|
Post by Lews on Oct 19, 2009 17:42:47 GMT
This is all the same bull[Censored]that was started in the South in the early 19th century to try to make themselves feel better about being racist and having slaves. That black people are inferior, that black people should be slaves for their own good, that blacks and whites can't marry, etc. Pathetic that people still hold onto that and think it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 19, 2009 18:21:32 GMT
Ube... Your brother is right. Saying that someone is likely to experience racism is just stating a fact. At some point in our lives, everyone is likely to experience a degree of racism and sexism, whether online or off. That's just the way it is, unfortunately. It only becomes racism when, in essence, someone says that a person has no right to even exist because they will experience racism. That they have no right to marry; no right to love, no right to be together - solely because they have different ethnicities. This guy's job is to give out marriage licences to anyone who is legally entitled to wed. The moment he decided to refuse a couple a licence purely on racial grounds is the moment when he became a racist. This is all the same bull[Censored]that was started in the South in the early 19th century to try to make themselves feel better about being racist and having slaves. That black people are inferior, that black people should be slaves for their own good, that blacks and whites can't marry, etc. Pathetic that people still hold onto that and think it's true. I completely agree.
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 19, 2009 18:42:53 GMT
The moment he decided to refuse a couple a licence purely on racial grounds is the moment when he became a racist.
Thank you. I'm not going to pull out my pitchfork and torch everytime someone merely observes the sometimes wide divide between the races.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 19, 2009 20:35:21 GMT
It only becomes racism when, in essence, someone says that a person has no right to even exist because they will experience racism. Which isn't what he's saying either. And I never said this wasn't stupid or wrong (for one, he's not protecting the children, he's just making it worst for it since they'll now be born outside of marriage), I'm just saying it's not racism. Because he's doing it based on cultural differences, not on race. The moment he decided to refuse a couple a licence purely on racial grounds is the moment when he became a racist. He didn't deny them on racial grounds. He thinks children born to interracial parents will have a hard time and he doesn't want to encourage that. The reasoning is stupid, because they'll probably go ahead and have kids anyway and then the kids will grow up in a less safe enviroment with the same problems as if the parents had been married. But it's not racist, because it's got nothing to do with inherent qualities in blacks or whites. He's not saying they they'll make bad parents or that they can't get along, he's saying that the surrounding society won't accept the children. In a more tolerant society he'd marry them, but due to the current society he won't. That's not racism. That's only stupid. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Hand-E-Food on Oct 19, 2009 23:14:17 GMT
This guy's job is to give out marriage licences to anyone who is legally entitled to wed. No it is not! He is not a marriage vending machine. As a priest, it is his duty to marry people in the name of God and the Christian faith. If he decides that a couple are not fit to marry as described by Christian doctrine, it is his duty to not wed them. Unfortunately, the priest in question is using a gross generalisation. He's not interviewing the individual couples to decide on a case-by-case basis. When Michelle and I were planning our wedding, my Dad offered us a friend of his who had just become a Salvation Army celebrant. We saw her beforehand to plan the ceremony. We both became uncomfortable with the extensive references to God and religion in the ceremony, neither off us being religious. Michelle told me that she would just be going with the flow and the words wouldn't mean anything to her. That's not the way to start a marriage, with your vows being meaningless. I told the celebrant that we were uncomfortable with the references to God and religion. She told us that she stood for religion and she couldn't compromise on that, and on that fact she couldn't be our celebrant. Dad was pretty upset that we embarrassed him to a family friend, and that Australia "is a Christian country, it's just something you have to put up with. You'll never find another celebrant at this late notice (about 6 weeks)." Well we did find a civil celebrant, a very good one at that. Our vows were perfect and meant a lot to us.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 20, 2009 0:09:25 GMT
This guy's job is to give out marriage licences to anyone who is legally entitled to wed. No it is not! He is not a marriage vending machine. As a priest, it is his duty to marry people in the name of God and the Christian faith. If he decides that a couple are not fit to marry as described by Christian doctrine, it is his duty to not wed them. Unfortunately, the priest in question is using a gross generalisation. He's not interviewing the individual couples to decide on a case-by-case basis. HEF...I think you have missed who this guy is... I am not commenting on his philosophy, but I think he is a "Justice of the Peace", which is a civil (most times elected) position and he actually is sort of obligated to issue liscenses to qualified couples under the law. A priest or preacher IN THE CHURCH may well refuse to do so and the couple would then turn to the Justice of the Peace and bypass the churchs sanction or lack thereof..
|
|
|
Post by Hand-E-Food on Oct 20, 2009 5:48:30 GMT
HEF...I think you have missed who this guy is... Pardon me! My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Oct 20, 2009 8:22:10 GMT
@ HEF -> like how u & Michelle handled your marriage, cos it's yours in the 1st place, not the parents'.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 20, 2009 9:11:34 GMT
Thanks, ss Saves me having to answer that one! ;D *** HEF - I love your description of 'a marriage vending machine' I have to admit. Not least because it's what this civil official actually IS, to all intents and purposes. His job is to hand the things out without fear or favour to anyone who is legally entitled to ask. *** Ube - why are you assuming the couple have cultural differences? I'm just curious, here, as nowhere in the article does it say they are not both Americans...
