further
response.
Well, how you can equate that with manufacturing terrorist bombs to blow
up
innocent people in public places is beyond me (that's another thing one
can do
with unrelated adults in bedrooms).
More nonsense. I give up.
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
But then again, South Africa has a long history of hanging onto
institutional thinking......without logic.
Is that why this rant makes no sense?
RP
2008-06-09 00:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by B
B - absolutely. Even though you don't find it as much in my country
(Canada) it still exists. For the life of me I can't understand how
what a person does with another adult ...not related to them...in
their bedrooms etc. has anything to do with anyone else.
So can I take it you would have no objection to my murdering unrelated
adults
in my bedroom and dismembering their corpses for disposal...
You see "murdering and dismembering people" on an equal footing with
same-sex marriage?
Steve said no such thing. Rather, he was using his rather extreme example
to
illustrate the fallacy behind your appeal for us to believe that what
happens
behind closed doors is not our business.
It wasn't a reference to "behind closed doors"...it was a reference to "in
the bedroom" which is polite speak for acts of intimacy.

You didn't get that? Or is this another side-trip we're taking....?
Steve Hayes
2008-06-02 09:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
There is no similarity at all.

It's a bit like saying that there is a similarity between opposition to
interracial meals and opposition to poison meals.

The first concerns the nature of the people who participate in the act, the
second concerns the nature of the act itself.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
RP
2008-06-03 03:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
There is no similarity at all.
It's a bit like saying that there is a similarity between opposition to
interracial meals and opposition to poison meals.
Lay on the rhetoric why don't you....

Do people die from gay marriage? The 'poison' is only from your own
persopnal beliefs...there is factual basis behind this.

(BTW...I could imagine that the opponenets of interracial marriage were
calling it a 'poison' as well.)
Post by Steve Hayes
The first concerns the nature of the people who participate in the act, the
second concerns the nature of the act itself.
The nature of "the act" is two people lovingly comitting to take care of one
another faithfully till the day they die.

Unless of course by "the act" you are once again only thinking about the
bedroom.

That again would show a similarity to interracial marriage.
Anonymous
2008-06-03 03:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
There is no similarity at all.
It's a bit like saying that there is a similarity between opposition to
interracial meals and opposition to poison meals.
sounds like the kkk saying that blacks and white marrying is going to lead
to the downfall of the nation....and that their fighting it was ....for the
children and future generations......
Steve Hayes
2008-06-06 02:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anonymous
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
There is no similarity at all.
It's a bit like saying that there is a similarity between opposition to
interracial meals and opposition to poison meals.
sounds like the kkk saying that blacks and white marrying is going to lead
to the downfall of the nation....and that their fighting it was ....for the
children and future generations......
No, it sounds a great deal more like assuming, on the basis that both tigers
and bottles of arsenic are killers, putting a tiger and a bottle of arsenic in
an arena and waiting for them to fight it out.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
2008-06-06 02:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Do people die from gay marriage? The 'poison' is only from your own
persopnal beliefs...there is factual basis behind this.
A young Christian Scientist of Deal
once said, "Although pain isn't real,
when I sit on a pin
and it punctures my skin
I dislike what I fancy I feel."
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
A Brown
2008-06-09 00:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Anonymous
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
There is no similarity at all.
It's a bit like saying that there is a similarity between opposition to
interracial meals and opposition to poison meals.
sounds like the kkk saying that blacks and white marrying is going to lead
to the downfall of the nation....and that their fighting it was ....for
the
children and future generations......
No, it sounds a great deal more like assuming, on the basis that both
tigers
and bottles of arsenic are killers, putting a tiger and a bottle of
arsenic in
an arena and waiting for them to fight it out.
You keep using the poison analogy with nothing to back it up.
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Anonymous
You see "murdering and dismembering people" on an equal footing with
same-sex marriage?
I didn't say that, did I?
What else were we to make of your non-sequitor?
Rrrado Rn
2008-06-09 00:23:31 UTC
Permalink
I don't get it....
Post by Steve Hayes
No, it sounds a great deal more like assuming, on the basis that both
tigers
and bottles of arsenic are killers, putting a tiger and a bottle of
arsenic in
an arena and waiting for them to fight it out.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
RP
2008-06-09 00:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Anonymous
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RP
It amazing how many similarities we see between the fight against
interracial marriage and the fight against gay marriage.
There is no similarity at all.
It's a bit like saying that there is a similarity between opposition to
interracial meals and opposition to poison meals.
sounds like the kkk saying that blacks and white marrying is going to lead
to the downfall of the nation....and that their fighting it was ....for
the
children and future generations......
No, it sounds a great deal more like assuming, on the basis that both
tigers
and bottles of arsenic are killers, putting a tiger and a bottle of
arsenic in
an arena and waiting for them to fight it out.
Does this make sense to anyone besides Steve and Matthew?

Tigers and arsenic......and interracial marriage?
Post by Steve Hayes
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
The place where they know all about interracial stuff?

----

[Not to me. I'm going to ask the participants to call it a day, or
reconnect it with things others are interested in. --clh]
Loading...