Logic about same race marriage

gaijin178 · Jun 22, 2005

lunalinda said:
I'm one of them.

Me too.

Jetgirl · Jun 22, 2005

I was mostly following the thread to watch Ledifni kick some intellectual butt.

Ledifni · Jun 22, 2005

Thanks guys, I do my best. The main reason I'm here is so that lurkers won't read Kasey's posts and imagine he's making some telling points. I doubt I'll change his mind but at least I can demonstrate that he's not worth following.

christalee4 · Jun 22, 2005

And Kasey, you still have not responded with a practical solution on how you can determine if a potential mate for your children is a racially pure white person, other than just making a subjective judgement based on your idea about ideal white racial visage. As you had stated before, this country, which has brought in nationalities from all kinds of places, has been perversely mixing in an ungodly fashion for the past 100 years. How can you exactly know who is truly whiter than snow, or who has some mongrel mix in their background? Would you request that your children's potential mate submit to a genetic test, in case you weren't sure?

Check out the link below that discusses how many white Americans have more black "blood" in them than they believe - for example, by 1950 it was estimated that one in five Americans had black genes in their ancestry:

http://slate.msn.com/id/35817/

If you found out that you had black ancestry in your blood line, would you then permit your children to marry another mixed-race person - well, I guess you would have to, to conform to your beliefs.

Ledifni · Jun 22, 2005

christalee4 said:
And Kasey, you still have not responded with a practical solution on how you can determine if a potential mate for your children is a racially pure white person, other than just making a subjective judgement based on your idea about ideal white racial visage. As you had stated before, this country, which has brought in nationalities from all kinds of places, has been perversely mixing in an ungodly fashion for the past 100 years. How can you exactly know who is truly whiter than snow, or who has some mongrel mix in their background? Would you request that your children's potential mate submit to a genetic test, in case you weren't sure?

More: Does he intend to submit to a genetic test himself, to make sure he isn't a "mongrel" (and thus the father of mongrel children)? If he finds that he is mixed-race, then who will he allow his children to marry? Will he test his children's suitors to make sure their blood is mixed in exactly the same proportions as his childrens' blood? Will he test his wife to see if her blood is mixed in the same proportions as his own? If it is not, will he divorce her? Sterilize himself? Sterilize her? These are very interesting questions, I think.

levi501 · Jun 22, 2005

Ledifni said:
Thanks guys, I do my best. The main reason I'm here is so that lurkers won't read Kasey's posts and imagine he's making some telling points. I doubt I'll change his mind but at least I can demonstrate that he's not worth following.

well for this lurker... to me the arguments have gotten lost in the pile and are resorting back to "you're ridiculous" and "you're wrong" assertions.
My morality isn't derived from the bible. So in that regard, I don't care what it says about interacial marriage. Although, I wouldn't put it past it to say something against the mixing the races.
Without going back and reading the entire thread(umm..no) it's hard to find your post where you initially tear apart his interpretations of the hebrew translations.

Ledifni · Jun 22, 2005

levi501 said:
well for this lurker... to me the arguments have gotten lost in the pile and are resorting back to "you're ridiculous" and "you're wrong" assertions.

Well... that's because he hasn't addressed anyone else's arguments, but simply insists that we haven't addressed his(when in fact, the arguments he refused to address were our responses to his arguments).

levi501 said:
My morality isn't derived from the bible. So in that regard, I don't care what it says about interacial marriage. Although, I wouldn't put it past it to say something against the mixing the races.

It can certainly be interpreted that way. But it can also be interpreted otherwise, which is the point of this thread. Oddly enough, Kasey has regressed to simply saying that his interpretation is a possible one, which nobody in this thread denies as far as I know. He seems to have forgotten that his duty here is to prove his claim that his interpretation is the only valid one.

levi501 said:
Without going back and reading the entire thread(umm..no) it's hard to find your post where you initially tear apart his interpretations of the hebrew translations.

You won't find it because it doesn't exist. I haven't argued that his translations are wrong, but that they don't matter because while the Bible does use the word that means "mixed-race," it doesn't say that mixed-race couples are against God.

The entire point of this thread, at least from my point of view, is to prove that (1) Kasey's ideas about family planning are unworkable and (2) that one can believe in the Bible without being racist. I think I've shown both of those to be true, as follows:

1) Kasey cannot provide any workable set of criteria for determining a person's race. He says that "everybody knows" what a black person is or what a white person is, and claims that he can tell on sight whether somebody is black or white. When asked how, he says, "It's obvious." When anyone asks how he will screen his children's suitors, he ignores it. When anyone asks how he knows he isn't mixed-race, he ignores it. When anyone asks how he knows that black people and white people aren't both descended from Shem, he ignores it. Essentially, he ignores any question or comment that might cause problems for his neat "everybody knows who I'm talking about" method of discrimination. This, I think, clearly shows that his ideas are unworkable.

2) Kasey argues that his interpretation of the Bible -- that it commands us to keep the races pure and avoid perverted and abominable miscegenation -- is the only possible one. While I am less inclined to address this argument since I feel Biblical arguments are incorrect anyway, I think I've consistently shown that his "proofs" don't actually prove anything. They are possible interpretations, yes, but not the only ones. I'm not going to list every post I've made in this thread to counter each of his ridiculous attempts at proving his points, but there are several of them in the past few pages that you could look over, if you're really interested in why Kasey's arguments from the Bible don't prove his point.

Kasey · Jun 22, 2005

Ledifni said:
As I clearly showed, your verses don't "state" anything of the sort. They state various things, but not one forbids interracial marriage. The one that best supports your position says merely that if the daughter of a priest marries outside of Israel, she is barred from that particular rite. No punishment, no condemnation, no command to do otherwise.

Nehemiah 13:3:Now it came to pass that when they heard the law; that they seperate from Israel all the mixed multitude.

According to The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the word "mixed', on page 220 of the Hebrew index, its the Hebrew word "ereb" and it means the web (or transberse threads of cloth); also a mixture, (or """"mongrel race"""" ), mixed multititude.

According to The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible words, on page 730, undere 6154, it states that this word "ereb" means a mixture, a mongrel race.

According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, on page 652, under 6154, it states for this word to be strangers, aliens.

These are the Experts and THEY show "YOU" to be wrong. I have the evidence, I get specific, you dont. In addition, yeah, according to the verses in Nehemiah 13:1, its talking about the Moabites, but, you dont go according to the context of the specific laws in which it was talking about, its Deuteronomy 23:2 with the word "bastar$

According to The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible words, on page 161 of the Hebrew index, under 4464, its the Hebrew word "mamzer" and it means to alienate, A MONGREL, i.e - one born of a jewish father and a heathen mother.

According to The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words states this as well. According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, on page 480, under 4464, it states spurious, a bastar5.

Now, according to the context of the Bible using "tenth generations", the only conclusion is that its talking about racial lineage. This is completely verified by the fact that Adam and Eve were not created first and therefore, under the context of the previous animal and plant-life creation being after THEIR KIND, this would apply to humans as well. Thus, according to the context, Deuteornomy 23:2 is talking in a racial context as God the Father and CHrist Jesus made them after their specific kinds to begin with.

Now, Moab and Ammon are mentioned in verse 3 of Deuteronomy 23. Note, however, they are mentioned in the same context as verse 2. Even unto their TENTH generation. Its in a racial context as in mongrelization in addition to Balaam in verse 4. Thus, you have pure-racial Moabites and mongrelizeds moabites. The context, as shown conclusively in Nehemiah 13:3 and Dueteronomy 23:2-3 is a RACIAL CONTEXT.

You cannot get around this. My sources prove you to be in error.

And as I further clearly stated, I don't care what the Bible says about it. So here we have: You can't defend your position from the Bible. You don't know how to use the Bible and much as you pretend to, you do not understand Hebrew. Furthermore, even if you could defend your position, it would have no effect on me. If you somehow managed to find a proof of your position in the Bible (I would be very surprised, but anything is possible), it would serve only to prove to me that the Bible is as evil as you are.

I have defended my position, my sources and the context of scripture prove it.

Im evil? Oh, calling me names again? How loving of you!

Given all that, I can't help but laugh at your great zeal and eagerness to dredge something, anything out of the Bible to prove that your racism is a good thing. But have fun, man! It's certainly fun to watch!

