REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Think you know? Take the quiz!

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 12:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1271
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)





Whether it’s condemning homosexuality as “unnatural” and “immoral,” or comparing gay relationships to “armed robbery” and “marrying your dog,” or simply “thumping the Bible” as the primary means to argument, many of the opponents of same-sex marriage sound an awful lot like those who so vocally opposed miscegenation, the marriage between races.

Don’t believe me? Well, then let’s play a game, shall we?

It’s called: “Can You Tell The Difference Between These Anti-Miscegenation And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes?”

ANSWER A for anti-gay, B for anti-interracial.

1) "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2) This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3) State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4) “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5) This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6) This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7) This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8) "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9) "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10) "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."


So, what do you think? Were those quotes anti-gay marriage, or anti-interracial marriage? A for anti-gay, B for anti-interracial.




Select to view spoiler:




Answers: 1=B, 2= B, 3= B, 4= A, 5= B, 6= B, 7= B, 8= B, 9= A, 10= B




http://www.mediaite.com/online/bet-you-cant-tell-the-difference-betwee
n-these-actual-anti-interracial-and-anti-gay-marriage-quotes/#0



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 6:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Wow, you only found the one offensive?

I find pretty much the whole argument offensive. I did then, I do now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 7:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


OK - let's see how I did ...

1) "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.
1) B - old fashioned language
1) B
I find this a strange argument. I'm sure there were slave owners who found that progeny were distinctly possible. It seems to be an appeal to authority, since it doesn't appeal to experience.

2) This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
2) A - just b/c
2) B oops
Well, the gender-bending statement seemed to bring it in the anti-gay camp. This is another strange argument, where this notion came from is beyond me.

3) State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.
3) B - I seem to recall that argument made in that historical context
3) B
It seems many things can pollute America - long hair on men, rock-n'-roll, women working and getting the vote, immigrants of any era and origin (except select Colonials who weren't really immigrants for some reason) ... In fact just about anything can pollute America except actual pollution - b/c it's acceptable.

4) “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”
4) A - modern language
4) A
This an an appeal to authority, the authority being in this case the social Darwinists.

5) This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."
5) B - old fashioned language
5) B
Appeal to authority, Rousseau and his 'natural man' theories.

6) This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."
6) B - modern language but from the 50s?
6) B
Appeal to authority, a distant cousin to Rousseau and his 'natural man' theories with a strong smell of offended southern propriety.

7) This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."
7) B - old fashioned language
7) B
As above.

8) "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."
8) A - modern language
8) B wow - some of those bigots were ahead of their time
Appeal to the "ultimate authority" by name - G. O. D.

9) "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."
9) A - modern language
9) A
Appeal to authority of 'social science', without any actual science.

10) "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."
10) B - modern language but from the 50s?
10) B
Appeal to authority of the newly cachet 'psychological science', without any actual science.


What seems to be lacking are any arguments. If you're going to propose cause and effect it helps to tediously and in detail expound on the mechanisms between one and the other. Anything else is asking people to have faith in your words without being able to test them out. And faith is never a good argument unless you're appealing to true believers.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:27 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Well...

Even considering that I'm smarter than most and actually have a much higher tolerance for interracial and homosexual unions than most, I'm surprised to see how poorly I did on this exam.

(SPOILER ALERT: Don't read this post if you haven't already and want to take the test for yourself)

Here's how I did:

1) "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

ANSWER: B; MY ANSWER: A

Apparently this quote comes from whatever wacked time period the Salem Witch fiasco came from because it's pure bunk. Not only can a white and a black have a child together, but their children, unlike a "mule" can also have kids. This quote, if nothing else, predated Mythbusters.

2) This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
ANSWER: B; MY ANSWER: B

Not that I agree with this statement, but since we're going with quotes that I assume are largely before the days where gays could not only marry but adopt children, "their children" likely wouldn't have ever been in existence if we're talking about gays here.

3) State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.
ANSWER: B; MY ANSWER: B

If this statement were said today, it had a 99% chance of being against the gay community because no politician would ever dare say that about interracial unions. Again, I figured this was another anachronistic political pedestal some white politician in some all white suburb in the 50's spewed.

