[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Which claim?
[/QUOTE]
The following:
But I proved that they aren’t treated equally by the law, which you ignored, and are probably intending to keep walking through your life looking down on blacks for being suspicious of just such a system.
Was your mother Jewish then?
I’m suspicious this is a joke I don’t get, but no my mother never became Jewish. 
No, I wasn’t joking. Just curious because, if your stepfather was so upset about mixed marriages, then why would he marry a non-Jew? That doesn’t make sense.
He didn’t say that his father was upset about mixed marriages. He said that his father said that Jews in general are justified in being upset about mixed marriages.
Ah. Okay. I misunderstood. :smack:
That’s still pretty weird, though, not getting offended when people treat your wife like dirt. 
(I get what rogerbox is saying, just that if that were me, I’d be pretty hurt)
I’m not sure it’s all that interesting or relevant. YMMV. Spike Lee covered some of this in Jungle Fever. The concept that one is “betraying” your race/class by marrying someone from the previous/maybe still is oppressive race/class. In the case of blacks in the US, what I’ve heard is a sense of betrayal when the black guy marries a white woman instead of a black woman given the current challenge of black single mother led families and attendent issues (and not to mention historic baggage). It’s of course much deeper and more nuanced than that, but in a nutshell that’s my understanding.
I dunno, the fact that she is aready married may be a bigger stumbling block then the blonde hair. 
#1 does not need to be based in racism. You are free to make you own determination of preferences in a mate. Completely eliminating an entire racial group on the race basis alone, would be racist.
#2 and #3 are racist.
From the Jewish perspective, the whole issue gets much more complicated. Jews are born not made, and only from the mother’s line. Anyone born of a Jewish woman is considered a Jew under Jewish religious law. So a Jewish man marrying a non-Jewish woman effectively kills off a line of Jewish decent. Also, when a Jewish woman marries out it significantly lowers the odds that the children will be raised Jewish and increases the odds that her children will also marry goy and end more lines.
This means that when Jews intermarry the potential pool of Jews gets smaller. The religion essentially loses future members.
When people of different races intermarry the children still keep a claim to both racial heritages.
I’m still waiting for some kind of acknowlegement of my valid points from you btw.
I believe he only found out about it later, not at the wedding, but he wouldn’t have kicked him out even had he known, because he doesn’t have a problem with that racist opinion (he doesn’t consider it racist as I said).
If I found out even afterwards that someone at my wedding refused to talk to my wife at it because they didn’t approve of our race-mixing, I would call them and tell them off and then have nothing to do with them, myself.
To give my stepfather credit, for all his flaws I wouldn’t put “racism” in the top 100. I think he thinks somewhat negatively about arabs but I tend to forgive people for resenting the group that shoots you with a rifle while you are trying to build them a school.
I know that the mother being Jewish is what makes one considered a jew, if so why does it matter if Jewish men marry goyim or not? The limiting factor is the jewish mothers, and their half jewish female children can still produce jews considered just as jewish, correct?
It’s still racist but it should matter to jews less if the men marry Goyim following that logic, correct?
That was done by Arabs as a group, collectively? Was there a referendum?
I swear I’m not trying to stir up scheisse – but really, how is this not directly relevant to the OP. If you didn’t know me, but heard me say something like “a man of my race marrying outside the fold is a betrayer of his heritage!” would you really stop and ask “now waitamminit, are you white or black?” before deciding whether my attitude was acceptable?
rogerbox:
Yes I have seen your points. I think this sort of crap by juries can be completely avoided if there was a mandatory sentencing law sentencing all first-degree murderers who are convicted automatically to death be he black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheists, rich, poor, heterosexual, homosexual.
Expressed myself poorly. It depends on if it’s “all things being equal, I’d prefer my child to marry someone from our culture/language/background/class/race/gender but what the hell I love my kid and I’ll lovingly accept whomever they want to marry” or “I’ll try to stop the wedding somehow 'cause me daughter isn’t going to marry a (insert blank here).” I don’t think this is breaking any new ground on the OP.
So, if a black woman wants to silently lament a strong worthy brother marrying a white woman, it’s not necessarily racist. It *could *be but doesn’t *have *to be racist.
If it’s because she’s a white woman, it’s racist. If it’s because she’s not a black woman, it might or might not be racist depending on the thoughts behind the sentiment.
In the commentary I linked to earlier, the (again, well-respected) author writes:
Sounds to me it’s specifically because the woman’s white, at least in this author’s view.
But it is, because the OP’s last two questions are:
(2) Disapproving of others’ interracial relationships.
(3) Wanting to ban or otherwise block interracial relationships.
From what you say, the consensus holds that #3 is indisputably racist, but now #2 becomes more of a “maybe” situation?
ETA: I’m not trying to play “gotcha” regarding any double standards, but investigating whether the issue might be more complex than we want to admit, all around. Some posters above seemed to treat this as an open and shut case, but I wonder whether it really is.
Missed edit window: when I say “but it is” above, I mean regarding breaking new ground vis a vis the OP.
Okay, I don’t think it’s worth trying to enlighten you about anything anymore, this kind of thinking is just wrong for too many reasons.
You express some astounding naivete here, Qin, particularly if you think that rich and poor persons get anything like the same treatment in court. Anyway, what you suggest will, once it becomes commonly known, simply cause racist jurors to convict on second-degree murder rather than first in cases when they don’t want to send a particular person to the choir invisible.