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Oct 20, 2009 11:12:11 GMT
Typical idiocy. Such people amuse me, as if cultural differences (IF this couple actually had any!) is automatically a problem!
BF and me have 'cultural diffrences', but that enriches our relationship much more than it endangers it.
I'm usually much more estranged by my fellow cultural society members then people from other cultures and if they are cultures I can not handle, well frankly, why would I do them?
Apart from rascim, that is also a good example of people thinking others are not able to make personal decisions themselfs. Bad case of 'I'm superior'.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 20, 2009 16:54:21 GMT
Ube - why are you assuming the couple have cultural differences? I'm just curious, here, as nowhere in the article does it say they are not both Americans... Where did I say I did? And that wasn't part of the justification for denying them marriage either. And there are more than one culture in America. After all, the place is bigger than Europe, and we're not exactly one big culture. Besides, that's a red herring. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 20, 2009 17:25:32 GMT
Ube - why are you assuming the couple have cultural differences? I'm just curious, here, as nowhere in the article does it say they are not both Americans... This is laughable. Come live in the American south for a year and maybe you'll revise your opinion that same citizenship=same culture. Just yesterday there was a massive KKK meeting in broad daylight just 30 minutes or so from my hometown. I wasn't even allowed to have black friends over or go to visit them (I had to do it in secret). Maybe I can only speak for Mississippi but black and white are two different worlds. You watch different movies, listen to different music. You eat at different places, you shop at different places, you go to different gas stations, god knows you sit on opposite sides of the cafeteria at school. We've met the bare minimum for de-segregation and left it at that. We don't need racist laws to cause this, we just segregate ourselves. Sure, once kids get older they break down some of the barriers, but white girls who date black guys were considered trash or freaks. And no white guy would ever look at a black girl. I could go on and on...maybe in England everyone holds hands and drinks tea while singing "God save the Queen" under a rainbow representing racial harmony, but that ain't America. And now that I live in Florida, there's a whole new dimension: Hispanics. Talk about different worlds. Blacks and whites here join together to hate the 'mexicans'
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 20, 2009 18:58:27 GMT
I have to admit, I had no idea things were that bad anywhere in the US, Flix. Not gonna pretend Britain is all fluffy rainbows and racial harmony but we're a lot better than that, thank goodness!
There are some areas in the big cities that are effectively racial ghettos, but nothing like you describe.
It sounds like you have some very serious problems in the US...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 20, 2009 21:03:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 20, 2009 21:34:17 GMT
Yeah, I am. That's an inner city sink estate. You won't find the same attitudes outside those kinds of areas. The young lady herself says she grew up in Manchester thinking racism in Britain was a thing of the past.
What Flix describes would be the equivalent of entire counties in Britain holding those attitudes, which just doesn't happen, thankfully!
Like I said - it's certainly not all flowers and Britain still has some way to go, but from Flix's description we are many leagues ahead of the US.
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 21, 2009 2:17:08 GMT
The U.S. is a big, big place. I'm describing one state (though in all probability several of the southern states). Each state is like a mini-country, not just by size but they have their own laws, their own identity, their own prejudices and unique history. So I might not extend my description to the whole country, and I don't know if the big metropolitan cities would be better or worse than what I've seen in small town U.S.A.
I do know that Mississippi (my home state) consistently ranks dead last at everything in the nation, like education and health-care, and ranks first in things like teen pregnancy, obesity, diabetes, and poverty, so it's basically representative of the worst of America.
You know what just occurred to me as I was thinking about race? Every single one of my friends I've made in Florida is Latino. I hadn't thought about it, but I never knew a single one back in MS, there just weren't any. I'd like to think the fact that someone coming from the kind of background as me can walk around without any (conscious?) racial prejudices shows some hope after all.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 21, 2009 9:23:19 GMT
So Mississippi has pretty much complete social breakdown and is reverting to basic tribalism, you think? It's like one giant sink estate? That would explain it. When humans lose the more developed cultural levels, we tend to go backwards, rather.
Still depressing, though... And must be worse for you, of course.
Background never entirely defines the person, of course. We all have the ability to rise above (Or sink below) our origins. Which is why you are atypical for a Mississippian, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 21, 2009 18:37:48 GMT
So Mississippi has pretty much complete social breakdown and is reverting to basic tribalism, you think? It's like one giant sink estate? That would explain it. When humans lose the more developed cultural levels, we tend to go backwards, rather. No. It's probably the best it's ever been. It's just moving a lot slower than the rest of the country.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 21, 2009 18:46:35 GMT
The best it's ever been?!? Ye gods!
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 21, 2009 19:06:56 GMT
That's my impression. I'm more open than my parents, they were more open than my grandparents, and so on. (btw, it was my grandparents that forbade me from having black friends, I doubt my parents would have done so, though they might have frowned). It's no longer a given that the races stay in our own corners. KKK meetings are an occasional oddity as opposed to the majority of white people. Lynchings are mostly done. Big improvement from the Civil Rights era, which was itself a big improvement from slavery. I guess people just assume everything was 'fixed' nationwide after the 1970's? It's a process, and it's going to move slowest where slavery was most widespread, racism the strongest and education is the lowest.
|
|