Being for one's race is a great and good thing as is being for other's racial purity as well. I am for my race and I am for other races, I am not for mongrelization nor interracial marriage, which the Bible is completely against. The sources on the Hebrew and the context of scripture plainly show this./

Kasey · Jun 22, 2005

Ledifni said:
LOL -- You are truly amazing!

You know, in the post you replied to I did not make one single claim about Adam and Eve. In fact, I specifically said, "Forget Adam and Eve." I said that whether or not Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, Noah came afterwards and the Bible said that all people died but Noah and his family.

Yet you spend your entire reply trying to "refute" me by saying, "Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on Earth! That's a moot point!"

Do you realize how ridiculous you make yourself look?

Specifically, no, you didnt and I apologize for that, however.....

The Bible does NOT state that the entire planet was over-thrown with water. The Flood of NOah was not world-wide and specifically verified by the Hebre word "erets", where the vast majority of usages refers to a land region, not the planet earth, which is also verified by the fact that Adam and Ever were not the first people on earth, WHICH is also verified by the fact that Genesis 5:1 gets VERY specific on what the Bible is being addressed to!

Therefore, its not a moot point! It has EVERYTHING To do with it because the lie concerning intteracial marriage STARTS with Adam and Eve! For if Adam and Eve actually WERE the first people on earth, then there is technically no concept nor room for races such as black and white!

Thus, like I said, show me in that regard and you got me. So, go ahead, prove that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth!

Kasey · Jun 22, 2005

Ledifni said:
Actually, I am a student of the Bible, and have been all my life -- both as a Christian and after I became an atheist. And judging from your performance here, I'm quite a better student of the Bible than you are

Thats your opinion, but if you WERE a student of the Bible, then you would gladly show how I am wrong concerning Adam and Eve not being the first people on earth according to the Bible. That is the basis for all of this, the foundation, destroy that and everything else falls to pieces!

So go ahead, mister Bible study, I challenge you to show me from the Bible, on how you are greater than I am on that regard and on how Im lieing concerning Adam and Eve.

Go ahead, Im all ears.

Kasey · Jun 22, 2005

Ledifni said:
Well... that's because he hasn't addressed anyone else's arguments, but simply insists that we haven't addressed his(when in fact, the arguments he refused to address were our responses to his arguments).

SHow me the post # where I havent addressed what other people have said? Can you do that? If your going to call me a liar and say that I havent, then you need to prove it. Show me what I havent addressed please.

It can certainly be interpreted that way. But it can also be interpreted otherwise, which is the point of this thread. Oddly enough, Kasey has regressed to simply saying that his interpretation is a possible one, which nobody in this thread denies as far as I know. He seems to have forgotten that his duty here is to prove his claim that his interpretation is the only valid one.

I have proven it. I have given my sources, what sources have "YOU" given? Ive gone according to the experts. Ive gone according to Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-CHaldee LExicon. I have also gone according to the context of scripture, that Adam and Eve were not the first people on Earth.

You never want to touch that part dont you? You revert back and say..."its a moot point!". NO ITS NOT!. If Adam and Eve were created as the progenitors of mankind, then EVERYTHING that I have said would be a lie for there would be no actual concept of race nor specific kinds of human beings just as their are concerning the animal and plant-life being AFTER THEIR KIND!.

You won't find it because it doesn't exist. I haven't argued that his translations are wrong, but that they don't matter because while the Bible does use the word that means "mixed-race," it doesn't say that mixed-race couples are against God.

Ooooooh, I see. So you admit that the translations are correct. Wow, thanks. So now we have THAT part out of the way. By your own words, YOU ADMIT that mixed-race as in racial lineage is in the Bible. Thanks. However, you say that mixed-race couples, as in marriages arent against God. Hmm, well, thats a contradiction because you can only get a mongrel child FROM a inter-mixed racaial couple and that child is barred from entering into the congregation of the Lord in Dueteronomy 23:2. Because they are, that means that the parents are an accomplice to their child being that way and that means that they are responsible and therefore, how can you justifiably say that God is not against interracial marriage when God is obviously against the result of that marriage?

In addition, you COMPLETELY ignore Leviticus Leviticus 22:12-1. It speaks of a woman, being the daughter of a priest, going out and marrying a "zuwr" strangeer, which according to the Hebrew, means a foreign, alien, adutlerative, out-landish individual. It states SPECIFICALLY that if she is married, she cant eat of the holy thing, but if she is DIVORCED and has NO CHILD, then she can come back. However, what is the context of even all this? What difference does it make? Why does the Bible use "NO CHILD" if its not an interracially mixed couple?

Its Leviticus 22:3 with the word "seed". According to The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, at page 78 of the Hebrew index, under 2233, its the Hebrew word "zera" and it means sowing, seed. It means OFFSPRING. According to the context of Genesis 3:15 with Eve's seed, and the fact that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, its talking in a RACIAL context!

According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, under page 254-255, under 2233, it says that this word means OFFSPRING, PROGENY, DESCENDANTS, STOCK, RACE, FAMILY, A RACE OF MEN.

If Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on earth, then this PROVES that Adam and Eve were of a SPECIFIC race of human beings and therefore, contextually, the word means RACIAL LINEAGE when used of the sons of Aaron! They were of a specific race of men!

This is why if she was divorced and HAD NO CHILD!

Now, this was speaking to the Levites, I do not dispute that, however 1 Peter 2:9 states that CHristians, the Elect according to 1 Peter 1:1-2, are ROYAL PRIESTHOOD. Therefore, this proves that this statute is applicable to Christians today.

I rest my case. This PROOVES it all!

The entire point of this thread, at least from my point of view, is to prove that (1) Kasey's ideas about family planning are unworkable and (2) that one can believe in the Bible without being racist. I think I've shown both of those to be true, as follows:

1) Kasey cannot provide any workable set of criteria for determining a person's race. He says that "everybody knows" what a black person is or what a white person is, and claims that he can tell on sight whether somebody is black or white. When asked how, he says, "It's obvious." When anyone asks how he will screen his children's suitors, he ignores it. When anyone asks how he knows he isn't mixed-race, he ignores it. When anyone asks how he knows that black people and white people aren't both descended from Shem, he ignores it. Essentially, he ignores any question or comment that might cause problems for his neat "everybody knows who I'm talking about" method of discrimination. This, I think, clearly shows that his ideas are unworkable.

I deal with the Bible FIRST. I will deal with the rest later.

2) Kasey argues that his interpretation of the Bible -- that it commands us to keep the races pure and avoid perverted and abominable miscegenation -- is the only possible one. While I am less inclined to address this argument since I feel Biblical arguments are incorrect anyway, I think I've consistently shown that his "proofs" don't actually prove anything. They are possible interpretations, yes, but not the only ones. I'm not going to list every post I've made in this thread to counter each of his ridiculous attempts at proving his points, but there are several of them in the past few pages that you could look over, if you're really interested in why Kasey's arguments from the Bible don't prove his point.

Thats just right, you "FEEL". Thats your basis. That doesnt hold up to anything. You havent shown ANYTHING that proves me wrong. You didnt even name your sources, I HAVE!

You want a basis for where its specifically commanded NOT to mix your race? Its Leviticus 22:12-13. This is taken into context with the fact of Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, which you have "SPECIFICALLY" stated to be a moot point, which it is not, therefore, no one can trust your words, for in order to destroy some one's credibility, you must address the foundation of their arugment and Adam and Eve are the foundation.

Oh, I challenge you to get around that word "seed" there in the context of Leviticus 22:12-13. ADDRESS THAT! Address on how this doesnt mean a racial couple according to the Hebrew! Ive given my sources, now lets see what you have to say! Ive gotten very specific and YOU yourself has SPECIFICALLY stated that the translations that I have shown ARE NOT WRONG. Therefore, get yourself out of this one. I completely and wholly wait with great anticipation. . .

praying · Jun 22, 2005

Kasey said:
SHow me the post # where I havent addressed what other people have said? Can you do that? If your going to call me a liar and say that I havent, then you need to prove it. Show me what I havent addressed please.

I have proven it. I have given my sources, what sources have "YOU" given? Ive gone according to the experts. Ive gone according to Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-CHaldee LExicon. I have also gone according to the context of scripture, that Adam and Eve were not the first people on Earth.

You never want to touch that part dont you? You revert back and say..."its a moot point!". NO ITS NOT!. If Adam and Eve were created as the progenitors of mankind, then EVERYTHING that I have said would be a lie for there would be no actual concept of race nor specific kinds of human beings just as their are concerning the animal and plant-life being AFTER THEIR KIND!.

