Inter-racial marriages and gay marriages

[Jimmy Higgins]

Back in the "good ole days" whites weren't allowed to marry blacks. Interr-racial marriages were forbidden in many states, 16. Pretty much, based on merely biblical grounds of morality, Virginia had a law which stated that it was a imprisonable offense to have an inter-racial marriage. Even if the couple went to a state where it was legal and then went back to Virginia to cohabitate together, that was a crime!

Luckily, activist judges put a stop to that a long long time ago... well actually 1967 with the case Loving v Virginia .

Now a very similar case is being made against homosexuals getting married.

The ruling judge in the trial regarding Loving in Virginia stated:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

But I keep hearing that the bible doesn't call for this. That inter-racial marriage is Kosher.

25 I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. 26 Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. 27 Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"

(Nehemiah 13:25-27) My emphasis.

I believe that is pretty strong for a recommendation barring interracial marriages. And would be right in line with what the ruling Virginian judge was stating in his opinion and ruling in the Loving case.

So I ask, why inter-racial marriages, but not gay ones?

[FormerFundy]

Back in the "good ole days" whites weren't allowed to marry blacks. Interr-racial marriages were forbidden in many states, 16. Pretty much, based on merely biblical grounds of morality, Virginia had a law which stated that it was a imprisonable offense to have an inter-racial marriage. Even if the couple went to a state where it was legal and then went back to Virginia to cohabitate together, that was a crime!

Luckily, activist judges put a stop to that a long long time ago... well actually 1969 with the case Loving v Virginia .

Now a very similar case is being made against homosexuals getting married.

The ruling judge in the trial regarding Loving in Virginia stated:

But I keep hearing that the bible doesn't call for this. That inter-racial marriage is Kosher.
(Nehemiah 13:25-27) My emphasis.

I believe that is pretty strong for a recommendation barring interracial marriages. And would be right in line with what the ruling Virginian judge was stating in his opinion and ruling in the Loving case.

So I ask, why inter-racial marriages, but not gay ones?

Jimmy,

I think so many of these things are cultural. Interracial marriage was a cultural taboo in the South up until about 40 years ago. As is often the case, Christians will try to stamp their cultural taboo with the imprimatur of Scripture. So virtually all conservative churches and conservative preachers in the South condemned interracial marriage as being out of God's will. Eventually the culture changed and so did the churches. It took some longer than others but even BJU now no longer condemns it.

I believe gay marriages will one day be accepted throughout the US. I saw a poll the other day showing a majority of those under 30 now approve it; those 30-50 were opposed, but those over 50 were overwhelmingly opposed.

[Vorkosigan]

I also suspect that gay marriage will be approved in the long run. It will be fun to watch the Churches scream....but of course they will all change their doctrines, as they did on interracial marriage and slavery before that.

I am re-reading Mary Douglas' classic Purity and Danger, one of the most influential anthro works ever (first published in 1966). There's quite a bit here about how cultures define "purity" and its uses and consequences that is applicable to the current controversy over gay marriage.

Vorkosigan

[The Laughing Man]

Oh, you people are the living end!

[AtheistArchon]

- Not fond of THAT comparison Jinx? I haven't heard you speak out against comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and such.

[Losvedir]

Interesting.... the scary part of it for me, an anti-samesex marriage fella, is how *right* the opinion sounds just swapping out a few words:

Almighty God created the sexes male and female, and he gave them separate sexual organs. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the sexes shows that he did not intend for the sexes to mix.

[Socrates]

Back in the "good ole days" whites weren't allowed to marry blacks. Interr-racial marriages were forbidden in many states, 16. Pretty much, based on merely biblical grounds of morality,

Oh yes, more lies from Jimmy in his campaign to incite hatred against Bible-believers. No surprise from one who has previously claimed that Hitler was a Christian and that the Bible teaches the inferiority of negroes [sic]. Of course, as AiG has pointed out at Interracial marriage — is it Biblical?, the Bible teaches that there is only one race, so there is no such thing!

Virginia had a law which stated that it was a imprisonable offense to have an inter-racial marriage.

So? Lynchburg also had evolution-inspired eugenics laws (see The Lies of Lynchburg: how U.S. evolutionists taught the Nazis), so why not evolution-inspired laws on race?

The ruling judge in the trial regarding Loving in Virginia stated:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Big flippin' whoop about what a judge said! :punch: Since when is a judge an expert on what Almighty God did? God's own Word, the Bible, contradicts him.

But I keep hearing that the bible doesn't call for this. That inter-racial marriage is Kosher.

Of course, simply because the Bible doesn't mention skin pigmentation as any criterion for marriage.

Scripture Verse:

(Nehemiah 13:25-27) 25 I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. 26 Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. 27 Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"

I believe that is pretty strong for a recommendation barring interracial marriages.

:shoot: As AiG has pointed out, this is in the context of forbidding marriage of Israelites with unbelievers! If a foreigner converted, then there was no problem, e.g. Rahab and Ruth.

So I ask, why inter-racial marriages, but not gay ones?

Incredibly simple: homosexual marriage is as much a contradiction in terms as male mother.

Below attachment: New Zealand Caucasian husband and Malaysian-Chinese wife on their wedding day; both fervent Christians and Biblical creationists.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh yes, more lies from Jimmy in his campaign to incite hatred against Bible-believers.

Tax deductible donations to my Campaign o' Hate can be sent to:

Campaign o' Hate Money
1467 Anystreet Dr
Akron, OH 44313

No surprise from one who has previously claimed that Hitler was a Christian and that the Bible teaches the inferiority of negroes [sic].

Will you just drop this? You think the world is 6000 years old. I don't bring that up every time trying to discredit you, which it obviously would. Live in the now Socrates.

Of course, as AiG has pointed out at Interracial marriage — is it Biblical?, the Bible teaches that there is only one race, so there is no such thing!

Was that written prior to 1967? If not, it is after the fact. Quite easy to say that when its been the rule for almost 40 years now. Hey, the Canadiens will win 5 consecutive Stanley Cups in the 1950's. Bet I'm right... Oh, but it isn't quite the same when it has already happened. I sincerely doubt AIG's opinion would have been the same prior to Loving v Virginia.

So? Lynchburg also had evolution-inspired eugenics laws (see The Lies of Lynchburg: how U.S. evolutionists taught the Nazis), so why not evolution-inspired laws on race?

Drop it man. You're sounding like a broken record. Many autrocities occured prior to the conceptualization of evolution. Manifest Destiny didn't need evolution to do its worse to the native populations. When people raped evolution to meet their corrupt visions, all they did was change the word Providence with Evolution.

".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth."

(as quoted by Brinkley, Alan. American History, A Survey Volume I. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill 1995)

It was white man's burden to conquer and christianize the land.

(as quoted by Demkin, Stephen R. Lecture Notes. HIS 110-83. 1996. Delaware County Community Collage)

Of course the Christians failed in their attempt to "christianize" North America, rather they did a good job of killing and slaughter. All without Evolution to aid in their motives! Evolution is to the degrading of morality as marshmellow peeps are to the degradation of morality. People have been slaughtering without evolution. Heck, Hussein didn't need evolution to gas the Kurds during Reagan's presidency! So stop with the absolutely farcical idea.

Big flippin' whoop about what a judge said! :punch: Since when is a judge an expert on what Almighty God did? God's own Word, the Bible, contradicts him.

Well, you really would have a point if you had a point. Fred Phelps' opinion of the Bible would fall into the realm of what you said. One guy with a small following. However, we aren't talking about just one judge. We are talking about the legislative laws in 16 states!

Alabama, Ala.Const., Art. 4, s 102, Ala.Code, Tit. 14, s 360 (1958); Arkansas, Ark.Stat.Ann. s 55--104 (1947);
Delaware, Del.Code Ann., Tit. 13, s 101 (1953);
Florida, Fla.Const., Art. 16, s 24, F.S.A., Fla.Stat. s 741.11 (1965) F.S.A.; Georgia, Ga.Code Ann. s 53--106 (1961);
Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. s 402.020 (Supp.1966);
Louisiana, La.Rev.Stat. s 14:79 (1950);
Mississippi, Miss.Const., Art. 14, s 263,
Miss.Code Ann. s 459 (1956);
Missouri, Mo.Rev.Stat. s 451.020 (Supp.1966), V.A.M.S.;
North Carolina, N.C.Const., Art. XIV, s 8, N.C.Gen.Stat. s 14--181 (1953); Oklahoma, Okla.Stat., Tit. 43, s 12 (Supp.1965);
South Carolina, S.C.Const., Art. 3, s 33, S.C.Code Ann. s 20--7 (1962); Tennessee, Tenn.Const., Art. 11, s 14, Tenn.Code Ann. s 36--402 (1955); Vernon's Ann.Texas, Tex.Pen.Code, Art. 492 (1952);
West Virginia, W.Va.Code Ann. s 4697 (1961).

(Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817 (June 12, 1967))

That's 16 US states that made it against the law for inter-racial marriages. Could you propose any other possible reason for these laws other than religious interpretation of the Bible? And 14 other states dropped the inter-racial ban between 1952 and 1967: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. (Ibid)

30 states! That's alot. What reason other than religious interpretation?

In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride,"

(LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA ,SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 1)

Corruption of blood? Obliteration of racial pride? I doubt that I'm lying when I say these seem to be Biblically motivated.

Of course, simply because the Bible doesn't mention skin pigmentation as any criterion for marriage. As AiG has pointed out, this is in the context of forbidding marriage of Israelites with unbelievers! If a foreigner converted, then there was no problem, e.g. Rahab and Ruth.

Neh 13:24 doesn't seem to include anything regarding worship of any god, rather the speaking of a different language.

Incredibly simple: homosexual marriage is as much a contradiction in terms as male mother.

Kinda sounds like creationist scientist too!
Or Socrates "Alumnist of the Year".

Below attachment: New Zealand Caucasian husband and Malaysian-Chinese wife on their wedding day; both fervent Christians and Biblical creationists.

So? Just means they forgot what was hugely important 35 to 50 years ago! You claim its obvious, yet over half the US states made it illegal to be inter-racially married. This can't be dismissed as easily as you'd like. Strangely, though, back in the good ole days, it was the state supreme court of California that recognized the unconstitutionality of banning inter-racial marriage first in 1948. Perhaps thats a sign of things to come.

In 40 years, Socrate's protege will be posting a picture of two males being married who were dedicated creationists and explaining why the bible never said that gays couldn't get married... but that the bible meant the new target group couldn't get married... etc...

[Socrates]

Will you just drop this? You think the world is 6000 years old. I don't bring that up every time trying to discredit you, which it obviously would.

Not to biblical Christians, which is all that matters.

No I won't drop this unless you apologize for lying that the bible teaches white supremacy and in your claim that Hitler was a Christian.

Was that written prior to 1967? If not, it is after the fact. Quite easy to say that when its been the rule for almost 40 years now.

But this prohibition on "inter-racial marriage" is the aberration when overall history is concerned. As Former Fundy said, and he is a sworn enemy of the Christianity he once professed, it was more a case of twisting the Bible to justify a cultural practice.

I have shown conclusively that the Bible does not support any racism practice, so you are the one who should "drop it" unless you can prove the contrary.

Drop it man. You're sounding like a broken record. Many autrocities occured prior to the conceptualization of evolution.

And who is denying this?

Of course the Christians failed in their attempt to "christianize" North America, rather they did a good job of killing and slaughter. All without Evolution to aid in their motives! Evolution is to the degrading of morality as marshmellow peeps are to the degradation of morality. People have been slaughtering without evolution.

And once again, professing Christians who slaughter are acting contrary to Jesus's teaching, while evolutionists who do so are being consistent with evolution.

Heck, Hussein didn't need evolution to gas the Kurds during Reagan's presidency! So stop with the absolutely farcical idea.

Hussein was the leader of the secular Baath party.

That's 16 US states that made it against the law for inter-racial marriages. Could you propose any other possible reason for these laws other than religious interpretation of the Bible?

Of course -- the vestiges of the slave trade. Jimmy has yet to prove any Biblical basis, and he will never be able to! :punch:

Neh 13:24 doesn't seem to include anything regarding worship of any god, rather the speaking of a different language.

Read in context. The whole point was that the foreigners were idolators. I already pointed out that Ruth and Rahab could intermarry after accepting the true God of Israel. Also, nothing whatever is said about skin color in these passages!!

Kinda sounds like creationist scientist too!

Coming from a mere B.S. engineer, that's a joke.

Or Socrates "Alumnist of the Year".

The highest polling by far of any of the Christian alumni-of-the-month, and that's good enough for me and a vindication of robust challenge-riposte apologietics over the WFJ approach that seems to be in vogue.

So? Just means they forgot what was hugely important 35 to 50 years ago!

:shoot: Only to parts of the USA which had traded in slaves. Try to stop being so Americocentric! Then you may even consider that other countries have fairer, more representative voting methods than the antiquated plurality system.

In 40 years, Socrate's protege will be posting a picture of two males being married who were dedicated creationists and explaining why the bible never said that gays couldn't get married... but that the bible meant the new target group couldn't get married... etc...

What crap. The Bible explicitly forbids homosexual acts, and defines marriage right from creation as one man and one woman. The Bible is silent about skin color.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No I won't drop this unless you apologize for lying that the bible teaches white supremacy and in your claim that Hitler was a Christian.

The bible teaches whatever you want it to teach you.

But this prohibition on "inter-racial marriage" is the aberration when overall history is concerned. As Former Fundy said, and he is a sworn enemy of the Christianity he once professed, it was more a case of twisting the Bible to justify a cultural practice.

Why the heck is FormerFundy being brought into this? This isn't exactly an argument against the Bible, but rather the Christians that were and are thumping people with.

I have shown conclusively that the Bible does not support any racism practice, so you are the one who should "drop it" unless you can prove the contrary.

You have conclusively shown nothing, just links to other websites, who's reputation is rather doubted by the scientific community.

And once again, professing Christians who slaughter are acting contrary to Jesus's teaching, while evolutionists who do so are being consistent with evolution.

Evolution is about biology. Nothing more. Christianity is about sociology. There is no comparison. Christians who killed may not have been Christ-like, but they still thought they were Christians, just as you do. Evolution has no standing in morality. Evolution is about Natural Selection among other things. Tell me, what is the difference if a Christian has killed the Native American Population or if a person who believes in evolution killed someone?

Hussein was the leader of the secular Baath party.

What's that to do with evolution?

Of course -- the vestiges of the slave trade. Jimmy has yet to prove any Biblical basis, and he will never be able to! :punch:

And if you knew American history, you'd know that North Dakota never had legal slavery, but had laws against inter-racial marriages. So once, again, why did North Dakota have laws against inter-racial marriages?

Read in context. The whole point was that the foreigners were idolators. I already pointed out that Ruth and Rahab could intermarry after accepting the true God of Israel. Also, nothing whatever is said about skin color in these passages!!

Not of skin color. But of language and nation!

Coming from a mere B.S. engineer, that's a joke.

You've no accomplishments at all. I can speak of working on the huge suspension bridge being built in Toledo. I've got substance in addition to my degree. You only have a degree.

The highest polling by far of any of the Christian alumni-of-the-month, and that's good enough for me and a vindication of robust challenge-riposte apologietics over the WFJ approach that seems to be in vogue.

Aww. You are still upset about that, aren't you? All your "robust" efforts and christians voted against you. So sad. Congrats to Bob Jenkins again for winning the Alumnist of the Year Award!

:shoot: Only to parts of the USA which had traded in slaves. Try to stop being so Americocentric! Then you may even consider that other countries have fairer, more representative voting methods than the antiquated plurality system.

What is up with your plurality system gag? What the heck does that have to do with anything? 30 states, almost half of which never had slavery had laws against inter-racial marriages. How were Christians passing such laws?

What crap. The Bible explicitly forbids homosexual acts, and defines marriage right from creation as one man and one woman. The Bible is silent about skin color.

The Bible clearly states a whole bunch of things. Christians take whatever they want from it. In the late 60's, they were still saying inter-racial marriage was wrong. Christians were saying this, so much that it was illegal is 16 states in 1967! Why? If Christians had such corrupt values then, why not now.

[Socrates]

I have shown conclusively that the Bible does not support any racism practice, so you are the one who should "drop it" unless you can prove the contrary.

You have conclusively shown nothing, just links to other websites, who's reputation is rather doubted by the scientific community.

Not so -- I am part of the scientific community and you are not, and I think they have a great reputation :punch:

So once more, prove your case from the Bible -- I've already demolished one of your pathetic twists.

And once again, professing Christians who slaughter are acting contrary to Jesus's teaching, while evolutionists who do so are being consistent with evolution.

Evolution is about biology. Nothing more.

Crap -- evolutionists try to explain morality as well. For example, the book by two evolutionists claiming that rape was a way for men to spread their genes.

Christianity is about sociology. There is no comparison. Christians who killed may not have been Christ-like, but they still thought they were Christians, just as you do.

They thought wrongly.

The highest polling by far of any of the Christian alumni-of-the-month, and that's good enough for me and a vindication of robust challenge-riposte apologietics over the WFJ approach that seems to be in vogue.

Aww. You are still upset about that, aren't you? All your "robust" efforts and christians voted against you.

How would you know? Given the infestation of TWeb with atheists as well as heretics of the unitarian and modalist variety, there is a perfectly logical explanation. The main thing though is that no Christian polled even close, and that suggests that support for robust apologetics is much higher among Christians than certain people would like to think. Meanwhile, Higgy himself is languishing among the also-rans in just the current monthly poll :bounce:

:shoot: Only to parts of the USA which had traded in slaves. Try to stop being so Americocentric! Then you may even consider that other countries have fairer, more representative voting methods than the antiquated plurality system.

What is up with your plurality system gag? What the heck does that have to do with anything?

Show how backward America is with some things. So it's no wonder they were so far behind the times with these crappy laws against inter-racial marriage. I note that no one has provided a coherent argument against proportional representation -- Jimmy's argument was essentially "America has the plurality system and it was the first democracy, so can't possibly be improved upon".

What crap. The Bible explicitly forbids homosexual acts, and defines marriage right from creation as one man and one woman. The Bible is silent about skin color.

The Bible clearly states a whole bunch of things.

It sure does! A prohibition against homosexual acts is one of them. Skin color relevance for marriage is NOT. So stop wasting our time unless you can prove that the BIBLE forbids marriage to someone of a different color. I don't give a monkey's what anyone has CLAIMED, only in what the Bible SAYS.

Christians take whatever they want from it.

They should not, but it's the likes of you with your existentialist approach that are part of the problem, not the solution. The objective language of the biblical text, properly interpreted according to its grammatical-historical context, is the corrective!

In the late 60's, they were still saying inter-racial marriage was wrong. Christians were saying this, so much that it was illegal is 16 states in 1967! Why? If Christians had such corrupt values then, why not now.

Who says it was Christians? And who gives a flying anyway? It's what the Bible says that matters.

[The Laughing Man]

Was that written prior to 1967?

As if that has any relevence! The Bible was written prior to 1967 and it makes no mention of race. It does, however, make mention of homosexuality.

Hey, Jimmy... Was your post written prior to 1967? If not, then it's after the fact.

[Losvedir]

The scripture he quoted, though possibly taken out of context, does make somewhat of a case against interracial marriages. Now that they're accepted, though, it's easy to explain away what Scripture's saying. What's to say this won't happen again? In say, 50 years, if gay marriages are common, will people be pointing to Leviticus and saying, "well.. see that's one of those things we don't need to follow anymore" and basically explain away all negative references to homosexuality in the Bible? I mean, there are people who already do that.

[Durthorin]

Having lived in the segregated south and heard pastors of good Southern Baptist Churches defending segregation as Biblical.. having read enough history to know that Catholics and Protestants have found justifications for all sorts of things in the Bible from second class status for women to forced conversion to Christianity the only real question is not what does the Bible say...but

What does the current majority of Christians think it says?


Danu Bless, Dur

[jgsauer]

The only "foreign" women are non-believers (do not be unequally yoked).
The Gentiles have been accepted into God's kingdom. Christ died for all and Peter's vision confirmed that everyone can come to God. With God creating a man and a woman to be united and accepting all believers no matter what heritage he or she is, then inter-racial marriages are acceptable. Unfortunately, a hard heart and a world of sin blinded many Pastor and Christians in the past where they wrongly held onto these beliefs.

The verses in Romans make gay marriage more "black and white"

Grace,
Jim