"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

Damocles said:
Not my point. Races are not "mixed" we are simply different paths from the same beginning. Races do not exist, they are a fabrication of society based on non-consequential differences such as pigmentation, there is only one human race with diverse ethnicities.
Click to expand...
There I agree with you. The concept of race is an arbitrary human concept.
 
Cypress said:
I read that passage, and it doesn't say anything about races not being allowed to marry.

why would somebody "interpret" it that way?


kkkhood.jpg
Click to expand...
IMO they read with a preconceived idea, wanting to find a directive that supports what they want to do. This then passes on through ages as they teach their children the same interpretation. Much like there is no part of the Bible that says the Earth is the center of the Solar System, yet people were killed for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the Solar System...

The question is, if somebody is taught God says so, and although they are attracted to somebody of the other race do not go out with them because of this interpretation being taught to them, are they "racist" or "uber-religious" denying themselves what they really want to have in order to follow what they believed to be a directive from the Almighty?
 
Damocles said:
IMO they read with a preconceived idea, wanting to find a directive that supports what they want to do. This then passes on through ages as they teach their children the same interpretation. Much like there is no part of the Bible that says the Earth is the center of the Solar System, yet people were killed for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the Solar System...

The question is, if somebody is taught God says so, and although they are attracted to somebody of the other race do not go out with them because of this interpretation being taught to them, are they "racist" or "uber-religious" denying themselves what they really want to have in order to follow what they believed to be a directive from the Almighty?
Click to expand...
Sheep is what they are. Religion is NOT the opiate of the masses it is the lobotamizer of the masses. Anyone that does not date someone because some one told them that is what god wants is a brainless twit. Free thinking is what got this country where it is. THe founders of this country were above all else were free thinkers. Many of them were religious but they were also part and parcel of the Enlightenment.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that's a stretch.....are you suggesting that the drafters of the Constitution were actively thinking about the issue of abortion when they drafted it?.....our Constitution says nothing about WHEN someone becomes a person and you know as well as I do that someone practicing abortion in 1776 would have been punished soundly by the law
Click to expand...

Link?

In the view I've often heard (the one mentioned in the Roe decision), the anti-abortion laws were put in place in the 19th century to protect the life of the mother from the dangerous procedure. The concept of embryonic personhood is an entirely modern invention.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a fingernail paring from a fetus and from a birthed child are both human material...a birthed child and a fetus are both whole entities....there is no valid scientific reason to treat one differently from the other...
Click to expand...

An embryo is incapable of even having a desire to continue living. They don't have intelligent thoughts. IMHO, that's a huge requirement for person hood.
 
Cypress said:
I read that passage, and it doesn't say anything about races not being allowed to marry.

why would somebody "interpret" it that way?
Click to expand...


From what I read, God saw mankind had become too imaginative and wise, so he cast them out across the lands and gave them different languages. The purpose of this was to prevent them from collaboration or collectivism. Intermarrying would essentially "undo" what God has done... That's my interpretation, I can't speak for those who religiously believe this, you would have to ask them directly, but I believe that is the motivation for the belief itself, and this is not 'racist' in any way. Because a person interprets the Bible to support this viewpoint, has nothing to do with race superiority, racial equality, equal rights, civil rights, or anything related to racist philosophy. That has been my only point. Is it "politically incorrect?" Sure! Could it be used as an excuse for segregation? Indeed it was! Could a true racist hide behind this view and claim a 'moral high ground'? They certainly have! None of that makes the person who believes he is obeying the word of God, a racist. What makes you a racist is ONE thing... it's what is inside your heart. If you believe race has anything to do with equality, if you think your race is superior, or another race is inferior, those are racist viewpoints.
 
Watermark said:
An embryo is incapable of even having a desire to continue living. They don't have intelligent thoughts. IMHO, that's a huge requirement for person hood.
Click to expand...
But neither does a one month old have intelligent thoughts. The one month old hasn't even self actualized. But it is still a person.
 
Dixie said:
Well God clearly doesn't say that, or else I would venture to say, we would have fewer interracial marriages. As I stated, it is an "interpretation" of something in the Bible. I posted the story of the Tower of Babel from Genesis 11, and I believe that is the scripture which has been interpreted to mean what I stated. I know that you and Prissy believe these reflect my personal viewpoints, and that's fine, you believe whatever you want to about me, bigoted prejudiced people have to believe all kinds of things to support their hate. I have merely defended religious people, who are not being 'racist' in their religiously-based viewpoint. I can disagree with their viewpoint, you can disagree with their viewpoint, but that doesn't make it racist.
Click to expand...

Spin....spin....spin. You said that their position or "interpretation" is "valid" because it was based in scripture.

And just so where clear on what the word "valid" means:

val⋅id
  /ˈvælɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [val-id] Show IPA
Use valid in a Sentence
–adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.

Exactly how is what you posted a "valid" argument for justifying being against interracial marriages?

Also is supporting the murder of homosexuals and non-believers a "valid" position as well? I mean, we can easily retrace this back to a religious book. According to your standards of what's acceptable to be tolerant of, murdering certain groups of people is a perfectly "valid" viewpoint.
 
Watermark said:
An embryo is incapable of even having a desire to continue living. They don't have intelligent thoughts. IMHO, that's a huge requirement for person hood.
Click to expand...

???....do you believe there is a scientifically determinable difference between the capacity of a fetus prior to birth and a birthed child with respect to desire to live?.....also, what does this say about persons with certain handicaps......are they then "non" persons?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....do you believe there is a scientifically determinable difference between the capacity of a fetus prior to birth and a birthed child with respect to desire to live?.....also, what does this say about persons with certain handicaps......are they then "non" persons?......
Click to expand...

There are, I think, only four places in the entire country you can get a late-term abortion and even then only for instances where the life of the mother (clearly paramount) is in danger.

There IS a scientifically determinable difference between a fetus three months before birth and a new baby. The difference is one can survive independent of the mother and the other cannot. The other difference is that one is potentially a health risk to the mother in certain circumstances, and the other is not.
 
Watermark said:
Link?

In the view I've often heard (the one mentioned in the Roe decision), the anti-abortion laws were put in place in the 19th century to protect the life of the mother from the dangerous procedure. The concept of embryonic personhood is an entirely modern invention.
Click to expand...

nothing specific from the founding fathers, but here is a link to a case dating from 1732 in England of a woman convicted of performing abortions....I will presume the laws in the colonies mirrored those of England at least till the Revolution....

Indicted a second time by the Name of Eleanor Beare, for a Misdemeanor, in destroying the Foetus in the Womb of Grace Belfort, by putting an iron Instrument up into her Body, and thereby causing her to miscarry.

Indicted a third time, for destroying the Foetus in the Womb of a certain Woman, to the Jury unknown, by putting an iron Instrument up her Body, or by giving her something to make her miscarry. Pleaded Not Guilty.
Click to expand...

http://www.abortionessay.com/files/beare.html
 
ib1yysguy said:
There are, I think, only four places in the entire country you can get a late-term abortion and even then only for instances where the life of the mother (clearly paramount) is in danger.
Click to expand...

for quite some time the law provided that any restriction on the right to abortion was illegal....there are currently some restrictions in some states, but I believe the only restriction on late term abortions is a restriction on the partial birth procedure.....

There IS a scientifically determinable difference between a fetus three months before birth and a new baby. The difference is one can survive independent of the mother and the other cannot.
Click to expand...
/shrugs....a week old child cannot survive without care either.....

The other difference is that one is potentially a health risk to the mother in certain circumstances, and the other is not.
Click to expand...
/simple solution.....I will concede abortion to save the mother if you give me the other 90%.......
 
ib1yysguy said:
There IS a scientifically determinable difference between a fetus three months before birth and a new baby. The difference is one can survive independent of the mother and the other cannot.
Click to expand...

actually this boy is one of twins born more than three months prematurely....the gold band you see on his arm is his father's wedding ring.....both are currently fine and have grown from their original birth weight of under 2 lbs to a current 5+lb weight......

CIMG1042.JPG



now....
CIMG1420.JPG
 
PostmodernProphet said:
for quite some time the law provided that any restriction on the right to abortion was illegal....there are currently some restrictions in some states, but I believe the only restriction on late term abortions is a restriction on the partial birth procedure.....


/shrugs....a week old child cannot survive without care either.....


/simple solution.....I will concede abortion to save the mother if you give me the other 90%.......
Click to expand...

OMFG you're so fucking retarded.

A fetus born before the third trimester cannot survive WITH OR WITHOUT care. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

As to your simple solution -- don't make me laugh.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually this boy is one of twins born more than three months prematurely....the gold band you see on his arm is his father's wedding ring.....both are currently fine and have grown from their original birth weight of under 2 lbs to a current 5+lb weight......

CIMG1042.JPG



now....
CIMG1420.JPG
Click to expand...

Retarded. VERY rarely a child will survive born that early. If he was born a week earlier he'd have certainly died. Not to mention, it's tough for me to believe the story at all. The kid looks too healthy to be three months early. Not to mention -- where's his twin?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top