Sure... has everything fallen to shit since then? As much as I can't stand seeing some cute blond teenage girl walking down the street hand in hand with a black guy, I'll be the first to admit that I have zero proof that this has anything at all to do with the "fall of Rome".

4) “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”
ANSWER: A; MY ANSWER: A

The key word here is survival.

Personally, I think if homosexually were allowed to run rampant across all boarders, survival of a nation wouldn't be affected at all. In a perfect world without prejudice there would be a nearly equal percentage of homosexual couples in every country.

Sadly... this "prophecy" might be the case as spoken about Americans. Even to this day we only have about 350 million people here compared to over 2 billion in China. Out of my "circle of 5" in High School, there is only 2 children between us and a third on the way. We're all 33 years old now. By the time my oldest parent was 33 they had 3 kids. By the time their oldest parent was 33 they had 5 kids.

5) This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."
ANSWER: B; MY ANSWER: B

Again, just going by my chances of being right since there were probably 200 or so years recorded of these speeches. This one could have easily gone the other way, but since we're quoting people from at least as far back as the 50's I had to go with the higher probability.

6) This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."
ANSWER: B; MY ANSWER: B

SEE: 5 above.

7) This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."
ANSWER: B; MY ANSWER: B

SEE: 5 above.
(Note: Though I would have voted B either way for this one, the word "unfit" is key. There is a huge difference between unfit and unable.

8) "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."
ANSWER: B; MY ANSWER: B

I don't even go to church. I have never been "confirmed". Hell... the last time I did go to church non-wedding or non-funeral related, I got slapped in the face by my mom for coming back to the pew after Communion and going "NOM... NOM... NOM... Yummy Christ!"

That being said, I don't believe the Bible even covered a possibility of gays getting married.

9) "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."
ANSWER: A; MY ANSWER:B

That's the perfect question to ask somebody who wasn't a product of either "sides", Kwick. Especially those who came from a hetrosexual same-race union who was abused. Really, that one was a coin toss....

All I can say is that I know that I was raised by a white couple till I was 5, split off with a ton of family and juggled around like a potato, and underwent a plethora of psychological abuse for the next decade and a half.

This question reads like a "Mad-Lib" to me.

I could have just as easily have said "A little-reported fact is that [White-on-white heterosexual relationships between two immature douche-bag excuses of parents] are far more violent than are [any gays scissoring or taking cock, or any black women eating a 4" Asian boys cock] households."

10) "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."
ANSWER: B; MY ANSWER: B

Maybe I just got lucky on that one, is all.....



80%....

Not the type of score I'm used to.... Especially knowing that I could have easily gone one way or the other depending on the night and/or my mood.

Don't blame me.....

I was the last of a line of generations that held white heterosexual supremacy as the ideal. All the TV shows and cartoons I grew up with towed that line....

I think, especially given my own shortcomings and vices, I've proven myself to be pretty goddamned tolerant.



At this point, let the world fall in flames or drown by polar ice-caps and global warming if it's meant to be. Honestly, we really have zero to look forward to anyhow.

If global calamity were to overcome us tomorrow, my only regret would be that I gave up smoking weed 2 years ago on the 4th of April.



EDIT:

Yay!!! It's almost my 2 year anniversary of my rebirthday!!!!!!

2 years ago, April 4th, I never smoked weed. I just, casually, replaced my love of weed with something that the people giving out jobs would be copacetic with.....

Can't speak for most of you, but I'd probably be at zero risk for liver damage and as a side not I'd probably be best fucking friends with Niki now if she knew me 2 years ago.


I've got about 1 week before my results come out. If I end up being anywhere near 150 on the list, I'm calling up my friend and getting high that night and never looking back.

That will be a turning point for me. Two years of abusing my body hard core with alcohol to offset a harmless indulgence that just happens to be illegal.

A big part of me hopes that I get denied.....

I was so much happier when I was high all the time, and people here actually liked me then.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 5:41 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


I'm an ace at test taking. I was one of those guys in high school that pissed everybody off by "raising the curve." Never happy with any score less than 90 %. Exams at college were EASY, never had to cram or study up- I read the material once, went to the lectures, listened, made notes, did the homework. Almost never even reviewed my notes as prep for tests.

