Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Spunky
There you go equating GAY to race.
Have they found the gene yet that makes one gay?

The analogy has nothing to do with genetics; it has everything to do with legal institutions. As recently as a few decades ago there were large numbers of people in this country who believed that miscegenation was immoral, disgusting, and against the will of God. To them, mixed-race marriages were not merely illegal. The very concept of a mixed-race marriage violated the fundamental meaning and historical definition of "marriage"; it was an oxymoron.

Those anti-miscegenists would have been quite comfortable with your formulation. It would have fit in perfectly with their worldview.

86 posted on 02/17/2004 4:18:35 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: dpwiener
Those anti-miscegenists would have been quite comfortable with your formulation. It would have fit in perfectly with their worldview.

What is a miscegenist?

89 posted on 02/17/2004 4:28:57 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: dpwiener
The analogy has nothing to do with genetics; it has everything to do with legal institutions. As recently as a few decades ago there were large numbers of people in this country who believed that miscegenation was immoral, disgusting, and against the will of God. To them, mixed-race marriages were not merely illegal. The very concept of a mixed-race marriage violated the fundamental meaning and historical definition of "marriage"; it was an oxymoron.

Those anti-miscegenists would have been quite comfortable with your formulation. It would have fit in perfectly with their worldview.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but in any event, your logic is flawed. It's like saying that because Ku Klux Klan members were against shoplifting, shoplifting is OK.

Or as Ewell Gibbons put it, when told by a socialite that she could never let herself eat Pigweed (delicious, by the way), because pigs enjoyed eating it, "madam, if you refuse to eat anything that pigs enjoy, you'll starve to death" (or words to that effect).

I suppose "those anti-miscegenists" were opposed to people marrying their children too. Shall we now legalize that, simply because "those anti-miscegenists" opposed it?

94 posted on 02/17/2004 4:39:14 PM PST by Don Joe (I own my vote. It's for rent to the highest bidder, paid in adherence to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: dpwiener
Those anti-miscegenists would have been quite comfortable with your formulation. It would have fit in perfectly with their worldview.

The God of the Bible did not forbid mixed marriages. Check out the Pentateuch, and discover what the prophetess Miriam's most famous moment is. Also, read the Song of Solomon, with "the wise man" pitching woo constantly at "a black girl."

Racists who forbade cross-race marriages never had a Biblical leg to stand on in the first place. On the other hand, you can count the number of homosexual liaisons that were smiled upon by the Almighty on the fingers of a snake.

Nice try.

97 posted on 02/17/2004 4:45:45 PM PST by L.N. Smithee (Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't think for myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson