"This slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation to a conflict"

[CSMR]

1. The word is absurd, fear of the same
2. Those who oppose homosexuality are not trying to encourage a fear of homosexuality, but a disapproval of homosexuality and a fear of God

 

[whatbogsends]

1. The word is absurd, fear of the same
2. Those who oppose homosexuality are not trying to encourage a fear of homosexuality, but a disapproval of homosexuality and a fear of God

Homophobes fear homosexuality, and are trying to encourage fear, disapproval, and suppression of homosexuals. Some may be passive (they hold these views, but do not try to foster and export them) but it's vocal bigotry that is the problem.

However, we really should keep this out of this thread, i mean, there's a whole thread devoted to this topic...

 

[SirKenin]

Halle Berry is a knockout. Any man who thinks otherwise is probably looking to get married in San Francisco this weekend.

Not my type at all..

I've seen some very attractive Black women, too. Well, what I find attractive anyways.

I'm very attracted to the woman I'm going to marry though, God willing

http://www.christianforums.com/t79176

 

[SirKenin]

Hmmmm.... Doc, why are you so against the use of the word homophobe? I almost bought it - that is the discrediting it on the basis that its technical meaning was not applicable to all situations... then I realized you are just trying to erase the language that describes the oppression of GLBT people. If there is no language to describe it, it can't be talked about and the conversations about rights have no "legitimacy"... very clever of you really.

The fact is "homophobia" does exist (see Feral's post #47 on the "homophobe" thread http://www.christianforums.com/t99141&page=5)... or maybe you can give us a new word to describe what the men who killed Matthew Sheppard were acting on? Hatred? Bigotry? Erasing language will not erase the oppression. When "homophobia" ceases to exist, I will cease to use it.

Peace.

JD

P.S. I just realized that there is a whole thread about the word "homophobe". I decided to leave this post anyway and to add the reference to it... but I will go there now so as to not derail this thread.

lol I go into detail why I disagree with homophobe in my own thread.

I prefer the term "dissenter", which is more accurate. That is what I am. A dissenter.

 

[AsburyJuke]

It's a total insult to black people that homosexual oppression is being compared to the struggle for black equality.

A marriage is between a man and a woman, be they green, blue, turquoise or pink. Yes, it is disgusting that it was opposed, and just goes to show how unChristian the US has always been.

No one is stopping gays spending their lives together, and they don't need a piece of paper to do so. I think this is all about rights rather than the actual need to get married.

IMO marriage is only needed when people plan on having children.

I don't think interracial couples and gays are anywhere near the same thing.

 

[SUNDAE]

interacial marriages were never condemned in the bible as far as i can see.

(Lev 19:34 KJV) But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

doesn't sound like racism to me.

Solomon married an egyptian and other strange women, and they caused him to worship idols.
marrying strange women as in foreign wasn't a good idea in those days for that reason, God was the God of Israel, the other countries worshipped other gods.

but as for a man that lie with a man, then that was clearly condemned in the law.

Amen!! Also Moses was marriage to an Ethiopian women. (Numbers 11)

I completely disagree with the correlation between civil rights and the gay marriage debate! I believe I started a thread regarding the stance of some concervative blacks in that regard!

http://www.christianforums.com/t96035

DrFGD, your stance on interracial marriage being condemned by God in the Bible is one reason Christians have lost crediblity some in the black community.

Thankfully though, I'm grateful you don't speak for all white Christians.

I'm black, and there are two interracial marriages in my family-one white, one oriental. The kids are doing very well thank you!

 

[Gunny]

It's a total insult to black people that homosexual oppression is being compared to the struggle for black equality.

AMEN!

 

[Gunny]

I completely disagree with the correlation between civil rights and the gay marriage debate! I believe I started a thread regarding the stance of some concervative blacks in that regard!

http://www.christianforums.com/t96035

I'm black, and there are two interracial marriages in my family-one white, one oriental. The kids are doing very well thank you!

AMEN!

 

[Blessed75]

Whether she is attractive or not has nothing to do with it, she is the child of mixed parentage and it has not bothered her in the least. I know plenty of mixed race kids and Dr. Feelgood's claims are unfounded. They only have problem with those that have a problem with "race mixing", which is an ugle term in my book, no differnt than homophobe to me really.

Both are signs of bigotry.

AMEN!!!!!!

 

[praying]

lol I go into detail why I disagree with homophobe in my own thread.

I prefer the term "dissenter", which is more accurate. That is what I am. A dissenter.

That is fine that you are a dissenter.

A dissenter does not kill people though as JD pointed out. That is clealry hatred, homophobia, bigorty all those ugly terms rolled up into one big ball of ugly humanity.

I seriously doubt that most are "homophobes" to that extreme but some not all people do fear it for whatever reason and are bigoted about the subject and would be just plain unreasonable to think that there are not people like that.

 

[praying]

I am just aghast that folk still question interracial marriages. The title of this thread is racist and should not be permitted on a forum!

Yes the words are racist and they were stated by a US senator in 1912 who wanted to ammend the US consittution to prevent interracial marriages..

The editorial is making a comparison to Gay marriage.

 

[elanor]

No one is stopping gays spending their lives together, and they don't need a piece of paper to do so. I think this is all about rights rather than the actual need to get married.

This IS all about rights. We--supposedly--have equal rights in this country. When one group of people is being denied the rights that everyone else has, we should stand up and protest that.

IMO marriage is only needed when people plan on having children.