I guess I just don't fathom DUMB. I applied logic to this test and missed 4 out of 10, scoring only 60 %.

I'd be ashamed of myself except for the stupidity of the quotes. I guess I'm just too smart to understand DUMB.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 6:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, I "kinda" cheated, in that I've seen such things on numerous subjects and it often turns out to be that ALL the statements refer to the thing you think they DON'T refer to. So I just assumed they were all originally about interracial marriage.

In other words, on face value most people would think the statements referred to gay marriage (as that is the current issue) rather than interracial marriage (which most sane people have long accepted). So I expected ALL of them to be about interracial marriage; hence making the point that "stupid things said back then are being said now". I was only slightly surprised to find there WERE two things that didn't fit the bill.

I'm actually kind of surprised more people here didn't do the same; it's a trick, or ploy, or whatever, that's been used many, many times to show how something of which people were ignorant and narrow-minded in the past but which is now accepted, was argued against in exactly the same stupid way that the current issue is being argued against. My assumption would have been that you guys are savvier than that.

None of it surprises me; people who resist the march of progress tend to come up with similar stupidity in their arguments whenever they face another new form of progress. We're kinda predictable that way, as a species.

ETA: I would also submit that #4 WAS also said quite clearly about interracial marriage: "It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run".


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Bear in mind that some places are STILL "getting over" their resistance to interracial marriages, as recently as a couple of years ago. As of Nov 30, 2011:
Quote:

A small Pike County church has voted not to accept interracial couples as members or let them take part in some worship activities.

The issue came up at the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, said Dean Harville, a longtime member who serves as church secretary and clerk.

Attendance is usually around 40 people for a Sunday service at the church in the Johns Creek area, Harville said.

Harville said his daughter Stella Harville, who is pursuing a master's degree in optical engineering at a school in Indiana, brought her fiancé, Ticha Chikuni, to church in June and played the piano as he sang.



The couple performed I Surrender All, said Stella Harville, who is 24.

Chikuni, 29, who works at Georgetown College, is black. He is a native of Zimbabwe.

Dean Harville said Melvin Thompson, who had been pastor for many years, told him in August that his daughter and her fiancé couldn't sing at the church again.

Thompson stepped down as pastor in August, citing health issues, but he refused Harville's requests to drop the issue, Harville said.

In early November, Thompson proposed the church go on record saying that while all people were welcome to attend public worship services there, the church did not condone interracial marriage, according to a copy of the recommendation supplied by the Harvilles.

The proposal also said "parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services" or other church functions, with the exception of funerals.

The recommendation "is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve," the copy supplied to the Herald-Leader read.

Members at a business meeting decided to put the matter before the whole church. Last Sunday, nine people voted for the proposal and six voted against it, Harville said.

There were more people in attendance, but some didn't want to take a stand, he said. More at http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-vo
tes.html
]
There were over 40 people in attendance, according to reports, so that means over 20 people sat there and abstained.

It didn't last long, and was overturned, thankfully:
Quote:

A Kentucky church’s decision to ban interracial couples from becoming members or participating in certain worship activities has been voided by a local church conference. The Sandy Valley Conference of Baptist churches declared Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church’s proclamation null and void because it conflicted with the laws of the nation and state and the organization’s by-laws, one member told WMYT.

But how long ago was that?

Then there's
Quote:

12/15/11 ... Debra Dodd, the former secretary at the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in Fayetteville, Tenn., was fired for what she says is racial discrimination.

Dodd said the all-white church first embraced her during her two years as secretary -- and then suddenly shunned and subsequently fired her on May 26 after they learned she had married a black man in April.

Dodd said the church initially "treated me like family," but that changed after three church leaders saw Dodd and her then-fiance, Michael Hampton, eating together at a Fayetteville restaurant.

"Then suddenly it went downhill. All of the sudden my clothes were not appropriate, I was not doing my job right. People stopped looking at me. They would turn their faces away from me. When my husband and a friend of his visited one week when I sang, there were comments about the 'colored boys in the back.'" More at http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2011/12/lawsuit_claims_racial_discr
imi.html
]
IRemember that in November 2000, Alabama became the last state to overturn a law banning interracial marriage. Lest you think this is old news,
Quote:

03/12/2012 ... polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) revealed that 29 percent of likely GOP voters surveyed in Mississippi believe that interracial marriage should be illegal. Fifty-four percent said intermarriage should remain legal, and the rest responded that they weren't sure. The survey also found that 21 percent of likely GOP voters polled in Alabama believe that interracial marriage should be illegal.

Q24. Do you think that interracial marriage should be
legal or illegal?

Mississippi:

Legal............................................................... 54%
Illegal .............................................................. 29%
Not sure .......................................................... 17%

Alabama:

Legal............................................................... 67%
Illegal .............................................................. 21%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_
312.pdf


That's one year ago, folks. And I'm pretty sure the people who were/are against interracial marriage are the same people who are now against same-sex marriage, and for pretty much the same ACTUAL reasons: Fear of the unknown and fear of change. Obviously in many cases you can toss in a soupcon of ignorance, and of course ignorance breeds fear breeds hate and away you go: ANY "reason" against it will do.

We're a fairly predictable species...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:45 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm an ace at test taking. I was one of those guys in high school that pissed everybody off by "raising the curve." Never happy with any score less than 90 %. Exams at college were EASY, never had to cram or study up- I read the material once, went to the lectures, listened, made notes, did the homework. Almost never even reviewed my notes as prep for tests.

I guess I just don't fathom DUMB. I applied logic to this test and missed 4 out of 10, scoring only 60 %.

I'd be ashamed of myself except for the stupidity of the quotes. I guess I'm just too smart to understand DUMB.




I hear ya. I studied for tests, probably over-prepared for them. My college profs learned pretty quickly that if they gave an essay test, I'd hand them back a book. A history prof actually asked me if it was okay if he went and got some lunch while I finished my final - I was on page eleven of a half-page essay when he left, because I wanted to make sure I covered all the implications of the question, and history is all linked anyway... He said, "I take it you don't need to look at your notes, so I won't even ask if I can take your book bag with me." I told him to feel free, I totally had this thing in the bag, and he laughed. I was there for three hours for a one-hour test. And I got a 99.5 on it.

A government prof gave me a 99 on a test that he covered in red ink, and I argued with him about it, because I insisted that what he ducked me a half point for was implied in the sentence he underlined and wrote "where?!" above. We went round and round, and he finally stumped me when he said, "Well, in government, nothing's perfect." Okay, you've got me on that one. I remain friends with both of them to this day - they were the reasons I switched from a math/physics major to government and history; it was their passion and their way of pulling you into the material.

Those silly "aptitude tests" in high school were always fun. I was an underachiever in high school, rarely going to class except to show up and ace the tests, and I always pulled 98-99% on the aptitude scores, blowing the curve for most everybody else. When I dropped out of school, a couple teachers tried to talk me out of it, but I asked them if I was really best served by staying where I wasn't really learning anything. I was constantly in the principal's office for skipping; they kept piling up more and more detention on me or suspending me for three days (during which I'd work ahead on my class work and turn it in early when I came back); I used to call it a "three day vacation" when I got suspended.

So it was agreed that I really wasn't getting much out of school, and they weren't going to let me graduate anyway because I "owed" them 484 days of detention and there was only a month of school left, so I walked away. And I went straight down to the school district headquarters and took my GED tests. In those days, that was a series of five tests designed to test your proficiency in the basics - math, reading, writing, science, civics. So I paid my fee and took the tests, and the woman who graded them did it while I waited, then looked at me with shock on her face. "You missed two questions," she said. "On one test?" I asked, skeptical. "No. Out of all five. I've worked here 25 years and I've never seen anyone do that."

At that point she was sure I must have cheated. I pointed out that I brought no books, no notebook, no bag, no briefcase or satchel, and turned out my pockets. No computer, calculator, nothing like that. No notes, no cheat sheets, no nothing. I pointed out to her that she should be glad I had learned all this in public school, and it was a testament to the school's ability to teach INFORMATION, if not exactly to mold behavior, because in that they had failed miserably with me.

I told her I'd be happy to retake all five tests in a locked, sealed room while she watched, if that would make her happy. I had no particular place I needed to be, after all, and knew I could ace the tests now that I knew where I had made my mistakes. She allowed as that wouldn't be necessary, but she just couldn't understand why I was leaving school if I could test out like that. "Because I can test out like that," I replied.

High school chafed against me, against pretty much every fiber of my being. I smoked, I drank, I did drugs, all just to try to make it bearable, or exciting, or at least more interesting.

Funny thing is, ten years later I dropped into college and found that it really challenged me - and that I thoroughly enjoyed it with no need for drugs or booze. I was probably at my happiest there, and if I could have afforded it, I'd probably still be taking classes to this day. Heck, they'd likely have lobbed a doctorate or two at me by now! :D



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:51 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wow, you only found the one offensive?

I find pretty much the whole argument offensive. I did then, I do now.



No, the whole thing is offensive and I should have clarified that in my origonal post.




Cool deal. And agreed.


And Niki's point about WHO is opposed to same-sex marriage has the ring of truth to it as well: it's the same folks who were opposed to interracial marriage, and for the same "reasons". And they're not REAL reasons, not valid ones; what it boils down to is "because it freaks me out to see it and makes me uncomfortable being faced with something I haven't seen before." And while that might be a valid reason for staying in a cloistered and cocooned, hermetically sealed environment, it's not a valid reason for passing laws against such things.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:52 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Oh, and here's the notes on the answers, with court cases and years notated where applicable.

Select to view spoiler:




1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

4. ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011: “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998!!!): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

9. ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002: "A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."








"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 8:20 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You nailed it, Mike...only I would say "because it freaks me out to THINK ABOUT it and makes me uncomfortable being faced with something I haven't THOUGHT ABOUT before". They don't have to SEE it; seeing it only reinforces the underlying FEAR of something they've not imagined before.

What gets me is the refrain I keep hearing from those opposed; that this is a "new" thing and we should "take time" to consider it. If we went by their time standards, a hundred years from now would be just MAYBE getting to where we should "discuss" it...but note the poll...we're not yet TWO hundred years from when those things were written/said, and almost a quarter of Republican voters STILL think it should be illegal...!

Note how interracial marriage was thought about only a little over a hundred years ago, from those quotes. It wasn't a discussion, those things were said as "fact", period. How long will people with that mentality hold on to those "facts", if we put it on the back burner and don't think about it "yet"?

In case nobody notices who reads your spoiler, some of the terminology is actually quite familiar, insofar as some of it's been voiced right here. Along the lines of "natural instinct revolts at it as wrong," "unnatural and immoral", "the whole plan of God", "is not best for man"... The "unnaturalness" and "wrongness" of it was just as clear to them then as it is to them, Rap and his buddies today, and, as you said, for many of the same "reasons". Not reasonable reasons, not proveable reasons, not historic reasons, but to them, "reasons" all the same.

To them (perhaps) the two are "completely different". Different races intermarrying may not seem unnatural to them (tho' who knows...), while the same sexes intermarrying IS unnatural. Their arguments are often around children...yet look at the arguments against interracial marriage where children are concerned... "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies...". The things that are written about any children BORN of such a union smack of much that is being claimed for children ADOPTED into a same-sex union, and so on.

And if you look back further, guess what you'd find written/said about interFAITH marriages?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, April 24, 2024 09:25 - 2296 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Wed, April 24, 2024 09:04 - 804 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, April 24, 2024 08:57 - 6296 posts
Case against Sidney Powell, 2020 case lawyer, is dismissed
Wed, April 24, 2024 07:50 - 11 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, April 24, 2024 06:06 - 3553 posts
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Tue, April 23, 2024 22:56 - 1 posts
Slate: I Changed My Mind About Kids and Phones. I Hope Everyone Else Does, Too.
Tue, April 23, 2024 19:38 - 2 posts
No Thread On Topic, More Than 17 Days After Hamas Terrorists Invade, Slaughter Innocent Israelis?
Tue, April 23, 2024 19:19 - 26 posts
Pardon Me? Michael Avenatti Flips, Willing To Testify On Trump's Behalf
Tue, April 23, 2024 19:01 - 9 posts
FACTS
Mon, April 22, 2024 20:10 - 552 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, April 22, 2024 17:47 - 1010 posts
I agree with everything you said, but don't tell anyone I said that
Mon, April 22, 2024 16:15 - 16 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL