interracial relationship?

[aeroz19]

I would tell an inter-racial couple I did not apporve of their coupling, although I probably wouldn't bring up the subject and would try to as tactful as possible. And I have told inter-racial people that I do not approve of race-mixing, does that count for anything in your apparent attempt to call me a chicken? (Or your desire to see someone take a swipe at me?)

I really didn't want to have to say this, but thank goodness you're not a judge or legislator, because that thinking leads to decisions that effect innocent people. That thinking leads to harmful, painful and unjust intrusion into the lives of people of different races who are in love, by telling them they cannot be married because of their skin color, because you as the jsuge or legislator think that races should be preserved. I'm not saying you would do this; I'm saying that your thinking on the issue leads to those consequences.

Sorry, it does not casue me to hate. Acknowledging race exists does not mean you necessarily have to hate the other races.

I don't think you hate anyone. However, your thinking does lead to hateful consequences for racial couples. It also carries a strong message of segragation.

Inter-racial sex, like gay sex or bestiality is simply the abuse of something God gave us for other purposes, such as using hands to murder in your above example.

Your thinking is getting dangerous.

I see that you do not believe that certain races are inferior. However, your belief that races should be preserved, and that behavioral traits are specific racial groups because of their race (you mentioned this in another thread), I am characterizing your thinking as dangerous. Why? Because, even though your thinking is not directly racist, it holds some key ideas that are the foundation to racist thinking, which in turn causes suffering.

As far as the possibility of inter-racial breeding, I think that is simply the result of humans being the same species, as if the races were incapable of breeding they would then be different species. And in this case inter-racial breeding is the result of abuse of the way the genetics of Man have to be in order for Man to be one species, and would be similar to your "hands to murder" argument, the possibilty of race mixing is necessary for Man to exist as a species and can be abused much like hands could bu abused to murder.

My question to you is, why??

Why do you think that races should be preserved? Why is color important??? Why do you think that God is against inter-racial marriage????

I think you're wrong about where God stands on inter-racial relationships.

Song of Solomon 1:1-7
The song of songs, which is Solomon's. 2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. 3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee. 4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee. 5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. 6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept. 7 Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?

If I'm not mistaken, I think Solomon's lover was a black woman; and more importantly, I think that a whole book is written in favor of such a union...

 

[Blackguard_]

real quick as it'd getting late here, and I will respond in full in the morning..

6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon memy mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

It meant she had a deep tan becasue she worked in the vineyards all day, and not that she was "black" as in a Negro.

Here is the NASB version

5
"[4] I am black but (8) lovely,
O (9) daughters of Jerusalem,
Like the (10) tents of (11) Kedar,
Like the curtains of Solomon.
6
"Do not stare at me because I am swarthy,
For the sun has burned me.
My (12) mother's sons were angry with me;
They made me (13) caretaker of the vineyards,
But I have not taken care of my own vineyard.

 

[rhema glory]

I just have a few questiones for you!Maybe 5 yrs ago your ideaology would have bothered me,but God has given me the capability to love even the most unlovable!I am in a "mixed marriage" and we have 5 BEAUTEEFULLL offspring(sp wrong on purpose he he he)We get told ALL the time how beautiful our family is,and as a matter of fact there are atleast 20 mixed marriages at the church I attend!

1)What church do you go to?Since NO church in america condones this philosophy(unless it's the church of the KKK )
2)Do the people you hang w/ know you feel this way
3)Were you brought up this way?
4)Would you allow a black person in your house?
5)What if you had a child that married outside your race,would you disown them?

Don't worry I will not debate you on it bc it's ONLY the Holy Spirit that can change hearts!I am just very curious as how you came to your conclusion,and how many of you actualy exist!

BTW-No one could ever convince me that I am in sin bc we are interacialy intwined,bc God has blessed us beyond measure!God has never told me "sorry can't answer your prayers bc you have octaroon chidren",or that I can't make it into heaven bc I diluted the races"
You see, I have a personal relationship w/ Christ and he told me in advance that I would have these blessings and they would be used for his Glory!In my devotiuons he speaks to me "lovingly" about my "blessings"Thank God his love abounds!

I will pray for you!

 

[Volos]

I am only responsible for my actions and my walk w/ the Lord!You do know that MANY deem themselves christians just bc they believe in the notion that there is a God..nothing more nothing less,just a belief!I still hold to my beliefs, and my faith is unshakeable no matter who ridicules me for it! No,I don't know what it's like to be gay, nor do I know what it's like to be asian,atheist,or anything I'm not,just like you don't know what it's like to be a woman,a christian, a mom,or anything else your not!I don't think ppl's views will change over a message board so I'm done going round-a-bout!I am new to this site and still trying to figure out if it's for me!

while it is true I do not know what it is like to be a woman or an Asian or any other minority I would never attempt to minimize or trivialize the discrimination that many other minorities experience.

I do want to say that is appauling that you received 4 death threats and others said all those mean things about you here!There is no reason for that... Christian or non christian,and I would like to stand in the gap and apologize to you for having to deal w/ such nonsense!!

Yet will you apologize for your awn statements?

Will you apologize for falsely claiming that gays and lesbians are not REALLY discriminated against?

Will you apologize for claiming that gays and lesbians are inconvenienced by discrimination?

Will you apologize for advocating discrimination?

Will you apologize for proclaiming that gays and lesbians are “cursed”?





You denounce overt acts of hate yet your statements are not intrinsically different than what you denounce.

I'm sure you are a beautiful person inside and out,regardless of your gender orientation,and NO one deserves that treatment!!Please don't lump ALL christians as haters,bc for just as many bad there are good, the same w/ atheists!

I am well aware that many Christens do not advocate discrimination. I am also painfully aware that the majority of Christians do hate. This hate is the same whether practiced overtly by threats or f@g basing and public displays of intolerance or more subtly by advocating discrimination or by calling gays and lesbians cursed or by trying to minimize discrimination.

There are many nonchristians(in the polls)that have voted against gay marriage too,it's not JUST christians!

how many have done so because they have bought into the lies and hate that so many Christians preach?

My dh isn't a christian and he doesn't agree w/ it either!

there is never justification for discrimination.

We all have a right to our op and our beliefs... even blackguard

but we do not have the right to remove or prevent others form enjoying the same civil rights and legal protections that we enjoy.

By the way,I've already heard the "not when it takes away our rights comeback"(even though the right has never been made as of yet,so nothing was taken)not being facicitious just wanted to save some posters some time

you minght note that my response to your claim that you would treat gays and lesbians (sort of) as people and (sort of ) with respect was:

“but you apparently draw the line at equal rights.”





Your statement about no rights being taken away does not differ from death threats or accusations of child abuse or from applauding f@g bashing. Your statement diminishes gays and lesbians, it implies that we are not equal and should not be, it states loudly that your claim to treating gays and lesbians with respect is dishonest and it states that discrimination is a good thing.

 

[Volos]

I have been quite amused by the Christian response to Blackguard_. If Blackguard were to change his arguments form interracial marriage to same sex marriage Christians would be tripping over themselves to applaud and agree with him. The arguments he is using to defend discrimination against interracial marriage are identical to those used to defend discrimination against legal recognition of same sex marriage.



Great job Blackguard_

 

[slayer-2004]

I have been quite amused by the Christian response to Blackguard_. If Blackguard were to change his arguments form interracial marriage to same sex marriage Christians would be tripping over themselves to applaud and agree with him. The arguments he is using to defend discrimination against interracial marriage are identical to those used to defend discrimination against legal recognition of same sex marriage.



Great job Blackguard_

Makes me wonder if blackgaurd is using an undercover debate tactic ....

 

[Archivist]

I have been quite amused by the Christian response to Blackguard_. If Blackguard were to change his arguments form interracial marriage to same sex marriage Christians would be tripping over themselves to applaud and agree with him. The arguments he is using to defend discrimination against interracial marriage are identical to those used to defend discrimination against legal recognition of same sex marriage.



Great job Blackguard_

Volos,

Please do not paint with such a broad brush! Remember, there are many of us out here who are Christian who disagree strongly with what Blackguard is saying but who are in favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

 

[Blackguard_]

Rhema Glory,

1. I go to a Lutheran church and to an Non-Denominational/Evangelical church during the school year.
2. yes, the people I hang out with know how I feel.
3. no, I was not brought up this way.
4, Yes, I would allow a Black or other non-White into my house. Have I given any indication I wouldn't?
5. no, I would certainly not approve of my kid race-mixing, but I would not "disown" them.

and how many of you actualy exist!

I have no idea. It's especially hard to tell since it is probable that a lot of people with similar views don't voice them out of fear of the controversy.

I will pray for you!

Thanks. It can't hurt to be prayed for afterall.

 

[Blackguard_]

Makes me wonder if blackgaurd is using an undercover debate tactic ....

No, I believe gay marriage to be wrong too and am not in cahoots with Volos and/or the pro-gay movement.

Although I am not against legal recognition of gay marriage or churches that marry gays, as marriage is btween Man and God and so I do not much care if a government or even a church recognizes gay marriage becasue it doesn't really matter as a marriage is only a marriage becasue God recognizes it and it doesn't matter whether or not Man does.

I have been quite amused by the Christian response to Blackguard_. If Blackguard were to change his arguments form interracial marriage to same sex marriage Christians would be tripping over themselves to applaud and agree with him. The arguments he is using to defend discrimination against interracial marriage are identical to those used to defend discrimination against legal recognition of same sex marriage.

Great job Blackguard_

Volos,

You seem to be right that my argument against inter-racial marriage is based on Natural Law arguments that are similar to the Natural Law argument used against homosexual marriage. It is interesting how some support Natural Law when it agrees with their view, but not when it is used against some other view they have.

Although I think this applies more to Conservative Christians then to the Liberals that seem to populate this thread, as the Liberals do not accept Natural Law arguments against gay marriage, and so do not fall into the double standard you pointed out.

 

[Shane Roach]

I have been quite amused by the Christian response to Blackguard_. If Blackguard were to change his arguments form interracial marriage to same sex marriage Christians would be tripping over themselves to applaud and agree with him. The arguments he is using to defend discrimination against interracial marriage are identical to those used to defend discrimination against legal recognition of same sex marriage.



Great job Blackguard_

You will find Christians similarly against people who talk underage children into consensual sex, a practice that is much approved in some cultures.

Try to keep a civil tongue please. This website is beginning to be overun with people like you who seem to have no other purpose than to sling insults at Christians. The point here, at least in my understanding, was for people to exhange ideas and talk things through.

 

[Blackguard_]

I really didn't want to have to say this, but thank goodness you're not a judge or legislator,

I'm glad I'm not either.

because that thinking leads to decisions that effect innocent people. That thinking leads to harmful, painful and unjust intrusion into the lives of people of different races who are in love, by telling them they cannot be married because of their skin color, because you as the jsuge or legislator think that races should be preserved. I'm not saying you would do this; I'm saying that your thinking on the issue leads to those consequences.

I disagree, as it is quite possible to think something is immoral but that it should be legal, such as libertarian who regards drug use as immoral but does not think the matter is any of the governments business.

As far as someone with my ideas legislating them, the same could be said of nearly any ideology you disagree with being legislated.

This is not a good argument against my view as you are simply saying that you would not like my view to become law. This is an argument for Libertarianism, not an argument against my view.

What of the hypothetical case of a fanatical "god wants the races to mix into one" were to make non inter-racial marriage illegal? I have unfortunately met someone who does believes God wants the races to eventually mix into one, although he does not seem against intra-racial marriage. Is the possibility of someone with an idea like that becoming a legislator or judge a good argument against the idea God wants the races to mix into one?

I don't think you hate anyone.

Thank you for realizing that.

However, your thinking does lead to hateful consequences for racial couples. It also carries a strong message of segragation.

1. That appears to be a slippery slope argument. You have not established a direct connection between my ideas and these "hateful consquences" as my ideas do not support them.

2. I could argue for Seperatism (different from segregation, think Malcolm X, the American Colonization Society, and the "Back to Africa" movement) if I wanted to, but I am just arguing against inter-breeding. It would be at least theoretically possible for the races to live together in the same area without inter-breeding.

My question to you is, why??

Why do you think that races should be preserved? Why is color important??? Why do you think that God is against inter-racial marriage????

1. Why would God create races to destroy them?
2. Race is more then skin color.
3. Mostly based on the idea of Natural Law. God created the races, and I do not see why he would create them to destroy them, and as another poster pointed out, prefering your own is race is only natural. So it would appear that the preservation of the races can be argued from the standpoint of Natural Law.

 

[Shane Roach]

1. Why would God create races to destroy them?
2. Race is more then skin color.
3. Mostly based on the idea of Natural Law. God created the races, and I do not see why he would create them to destroy them, and as another poster pointed out, prefering your own is race is only natural. So it would appear that the preservation of the races can be argued from the standpoint of Natural Law.

God did not create them "Black and White." Or any other shades. Race evolved. If you are a strict interpreter of the Bible, perhaps the most direct answer to your question, "why are there races?" is, "God confused the languages so that the Godless could not work together." Apparently, according to the Bible, people working together can achieve anything.

We are supposed to be one in Christ, therefore those divisions are not for us. "You will know they are Christians by the love they have one for another. (Emphasis mine) In other words, your first priotity should be faith, not race.

Race is very closely related to simple family ties, and I would like to point out to you a verse that, though it doesn't directly address race, speeks volumes to my mind as to why your thinking on this matter is wrong.

Matthew 12:49-50 "And he stretched forth his hands toward, his disciples, and said, 'Behold my mother, and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my broher, and sister, and mother.'"

 

[Shane Roach]

Maybe I should have attached this to the former post, but it is a rather different point, and it has nothing at all to do with the Bible.

"Natural law", inasmuch as it exists at all, is the law of this world, which is fallen. All arguments of "natural law" or "natural order" really have no place in discovering God's will, except inasmuch as it is indeed possible to tell the difference in things that are good and evil, clean or dirty, usefull and useless, by observing the world around you. In other words, though it is indeed possible to know God's will simply by observing the world around you, you still are responsible for having the insight to discern it correctly, and not just by the world's own standards.

 

[Blackguard_]

Motus,

Sex is an act of the flesh. Love is an act of the spirit. God is love, so by definition, cannot be evil. Sex is good when it is in marriage, as an expression of love. Sex is bad when it's done any other time, as an act of lust. If two people who love each other want to marry and have sex, who are you to tell them not to? Or are you saying it's a pitfall of lust?

John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.


no, it is wrong to love evil, which is what a couple engaging in immoral sex is doing. Sex is good as an expression of love in marriage but bad outide marriage whether for love or lust. But a marriage is a marriage because God recognizes the marriage and not because humans whether the government or a church do. It is possible for people to be "married" in the eyes of Man but not in the eyes of God.

For example, many people these days are on their 3rd and 4th marriages from divorces, but Jesus said in Matthew 5...

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

According to Jesus, those who are divorced and re-marry are commiting adultery, but in the eyes of Man, they are legitamtely married. So is someone married to a divorced person having sex in a marriage? No. So if a gay couple got a marriage ceremony performed by a priest in a church and had a marriage certificate from the State, they would not be married.

So I am not going to try to stop gays etc. from getting "married" as they simply can't be married.

You're saying that some have suffered the effects of the fall, and others haven't, otherwise your declarations of how it's "supposed" to be are irrelevant.

No, everyone is affected by the Fall. We can rationalize how God intended things to be from his laws and commands. For a simple example, the command against stealing strongly implies that there is not supposed to be stealing in the world.

 

[Blackguard_]

"Natural law", inasmuch as it exists at all, is the law of this world, which is fallen. All arguments of "natural law" or "natural order" really have no place in discovering God's will, except inasmuch as it is indeed possible to tell the difference in things that are good and evil, clean or dirty, usefull and useless, by observing the world around you. In other words, though it is indeed possible to know God's will simply by observing the world around you, you still are responsible for having the insight to discern it correctly, and not just by the world's own standards.

Yes, you are quite right. I don't mean "Natural Law" as "What is observed in nature is automatically good". This is the pitfall that people who argue for homosexuality based on it occuring in nature such as in dogs, fall into.

I think a Natural Law does exist or else St. Paul is really off base in Romans 1..
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[praying]

14, Yes, I would allow a Black or other non-White into my house. Have I given any indication I wouldn't?

Okay

5. no, I would certainly not approve of my kid race-mixing, but I would not "disown" them.

You lost me this one, since you will allow people of color in your home, though why they would choose tobe there is beyond me but anyway; what constitutes race mixing if they are in your home?

 

[praying]

I have been quite amused by the Christian response to Blackguard_. If Blackguard were to change his arguments form interracial marriage to same sex marriage Christians would be tripping over themselves to applaud and agree with him. The arguments he is using to defend discrimination against interracial marriage are identical to those used to defend discrimination against legal recognition of same sex marriage.



Great job Blackguard_

It is quite unfortunate that what you say is true.

 

[Blackguard_]

You lost me this one, since you will allow people of color in your home, though why they would choose tobe there is beyond me but anyway; what constitutes race mixing if they are in your home?

I meant "race-mixing" as in inter-racial sex, marriage, and breeding. I am not sure I undertand your question.

 

[praying]

I meant "race-mixing" as in inter-racial sex, marriage, and breeding. I am not sure I undertand your question.

Okay that answered the question, I guess I wasn't clear or your stance since you said you would have people in your home yet no race mixing for the kids.

 

[aeroz19]

I disagree, as it is quite possible to think something is immoral but that it should be legal, such as libertarian who regards drug use as immoral but does not think the matter is any of the governments business.

Ok, so then you are perfectly fine with inter-racial marriage being legal?

As far as someone with my ideas legislating them, the same could be said of nearly any ideology you disagree with being legislated.

That's true.

This is not a good argument against my view as you are simply saying that you would not like my view to become law. This is an argument for Libertarianism, not an argument against my view.

My reasoning is based on the fact that those who defended racist legislation used some of the same philosophies as you regarding race mixing and how they thought God views races.

What of the hypothetical case of a fanatical "god wants the races to mix into one" were to make non inter-racial marriage illegal?

Huh??

I have unfortunately met someone who does believes God wants the races to eventually mix into one, although he does not seem against intra-racial marriage.

Oh, ok.

Is the possibility of someone with an idea like that becoming a legislator or judge a good argument against the idea God wants the races to mix into one?

No, not really.

Thank you for realizing that.

You're welcome.

1. That appears to be a slippery slope argument. You have not established a direct connection between my ideas and these "hateful consquences" as my ideas do not support them.

Those who were racist shared some of your views on race.

However, after discussing the issue of race with you in this thread and in other ones I have come to the conclusion that you are not a racist. Your views on race are somewhat exteme but they do not include the desire to cause harm to any race, nor do they include the false belief that some races are inherently inferior.

2. I could argue for Seperatism (different from segregation, think Malcolm X, the American Colonization Society, and the "Back to Africa" movement) if I wanted to, but I am just arguing against inter-breeding. It would be at least theoretically possible for the races to live together in the same area without inter-breeding.

I think I am beginning to understand your viewpoint. Do you believe that it would be a good thing if all races stayed geographically separated (like by country and/or continent) from each other at all times? Also, do you think that this type of set up would benefit everyone in the best possible way?

1. Why would God create races to destroy them?

Well, this is debatable.

2. Race is more then skin color.

It's only a little more.

3. Mostly based on the idea of Natural Law. God created the races, and I do not see why he would create them to destroy them, and as another poster pointed out, prefering your own is race is only natural. So it would appear that the preservation of the races can be argued from the standpoint of Natural Law.

Prove that God created the races. Just because they exist does not mean God created them all. This gets into micro-evolution.

Prefering your own race is not natural for everyone. I don't prefer any race over another when it comes to choosing friends and a boyfriend, and there are many people who feel this way. In fact, Natural Law is reversed from the way you state that it is; if you have a very diverse community of people, you will also have very diverse couples. It all depends on the diversity of the community--the selection available.

Uh oh, now we're into the discussion of mate selection. lol