Well, I can't have children. You mean I could be shacking up now and that would be okay? Please show me the scriptural basis for that.

 

[trunks2k]

It's a total insult to black people that homosexual oppression is being compared to the struggle for black equality.

There are parallels that exist.

A marriage is between a man and a woman, be they green, blue, turquoise or pink.

The point of this thread being that at one time, marriage was between a two races was "wrong" for similar reasons that marriage between people of the same sex is "wrong". So definitions change. Popular conceptions of things change.

No one is stopping gays spending their lives together, and they don't need a piece of paper to do so. I think this is all about rights rather than the actual need to get married.

Except for that "piece of paper" bestows certain privledges, which are immensly important to permanent couples, regardless of whether or not they have children. Such as hospital visitation rights. If my partner is in the hospital, I have absolutely no right to visit him or get any information on his condition. If he should die, the hospital is under no obligation to tell me. Some of the privledges granted by marriage can be achieved through alternate means, but you can't get them all, and it costs much more time, money, and effort and even then the privledges are not nearly as legally strong as a marriage.

IMO marriage is only needed when people plan on having children.

So then by your logic, infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry? What if a gay couple plans to have children through alternate means?

 

[Polycarp1]

It's a total insult to black people that homosexual oppression is being compared to the struggle for black equality.

A marriage is between a man and a woman, be they green, blue, turquoise or pink. Yes, it is disgusting that it was opposed, and just goes to show how unChristian the US has always been.

No one is stopping gays spending their lives together, and they don't need a piece of paper to do so. I think this is all about rights rather than the actual need to get married.

IMO marriage is only needed when people plan on having children.

I don't think interracial couples and gays are anywhere near the same thing.

It's a total insult to human beings, IMO, when somebody decides that an analogy between one person's problems and another person's problems is "a total insult" to the first person.

A marriage is not exclusively for the production of children, or we'd have mandatory divorce of all couples where the woman reaches menopause, so that the man does not "waste his seed" with her but can go on conceiving kids with some sweet young thing.

I've told the story of my marriage over in Groundhog's thread, and I flat out refuse to accept the validity of anyone's judgment that our marriage, while barren, is not "real" or "worthwhile."

We married because we loved each other and wanted to formally commit ourselves to spending the rest of our lives together.

So did Volos and Alec.

The difference is, we have a whole slew of legal rights resulting from the government recognizing our marriage -- she can rest assured that my second cousins cannot successfully challenge my will; each of us can be sure that our wishes will be honored if we are incapacitated, by the other acting as next of kin. Our marriage is "portable" -- if we decided to move to Florida or Arizona, we won't have to go through hoops demonstrating to bureaucrats that we are indeed married there.

Theirs is not.

 

[SirKenin]

That is fine that you are a dissenter.

A dissenter does not kill people though as JD pointed out. That is clealry hatred, homophobia, bigorty all those ugly terms rolled up into one big ball of ugly humanity.

I seriously doubt that most are "homophobes" to that extreme but some not all people do fear it for whatever reason and are bigoted about the subject and would be just plain unreasonable to think that there are not people like that.

I don't think the murderers are homophobes either, necessarily. I have seen no empirical evidence that this is the case. Don't get me wrong or put words in my mouth, though. There is no excuse for murdering anyone, never mind a homosexual or someone of a different race or creed. However, I am going to put forward that the action is born out of hatred.

 

[Gutierrez]

I don't think interracial marriage is sinful per se. However, I think in most cases it is probably unwise and shouldn't be encouraged. And those who oppose it shouldn't automatically be denounced as "hateful racists", because in many cases they aren't. I'm not. I think that as dr feelgood has pointed out about the "homophobe" label, it's just intended to smear one's character and put an end to all debate.

 

[praying]

I don't think interracial marriage is sinful per se. However, I think in most cases it is probably unwise and shouldn't be encouraged. And those who oppose it shouldn't automatically be denounced as "hateful racists", because in many cases they aren't. I'm not. I think that as dr feelgood has pointed out about the "homophobe" label, it's just intended to smear one's character and put an end to all debate.

Well if it is not sinful per se what is it then, let's not mince words here, which is all I really see.

Why shouldn't it be encouraged or discouraged for that matter, what difference does it make at all?

 

[SirKenin]

Well if it is not sinful per se what is it then, let's not mince words here, which is all I really see.

Why shouldn't it be encouraged or discouraged for that matter, what difference does it make at all?

Why does everything have to be black and white?

Let's just let it ride and leave the choice up to the individual. The choice won't send them to hell that I know of. At least the Bible doesn't say so, unlike other actions, so I think it's safe to remain neutral.

 

[praying]

Why does everything have to be black and white?

Because people are , no seriously I know everything is not Black or White.

Let's just let it ride and leave the choice up to the individual. The choice won't send them to hell that I know of. At least the Bible doesn't say so, unlike other actions, so I think it's safe to remain neutral.

Why just let it ride per se?

 

[Philosoft]

I don't think the murderers are homophobes either, necessarily. I have seen no empirical evidence that this is the case.

Eh? These people kill homosexuals then admit they killed homosexuals because they hate homosexuals. What are you waiting for, the PET-scan data?

Don't get me wrong or put words in my mouth, though. There is no excuse for murdering anyone, never mind a homosexual or someone of a different race or creed. However, I am going to put forward that the action is born out of hatred.

How is that incompatible with the common usage of "homophobia"?