I’m with you on that. I don’t care what Der is like in other threads about other things, in this thread he is right on the money.
I’m also finding it amusing to see the opponents squirm trying to find something, somewhere to justify their bigotry.
Except in modern America in all, but the most backward racist areas, that’s a non issue. Believe me I know. Wouldn’t someone concerned about the children spend energy making it acceptable if they felt it wasn’t socially acceptable?
I mean mixed race children are gonna happen. Seems to me someone truly concerned for the children would spend energy fighting racism rather than propitiating it.
Fourth Try:
I notice you’re not replying to the question I asked earlier.
Is it easier for you to deflect than to actually think up the one example? 
No, it isn’t. Recognizing and attempting to deal the consequences of pre-existing bigotry in a society does not equal bigotry itself.
No it isn’t and she isn’t.
If I want to haul my white ass over to Watts and go bopping down the street in a pink knit pullover, cashmere slacks and shiny leather slip-ons I would not be a bigot to think myself to very likely be in danger. Similarly if I think that’s a bad idea and an area I should avoid, that too is not bigotry. It’s simple common sense.
To proclaim that anyone cognizant of the negative consequences of bigotry in this country and who therefore seeks to counteract them proactively is ipso-facto guilty of racism or bigotry themselves is utter nonsense.
You don’t seem to have a full grasp of what a bigot is. cite
If person X believes what she does, even after being shown that “children of marriages beween race A and Race B” ARE “welcomed into either parents culture”, if she steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that any evidence of that is valid, and clings to her belief no matter what she sees or hears or experiences, then person X could reasonably be said to be a bigot.
**Any second now, I expect the “intolerance of intolerance” meme to pop up. Someone start the stopwatch…
Person X is certainly confused and probably an incurable busybody too. I would say she probably has racist tendancies - because she makes broad and derogatory claims about races A and B. To answer your question we need to know what person X wants to do about the hypothetical children of mixed race A and B. If she wants them taken away from their families and put in foster care, or if she wants to prevent them being born by not allowing races A and B to intermarry you would be OK with that?
I can’t believe the discussion has devolved to this.
You managed to totally miss the point. Replace “Iraq war” with “black slavery” or “military conscription” or “abortion prohibition” or “free education for all children”. Doesn’t matter. Pick any event in history, preferably one that you personally oppose, that had both supporter and opponents and stick it into the analogy. Works just as well.
Just to make it clear for you: the analogy had nothing whatsoever to do with a threat. The point of the analogy is that while bigots may oppose “black slavery” because they hate southerners, or they may oppose “abortion prohibition” because they hate Catholics that does not mean that everybody who opposes those things is a bigot.
Get the point? It doesn’t much matter what controversial social position you look at it will have been both opposed and supported by large numbers of people for bigoted reasons. That does not justify claims that every single person who opposes such a position is a bigot.
Yet that is precisely what we would have to conclude if we agreed with the reasoning put forward by you and Der Tris. If you can’t see why that conclusion is invalid then I give up.
Give me an honest answer, can you really not grock this: People can hate all Catholics and oppose abortion bans on legal grounds, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who opposes abortion bans on legal grounds is a bigot. Someone could oppose abortion bans on legal grounds and love Catholics. Right?
Because I really can’t make this any clearer. There is simply no validity in your all-or-nothing scenario where, because someone can oppose SSM on legal grounds and be a bigot, everyone who opposes SMM onlegal grounds must be a bigot.
Do you really not get this?
It doesn’t fucking matter whether we should or should not ban Buddhism. The question is whether people can object to Buddhism being practiced in their town on grounds that aren’t bigoted. And according to you they can not, which is patent bullshit.
Real life example not long ago where a community objected to Buddhism being practiced in their town because they let off firecrackers every hour, on the hour, all night long. Was that objection bigoted? Of course it fucking wasn’t. Many of the objectors may well have been bigots, but the reason stated (and accepted by the court BTW) was not in any was bigoted.
Are you getting this yet? The fact that a person can object to SSM, or Buddhism being practiced in their town, or abortion bans or anything else for bigoted reasons and simultaneously have non bigoted objection does not make it impossible for another person to hold the non-bigoted reason without simultaneously holding to the bigoted objection.
Shit, you always seemed like a smart fellow, and this concept isn’t that hard.
I know you aren’t this fucking dense. So why the act?
The issue is whether a religious objection is non-bigoted. Whether the religious objection is legally or even logically valid is not and never has been at issue.
Can you honesty not see a situation in which a person could hold that SSM should be illegal because it says so in their holy book, and yet not believe that homosexuality itself is wrong or that they are superior to homosexuals.
I’ll give you a hand: Orthodox Jews believe it is illegal for a castrated man to work in a winery because it says so in their holy book. Does that mean they believe that being castrated itself is wrong? Does it mean that they believe they are superior to castrated men?
No, it doesn’t. It means they have one very specific law outlawing one very specific act for one very specific segment of the population. It may be batshit insane, but it’s not bigoted. It’s just a religious law. A Jew who opposed castrated men working in wineries need not be a bigot. He may be all sorts of other things but he need not be bigoted against castrated men.
Ditto for people who have religious objections to homosexual marriage who don’t have any specific objection to homosexuals or homosexuality.
I believe I shall. You have either no ability or no desire to understand what is being stated here. You keep wandering off into tangents and attacking strawmen while ignoring direct questions and you show no desire or ability to modify that.
I don’t have much respect for people who do that.
That’s not the fucking point. It’s not the point of this fucking thread. It’s not the point of our side discussion.
The point is that someone can oppose it on allsorts of grounds without being bigoted. Are you really having that much difficulty understanding the very topic being discussed? It’s right there in the OP.
It doesn’t matter if gay marriage will usher in a new golden age or condemn us all to damnation. The only point in contention in this thread (for everyone but you anyway) is whether someone can object to gay marriage without being a bigot
Your and Der Tris’s continual insistence that everyone who opposes gay marriage must be a bigot is bullshit. And while I expected that from Trihs I expected better from you.
It’s a problem in Japan even today. And while it’s largely driven by ignorance that isn’t the whole cause by along shot. Western and Japanese values just don’t mesh very well. Japanese Mummy is telling the child to be subservient and to place their duty to society first. American Daddy is telling the child to respect only those who deserve it and not to limit themselves. The child simply can’t be both those things and as a result they fail to integrate into Japanese society. That’s not due to ignorance, It’s due to inherent differences in societies. A child can’t be both perfectly integrated into Japanese and western societies.
But all this is by the by. The point is that you claimed that there was no way that someone could object to interracial marriage without being a bigot, when that is clearly not true. Even if this cultural assimilation problem isn’t a major problem in the USA today any argument based on a belief that it is major problem is still not bigoted. Factually flawed, but not bigoted.
Halle-fucking-lujah. That’s the whole point of the thread. The fact that people objecting to various types of marriage need not be bigoted.
Wanna bet?
Many people, mostly minorities, object to interracial marriage because it tends to bleed the best and brightest from the lower socio-economic cultures causing them to remain a perpetual underclass. The general argument is that every time a black (or Hispanic or whatever) person goes to college and starts making money they will marry outside their own race because the number of suitable, equal partners within their own race are so few. Professionals mostly want to marry professionals and with so few minority professionals they are forced to marry whites.
That means the children will be rich and at leats half white, so they will identify as white culturally, live in white neighbourhoods, go to predominantly white schools and so forth. They will effectively be white with no contact with the black culture there parent came from. And when, in the next generation, a few blacks make it to college they can’t find any suitable black partners because the black professionals and their kids all married out. So they follow suit. The net result is that black communities never advance. They are always populated by non-professionals, the kids have no role models, the income levels never rise and so while individual blacks may improve the black community never can.
Now there has been endless discussion on the merits of this argument. But it remains an argument against interracial marriage and it is not inherently based on bigotry. Indeed it is largely based on the fact of the inferiority of the cultures that mostly promote it. It’s an economic/sociological argument against interracial marriage. Essentially, if you want to solve the problem of minority underperformance then banning interracial marriage could go a long way. Nothing bigoted about that.
And there are a dozen other reasons for opposing interracial marriage that also aren’t bigoted.
So as you can see these things aren’t as simple as you thought they were. Sure most people who oppose interracial marriage and SSM are bigots. But the fact is that lots of people who oppose them are not bigots at all and have reason that have nothing to do with bigotry.
I agree with Isamu - you do seem to have a solid rep on this board, but not as you imagine it to be.
Person X says that the child will not be welcomed by the members of race A because s/he is half-B. Casting aside your fallacious assumption that all members of race A will think this way, the attitude is still bigotry - that the child is unacceptable because of his/her ethnic origins. Race B’s attitude towards the child because s/he is half-A is the same thing - bigotry. So person X is using the perceived bigotry (again, assuming that all members of race A feel this way towards members of race B, and vice versa, is fundamentally incorrect) to back up her own view that members of race A do not have the right to love, marry, and/or have children with members of race B - and vice versa - simply because of their respective ethnic origins. Which is bigotry.
In other words, she’s drawing on bigotry for justification of her own bigoted views.
The only thing you’ve proved here is that you’re trying to provide a way for people to try to weasel out of being labeled a bigot by masking it in a false “concern for the children”. Whether you’re looking to use that escape for yourself or not is yet to be established, but it’s not gonna work under any circumstances.
No she isn’t. She is a clear and level headed sociologist with a Ph. D in Child Welfare. She has absolutely no interest in what anyone else does except where it has negative imapcts on children, and even there her interest is purely professional and she never gives the issue a moment’s thought outside of work hours.
Doesn’t matter how hard you weasel to avoid answeringthe quetsion, m better at it than you.
No, she loves every single individual of both race X and race Y.
What she believes has been proven to be true based on more than 600 replicated, double blind trials. She has based her argument on the results of those trials published in “Science”, including three which she authored herself
She doesnt want to do anything with them. She opposes interracial marriage so that such unhappy children won’t be produced. Once the are produced she sees no solution to the problem and is happy to let the parents decide the fate of the chilred, just like any other parents.
Now would you like to answer my questions or are you going to keep weaseling?
Thanks, good points. But actually, you know, if they don’t want to be labelled as bigots because technically that’s not correct, I’m just as happy with using the term “uninformed arseholes” if it will help resolve the confusion.
Cite?
Cite?
Cite, you uninformed asshole?!
Wow, that certainly is a lot of facts that you didn’t give in your first post. Are there more things about person X we should know, or will you just dribble them out to contradict other posters and support your own position as needed?
Could you post an argument against SSM that isn’t based on bigotry?
I made no such assumption, nor does the argument require it.
The perosn holds no such attitude. She personally believes that the child is worth neither more nor less than any other.
The scientific facts show that the child has a 99.9999% of not being fully accepted by either parental culture and has a 3000 fold increasse in the chance of developing prolonged clinical depression before the age of 18.
-
There is no bigotry, at least in the adults, in either race. there is an incompatibility of culture. For example race A has a custom that all male children must wear skirts and all females wear trousers. Race B has exactly the opposite custom. Children will get teased, naturally, if they wear clothes of the opposite sex. This is just one of many cultural incompatbilities between races A and B.
-
Any bigotry on the part of the children is not percieved, it is a confirmed scientific fact.
-
Person X has the very strong view that members of rall races have the right to love, marry, and/or have children with members of all other races regardless of their respective ethnic origins… provided that any resultant chidlren are not harmed as a result.
What bigoted views? Bigote dagist whom?
You are attempting to demsonstrate that she is bigoted and who she is bigoted against. You can’t use the point you are trying to establish as part of your argument establishing it.
But we all know from experience that you can not understand how to construct a basic argument.
It’s no false. It’s real. That’s part of the hypothetical. Person X has a real concern for children based on real hard facts.
Now would you like to stop weaseling (as you so often do) and answer the question?
Actually I notice you’ve stopped posting GD, and given your past history and your performance in this thread I think we all know why. Things get a bit rough over there for those who can’t make an argument without invoking starwmen.
I repeat: Cite, you uninformed asshole?!
Seems the “point of the thread” is that Der wants to call people bigots, and isn’t allowed because the word is too inflamatory. Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. To me, its pretty hard to dial to eleven past something like that, if I believed in “fighting words”, that one would be pretty darn close.
Those of us of an age, remember serious bigotry, bigotry not just about who you could marry, but whether you could work. Whether you could vote. Hell, whether you could live.
And try as I will, I can’t see squabbling over “marriage” or “civil union” rising to that level of horror.
Anyway, he can come in here and call somebody a bigot, I’m sure he feels much better now. And maybe its like the word “pimp”, the meaning has changed, and I didn’t keep up. I see confusion, I see discomfort with change. I see uncertainty in the face of change. But bigotry? Not even close, nothing I’ve seen on these boards gets within a hundred miles of Bull Connor or George Lincoln Rockwell, or the White Citizens Council.
But if you have to hate something, well, then hate bigotry, I guess. If you have to.
I don’t want to be seen to be weaseling out of anything, but I find it hard to answer the question directly when you’re the only person who has all the facts conerning the hypothetical case.
In any case, bigot or not, I do think she’s racist, and her way of dealing with the problems that may arise from inter-racial marriage, i.e., by banning it or lobbying against it or demonizing it (whichever method she chooses) is wrongheaded. Rather than work at stopping the racism which prevents community inclusion for the mixed kids, she’s telling everyone how bad the mixed kids lives are and that these people should stop having mixed kids.
There’s facepalm there. :smack:
Anyway this is neither here nor there. I admit in theory that someone can be opposed to SSM and not be a bigot. I just dont see it happening in this place we call the real world. YMMV.
No, it’s not. In this case, a lack of conflict is a sign of immorality, of the acceptance of bigotry. As long as this bigotry exits, there SHOULD be conflict. Relentless hostility until it is rooted out and destroyed, until it becomes as bizarre as the condemnation of the left handed seems now to most people.
I note that you are conveniently blaming this oh-so-terrible social conflict on the people who want justice, and not on the bigots.
It effectively came up before you posted, in Post #67 above. Accusing the drive for SSM of being wrong because it causes “social conflict” is essentially the same thing with different words.
Fred Phelps, AFAIK, doesn’t post on these boards but I’d put him and his whole family ministry up there with your list of racist sheriffs and neo-Nazis, no question. Bigotry’s out there, regardless of whether it’s found here on the SDMB or not. It needs to be confronted.
Tell that to someone who isn’t allowed to be with their loved one when they die, and then has their inheritance stolen by the loved one’s bigoted family from them thanks to being unable to have a real marriage. And similar disgusting behavior.
And at any rate, this attitude that injustice and oppression are some kind of competition where only the worst counts is silly and counterproductive. The racism you recall wasn’t as bad as what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust or the blacks during slavery; should it therefore have been dismissed as not “real” bigotry as well ?