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

ib1yysguy said:
And the Lord instituted segregation. And it was good. And the lord proclaimed it was not racist, yay. And it was good.

Then the Lord commandith that races shall not mix, and proclaimed it was not racist. And it was good.
Click to expand...

LOL, it wasn't even based on race it was based on language. But leave it to southerners to take the racist interpretation.
 
LadyT said:
Dixie, you must dizzy by now. All that spinning can't be good for you.

So, Dixie do you also think its valid that people kill homosexuals or nonbelievers believers because they are based in their religion? Or do you just arbitrarily pick racist interpretations to support?
Click to expand...

I've not supported ANY interpretation, I just argued that it's not inherently racist, and no one has proven it is. You all keep calling it racist, and hell... I can call anything "racist" without basis... that's easy to do!
 
Well, discriminating against homos is God's will, LadyT. If we tell a homo he can't work somewhere or eat at a certain restaurant, it's just 'cause God said that's the way people are supposed to live - separate from homos. It's not about calling them INFERIOR or us superior, it's about living God's word. God wanted straights and gays to be separate, and it has nothing to do with one being better than the other!

Basically, you could try to make that argument to support any kind of hate you want. Nobody is convinced by it at all.

Dixie is building a case for segregation and being against interracial marriage and saying it's not at all racist. How anyone can do that without realizing how ridiculous that is is waaaay beyond my ability to comprehend.
 
Dixie said:
I've not supported ANY interpretation, I just argued that it's not inherently racist, and no one has proven it is. You all keep calling it racist, and hell... I can call anything "racist" without basis... that's easy to do!
Click to expand...

Ok, well do you think its a valid opinion if we kill all non believers and homosexuals since its based in certain people religious belief?
 
ib1yysguy said:
And the Lord instituted segregation. And it was good. And the lord proclaimed it was not racist, yay. And it was good.

Then the Lord commandith that races shall not mix, and proclaimed it was not racist. And it was good.
Click to expand...


That's cute and funny, but it's not an accurate representation of anything I have said, or anything the Bible says.
 
Dixie said:
That's cute and funny, but it's not an accurate representation of anything I have said, or anything the Bible says.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed it the first time I posted the question: do you think its a valid opinion if we kill all non believers and homosexuals since its based in certain people religious belief?
 
Dixie said:
But believing religiously, that God separated the people and bestowed race upon us, and gave us different languages so we couldn't communicate, because that was God's will for how mankind should live... that is following your understanding of God's word, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with racial equity.
Click to expand...


You just said yourself, after a righting christian corrected you, that no such law or teaching exists in the bible

You just made that up. Or else you read it on one of your neoconfederate websites that you apparently frequent.


So if it doesn't exist in the bible, these good "christians" you're refering too are either liars or racists.

Which is it?
 
LadyT said:
Ok, well do you think its a valid opinion if we kill all non believers and homosexuals since its based in certain people religious belief?
Click to expand...

Nope. Haven't made that argument, haven't made that statement.


Can you people please stick to what I have actually SAID here, and not what you WISH that I had said?
 
Dixie said:
Nope. Haven't made that argument, haven't made that statement.


Can you people please stick to what I have actually SAID here, and not what you WISH that I had said?
Click to expand...

The point was well made.

Using your logic, any action could be justified under the umbrella of "religious beliefs."
 
Dixie said:
What if we say....... You are not actually a "person" unless you vote Republican? You okay with that, if we decide this should be the criteria? Oh well, it doesn't matter if you're okay with it, we aren't going to give your voice any say in the matter, because you aren't a person! Constitutional rights? Pft... those are also for persons, not for you, because we've defined you as not being a person. Pretty neat huh?

Regardless of what you want to claim an unborn fetus isn't, you can't deny biology, which says an unborn fetus is a human being. A living male or female human being, with distinct and unique human DNA, with it's own fingerprints, brain, heart, blood, etc. Because you have incorrectly defined it as a "non-person" doesn't mean much, except that it gives you the justification you need to kill it. That's how I see it.

Three questions:
1. If it is not human, what kind of life form is it?
2. If it's not alive, why does it need to be 'terminated'?
3. If it is human life, why are we debating it?
Click to expand...
Of course it is a human, but according to our constitution it is not a person that is protected by our laws. You must be born, according to the constitution to get the full benefits of the protection of the United States. Your not being a person till you vote republican is never going to happen. I think YOU MIGHT be able to push an amendment that says the unborn have all the rights and protections of the constitution but I don't think you could get the super majority of states to ratify. Until they do, the unborn don't get rights under the US constitution.
 
Dixie said:
I have not said one thing about opposing the right for anyone to marry anyone. ....

But purely religious people who oppose interracial marriage on religious grounds, are not necessarily doing so out of a "racist" point of view.
Click to expand...


 
Onceler said:
The point was well made.

Using your logic, any action could be justified under the umbrella of "religious beliefs."
Click to expand...

I have not denied that a person with racist beliefs couldn't 'hide behind' the religious reasoning, and I am sure some do, just as some racists marry a person not of their race, to hide their racist views. As I said, racists are very clever people.
 
Socrtease said:
Of course it is a human, but according to our constitution it is not a person that is protected by our laws. You must be born, according to the constitution to get the full benefits of the protection of the United States. Your not being a person till you vote republican is never going to happen. I think YOU MIGHT be able to push an amendment that says the unborn have all the rights and protections of the constitution but I don't think you could get the super majority of states to ratify. Until they do, the unborn don't get rights under the US constitution.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has argued or stated that the unborn have constitutional rights. The argument was, are they humans. "Personhood" is obviously an arbitrary distinction, because there is nothing biological that happens to make a human into a person. If the physical state hasn't changed, the determination of "personhood" is subjective to personal perspective and the criteria is purely arbitrary. That said, we could just as easily define Democrats as "non-persons" who do not have Constitutional rights. In fact, once upon a time in history, we did just that, with black slaves.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:lmao: :thup:
Click to expand...

Well, you can post klan pictures and mock me all you like. You haven't refuted the point I made, and you can't refute it. All you can do is continue to stubbornly insist you are right and I am wrong, without any basis whatsoever. So, I understand... it must suck to be totally PWNED like that. I don't blame you for taking that approach.
 
I'm curious as to what would be considered racist?

If religious viewpoints also considered a certain ethnicity to be incapable of public office, would that be racist? Like an Israeli not voting for a Palestinian simply because he was Palestinian? Is that racist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top