Ooooooh, I see. So you admit that the translations are correct. Wow, thanks. So now we have THAT part out of the way. By your own words, YOU ADMIT that mixed-race as in racial lineage is in the Bible. Thanks. However, you say that mixed-race couples, as in marriages arent against God. Hmm, well, thats a contradiction because you can only get a mongrel child FROM a inter-mixed racaial couple and that child is barred from entering into the congregation of the Lord in Dueteronomy 23:2. Because they are, that means that the parents are an accomplice to their child being that way and that means that they are responsible and therefore, how can you justifiably say that God is not against interracial marriage when God is obviously against the result of that marriage?

In addition, you COMPLETELY ignore Leviticus Leviticus 22:12-1. It speaks of a woman, being the daughter of a priest, going out and marrying a "zuwr" strangeer, which according to the Hebrew, means a foreign, alien, adutlerative, out-landish individual. It states SPECIFICALLY that if she is married, she cant eat of the holy thing, but if she is DIVORCED and has NO CHILD, then she can come back. However, what is the context of even all this? What difference does it make? Why does the Bible use "NO CHILD" if its not an interracially mixed couple?

Its Leviticus 22:3 with the word "seed". According to The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, at page 78 of the Hebrew index, under 2233, its the Hebrew word "zera" and it means sowing, seed. It means OFFSPRING. According to the context of Genesis 3:15 with Eve's seed, and the fact that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, its talking in a RACIAL context!

According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, under page 254-255, under 2233, it says that this word means OFFSPRING, PROGENY, DESCENDANTS, STOCK, RACE, FAMILY, A RACE OF MEN.

If Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on earth, then this PROVES that Adam and Eve were of a SPECIFIC race of human beings and therefore, contextually, the word means RACIAL LINEAGE when used of the sons of Aaron! They were of a specific race of men!

This is why if she was divorced and HAD NO CHILD!

Now, this was speaking to the Levites, I do not dispute that, however 1 Peter 2:9 states that CHristians, the Elect according to 1 Peter 1:1-2, are ROYAL PRIESTHOOD. Therefore, this proves that this statute is applicable to Christians today.

I rest my case. This PROOVES it all!

I deal with the Bible FIRST. I will deal with the rest later.

Thats just right, you "FEEL". Thats your basis. That doesnt hold up to anything. You havent shown ANYTHING that proves me wrong. You didnt even name your sources, I HAVE!

You want a basis for where its specifically commanded NOT to mix your race? Its Leviticus 22:12-13. This is taken into context with the fact of Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, which you have "SPECIFICALLY" stated to be a moot point, which it is not, therefore, no one can trust your words, for in order to destroy some one's credibility, you must address the foundation of their arugment and Adam and Eve are the foundation.

Oh, I challenge you to get around that word "seed" there in the context of Leviticus 22:12-13. ADDRESS THAT! Address on how this doesnt mean a racial couple according to the Hebrew! Ive given my sources, now lets see what you have to say! Ive gotten very specific and YOU yourself has SPECIFICALLY stated that the translations that I have shown ARE NOT WRONG. Therefore, get yourself out of this one. I completely and wholly wait with great anticipation. . .

Well at this point Kasey you surely have not addressed my asking you to classify Halle Berry. I provided a picture and everything. I want to know your criteria; a,b,c,d for identifying people of a given race. Also what are the races in your view, black, white, asian, what else?

i.e to be Asian you must have that distinct Asian slant to your eyes and straight black hair, or to be black you must have a broad nose, some flavor of brown skin, and coarse hair texture etc.

I am going to post another picture can you tell me the race of this person:

343%3C6%3A9923232%7Ffp54%3Dot%3E2345%3D%3A64%3D4%3A4%3DXROQDF%3E23237974487%3B6ot1lsi

Kasey · Jun 22, 2005

mhatten said:
Well at this point Kasey you surely have not addressed my asking you to classify Halle Berry. I provided a picture and everything. I want to know your criteria; a,b,c,d for identifying people of a given race. Also what are the races in your view, black, white, asian, what else?

i.e to be Asian you must have that distinct Asian slant to your eyes and straight black hair, or to be black you must have a broad nose, some flavor of brown skin, and coarse hair texture etc.

I am going to post another picture can you tell me the race of this person:

I have specifically stated that I am dealing with the Bible "first" and that I would deal with the rest later. Lets stick to the subject matter please.

gaijin178 · Jun 22, 2005

Kasey said:
I have specifically stated that I am dealing with the Bible "first" and that I would deal with the rest later. Lets stick to the subject matter please.

You stick to the bible first, ignore the requests for you to back up all of your other statements and then go look up what the bible means with those texts.

Danhalen · Jun 22, 2005

Kasey said:
I have specifically stated that I am dealing with the Bible "first" and that I would deal with the rest later. Lets stick to the subject matter please.

What good does the bible do you if you have no idea how you are to determine what it is that is wrong? Your claim that the bible says that inter-racial marriage is an abomination aside, how can you follow a rule when you can't determine what race someone is?

praying · Jun 22, 2005

Kasey said:
I have specifically stated that I am dealing with the Bible "first" and that I would deal with the rest later. Lets stick to the subject matter please.

I view this as a cop-out because you do not have an answer. I stated earlier on that if you are against inter-racial marriage more power to you. I am strictily interested in how you determine the races and since ther are clearly no guidelines for this in the Bible I just want to know your criteria.

Kasey · Jun 22, 2005

Danhalen said:
What good does the bible do you if you have no idea how you are to determine what it is that is wrong? Your claim that the bible says that inter-racial marriage is an abomination aside, how can you follow a rule when you can't determine what race someone is?

I never said I couldnt determine it Danhalen, I just havent gotten to that part yet.

Kasey · Jun 22, 2005

mhatten said:
I view this as a cop-out because you do not have an answer. I stated earlier on that if you are against inter-racial marriage more power to you. I am strictily interested in how you determine the races and since ther are clearly no guidelines for this in the Bible I just want to know your criteria.

Thats how "you" view it, but that doesnt mean that it is. Stick to the subject matter, please. Just because I dont asnwer your specific question right off the bat or anything in that regard doesnt mean that I dont have an answer. I specifically told you that I will address this later, after what has already been the main topic in this and that is "Is the Bible for or against interracial marriage?"

However, there is a guide-line for it in the Bible, have you ever bothered to look up the word "kind' in Genesis 1?

Danhalen · Jun 22, 2005

Kasey said:
I never said I couldnt determine it Danhalen, I just havent gotten to that part yet.

The wait continues. Why won't you just explain it? You say you can, but you won't. Get on with it man!

praying · Jun 22, 2005

Kasey said:
Thats how "you" view it, but that doesnt mean that it is. Stick to the subject matter, please. Just because I dont asnwer your specific question right off the bat or anything in that regard doesnt mean that I dont have an answer. I specifically told you that I will address this later, after what has already been the main topic in this and that is "Is the Bible for or against interracial marriage?"

However, there is a guide-line for it in the Bible, have you ever bothered to look up the word "kind' in Genesis 1?

The OP:

Logic about same race marriage

Same race marriage should be banned because procreation without adaptation is harmful to society, to the parents and child, and to the gene pool. Without interracial marriages, the phenotype of the population remains the same, leaving this population stagnant and with a lack of genetic development and adaptation. This means that children from same race marriages add nothing to society while using up resources and part of the workforce by taking time away from the people that need to take care of them. In order to promote continuous adaptation of the whole of society, all marriages must be interracial and anything else should be illegal.

Interracial marriages also create a new generation of people who are not as prejudiced against people of other races because they gain tolerance for different races and cultures since they have been exposed and are apart of more then one. If someone is raised while experiencing and being a member of one group and one group only, when exposed to a second group it is likely they will be prejudiced against it. If someone is raised in two different groups, when exposed to a third they are more likely to be accepting of it because they wont think that there is only one right group, but that there could be many right groups. If interracial marriages had been the way everyone was raised for the past 100 years, the Civil Rights movement would have been much less painful for society in its entirety. Racial tension in the present also would be much more relaxed allowing for a more peaceful, tolerant and positive society.

Nothing here about the Bible, so please tell me how you identify different races.

Logic about same race marriage

Seeker

The cake is a lie.

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Snazzy Title Goes Here

Well-Known Member

Seeker

Healing

Snazzy Title Goes Here

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Healing

Snazzy Title Goes Here

Similar threads