Want Perspectives from ALL races

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Sternn, this is an absolute fucking crock. You completely deny that ideological racism played any part as a motivating force in the aforementioned events, and then accuse me of being ahistorical because I will not also cavalierly discard the idea?

You're ignoring things because they don't support your thesis, a thesis that is entirely polemical at best.

Bunk. Total bunk.

No, what I am saying is that strained race relations that are tied to war or political strife is different from racism that is based merely on cultural hatred or bigotry.

If the Russians after WW2 and Germans didn't get along because of the previous conflict that is by no means equal to whites who join hate groups in say Alabama and engage in hate practices against minorities there.

Sure, there are some similarities, but the underlying root causes are very different. Harbouring a grudge against someone who invaded your country or went to war with your homeland is somewhat understandable and by no means is racism. Hating someone merely for their skin colour is something totally different.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

No, what I am saying is that strained race relations that are tied to war or political strife is different from racism that is based merely on cultural hatred or bigotry.

If the Russians after WW2 and Germans didn't get along because of the previous conflict that is by no means equal to whites who join hate groups in say Alabama and engage in hate practices against minorities there.

Sure, there are some similarities, but the underlying root causes are very different. Harbouring a grudge against someone who invaded your country or went to war with your homeland is somewhat understandable and by no means is racism.

Tell that to the Russians. Does the term Untermensch sound familiar?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Saya

Why not instill a sense of pride that slavery was abolished, segregation overcome, that the Natives survived and have a proud heritage? They shouldn't leave out the bad things white people did in the name of race and it shouldn't leave out the accomplishments of the minorities to overcome that.

Stop posting while drunk.

[x-deviant-x]

There's a difference between being poor and being lazy. There's a lot of truth in the letter posted at the beginning of this thread. It doesn't matter who wrote it or what their intentions behind it were.

[~~Auriel~~]

There is a lot of truth in it, but similar to what Saya said, we should promote unity and equality, not bicker over petty differences.
If a Black Comiedian's routine is largely about race, then a Native, Mexican, or White should be able to do the same thing without persecution.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

There is a lot of truth in it, but similar to what Saya said, we should promote unity and equality,.

How can you preach promoting unity and equality, when you don't promote it yourself? if you did, you wouldn't be supportive of shit like Prop 8 and Amendment 2.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

How can you preach promoting unity and equality, when you don't promote it yourself? if you did, you wouldn't be supportive of shit like Prop 8 and Amendment 2.

I'd merely like to say that I don't support equality or unity in general. I support unity and equality as defined by me.

Oh, wait, that's basically what you just said, too. Never mind.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Oh, wait, that's basically what you just said, too. Never mind.

No actually it isn't, Deviant was talking about legal equality, that really isn't subjective

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Solumina

No actually it isn't, Deviant was talking about legal equality, that really isn't subjective

Really?

Lessee...

Why should there be only equality for straight and gay? Why not, say, a pedophile who finds a willing child? Or three people who want a marriage? Why are we limiting it to two? Why not a single person? Hmm? Why are straight and gay the only ones who should be able to get married?

You may not agree with prop 8., but why should we stop there?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Really?

Lessee...

Why should there be only equality for straight and gay? Why not, say, a pedophile who finds a willing child? Or three people who want a marriage? Why are we limiting it to two? Why not a single person? Hmm? Why are straight and gay the only ones who should be able to get married?

You may not agree with prop 8., but why should we stop there?

A child doesn't have legal standing, so that argument itself is rubbish.
Three people marrying doesn't sound bad to me, though.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Really?

Lessee...

Why should there be only equality for straight and gay? Why not, say, a pedophile who finds a willing child? Or three people who want a marriage? Why are we limiting it to two? Why not a single person? Hmm? Why are straight and gay the only ones who should be able to get married?

You may not agree with prop 8., but why should we stop there?

The pedophilic relationship would be harmful to the child, I have no problem with multiple spouses, and I'm really not sure how a single person would be getting married.

[x-deviant-x]

I 2nd what Solumina said.

The only real problem I can see with multiple spouses is dividing up property rights, benefits, etc. Arguments would ensue between remaining spouses when one of them passes, and you can't justify forcing an employer to provide benefits to multiple spouses, unless they were treated like dependents, as children usually are. I don't think many people have a problem with keeping it between 2 consenting adults. The problem comes with dictating what gender those adults are.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I 2nd what Solumina said.

The only real problem I can see with multiple spouses is dividing up property rights, benefits, etc. Arguments would ensue between remaining spouses when one of them passes, and you can't justify forcing an employer to provide benefits to multiple spouses, unless they were treated like dependents, as children usually are. I don't think many people have a problem with keeping it between 2 consenting adults. The problem comes with dictating what gender those adults are.

Well, I think your stance is discriminatory and wrong. Who are you, and who is the government, to say that my desire to have two wives is wrong, or not worthy of support? Sure, there may be disagreements, but, heck, that happens between straights and gays as well. Why can't three people who love each other have a family without being implicitly condemned for their non-conformance to an outmoded Judeo-Christian morality?

Three parents are better for a child - more of them around, and more money for the family. Why can't we have the same rights other people get, especially considering that there are more of us?

/end fake rant mode

[Saya]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Well, I think your stance is discriminatory and wrong. Who are you, and who is the government, to say that my desire to have two wives is wrong, or not worthy of support? Sure, there may be disagreements, but, heck, that happens between straights and gays as well. Why can't three people who love each other have a family without being implicitly condemned for their non-conformance to an outmoded Judeo-Christian morality?

Three parents are better for a child - more of them around, and more money for the family. Why can't we have the same rights other people get, especially considering that there are more of us?

/end fake rant mode

Polygamy does hurt people. There's a documentary that is played on AE a lot, about polygamy in Utah. The families are so screwed up, the women consumed with jealousy and a lot of the men don't even like having multiple wives.

Anyway, while it is illegal, it doesn't stop them and authorities are very reluctant to stop them.

[$haDe]

Originally Posted by Solumina

The pedophilic relationship would be harmful to the child, I have no problem with multiple spouses, and I'm really not sure how a single person would be getting married.

Quoted.

It's quite true.

It's people's different ways of expressing theirselves.

[ionic_angel]

So if something hurts someone, it's bad? Cool.

Just as a question, would you support outlawing gay marriage if it was discovered that same-sex partners tended to have a 75% greater chance of, say, domestic violence? As a thought experiment.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

So if something hurts someone, it's bad? Cool.

Just as a question, would you support outlawing gay marriage if it was discovered that same-sex partners tended to have a 75% greater chance of, say, domestic violence? As a thought experiment.

No. People have the right to put themselves in dangerous situations as well. Though your hypothetical absolutely sucks.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Saya

Polygamy does hurt people. There's a documentary that is played on AE a lot, about polygamy in Utah. The families are so screwed up, the women consumed with jealousy and a lot of the men don't even like having multiple wives.

Anyway, while it is illegal, it doesn't stop them and authorities are very reluctant to stop them.

That's not really a very valid argument against Polygamy. And I'm pretty sure that Deviant was merely stating the problems rather than saying it was wrong.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

So if something hurts someone, it's bad? Cool.

Just as a question, would you support outlawing gay marriage if it was discovered that same-sex partners tended to have a 75% greater chance of, say, domestic violence? As a thought experiment.

Yes, my view of "bad" usually lies on if someone gets hurt.

That said, while I think the evidence agaisnt polygamy is damning, if you presented to me a polygamist family that was perfectly fine, loving, and no one was being forced into it, then I wouldn't say anything agaisnt them or say they shouldn't be together. My problems with polygamy lies in the fact that a lot of polygamist communities treat women as baby machines, and they are forced to be in that situation at a young age.

That 75% isn't enough, no. Why deny that 25% the happiness of marriage? Even if it was 100%, like Joker said, its their right to put themselves in that situation.

That's not really a very valid argument against Polygamy. And I'm pretty sure that Deviant was merely stating the problems rather than saying it was wrong.

Apologies, I just hate it when people bring up polygamy or bestiality when gay marriage comes up. "If we allows the gays to be married, then why can't people marry horses? Where would it end?" I want to slap the stupid out of people who say that.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Well, I think your stance is discriminatory and wrong. Who are you, and who is the government, to say that my desire to have two wives is wrong, or not worthy of support? Sure, there may be disagreements, but, heck, that happens between straights and gays as well. Why can't three people who love each other have a family without being implicitly condemned for their non-conformance to an outmoded Judeo-Christian morality?

Three parents are better for a child - more of them around, and more money for the family. Why can't we have the same rights other people get, especially considering that there are more of us?

/end fake rant mode

Then you didn't understand what I said. I don't have anything against multiple spouses, if that's what someone wants, and its not harming anyone else. I've considered a triad relationship myself in the past. I personally don't think I could deal with it. It seems like it would always be someone feeling like a 3rd wheel. But I wouldn't try to prevent anyone else from taking part in one, if that's what they wanted. All I was doing is stating some of the issues that may arise from such a situation, should it ever be made legal.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

So if something hurts someone, it's bad? Cool.

Just as a question, would you support outlawing gay marriage if it was discovered that same-sex partners tended to have a 75% greater chance of, say, domestic violence? As a thought experiment.

No. That's the same mentality as outlawing guns because they kill people.

And for the record, studies show same-sex couples tend to have a much lower chance of domestic violence than straight couples. Further, lesbian couples tend to last longer than gay male and straight couples combined. I don't have specific statistics to provide at the moment but feel free to research it yourself.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

No. That's the same mentality as outlawing guns because they kill people.

And for the record, studies show same-sex couples tend to have a much lower chance of domestic violence than straight couples. Further, lesbian couples tend to last longer than gay male and straight couples combined. I don't have specific statistics to provide at the moment but feel free to research it yourself.

No no no! It's God testing us by generally giving them better relationships so that we'll think it's better to be gay and be tempted to stray from our path! It makes perfect sense!

(Lolololololololololololololololololololololololol )

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

How can you preach promoting unity and equality, when you don't promote it yourself? if you did, you wouldn't be supportive of shit like Prop 8 and Amendment 2.

This thread is about RACE, not homosexuality.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

This thread is about RACE, not homosexuality.

messagetooshort