Why exactly would interracial relationships and marriage be a sin?

[ScuzManiac]

This Quixotic quest for "racial purity" led to the extermination of six million Jews. Racial purity is an El Dorado that leads to violence.

And almost as many (around 5 million) people that WEREN'T Jews.

Staggering numbers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

ShadowWolf, in post 3 brings up this point, "Many people do mention the kids, and unfortunately society has made it very rigid and sometimes difficult for biracial children"

So here we see that a biracial child often faces hardship because their parents chose to be married. I have to ask, why did these parents not consider their children before they got married? Were they being selfish? Were they trying to reform the world view despite the well being of their child? Was it neglect and ignorance? Didn't they care about the consequence to their children? Are they sacrificing their children for the betterment of mankind? I don't know. But it is quite clear to me that such a marriage could been sinful.

I did not mention that to suggest biracial couples should not reproduce, but to point out that society is too rigid to easily accept the inbetweens (who are composed of more than biracial people). By the measurements you provided, it would follow that in America it is sinful for anyone but middle-class and better white Americans to reproduce, and that we should aim for a largely male population like China because women still face many hardships.
And I must ask what is more sinful; to continue to accept things the way they are, even though this means severe inequality and social and institutional discrimination, or to work to improve society to the point biracial children are no longer shunned for not being either-or?

 

[Sonofason]

I did not mention that to suggest biracial couples should not reproduce, but to point out that society is too rigid to easily accept the inbetweens (who are composed of more than biracial people). By the measurements you provided, it would follow that in America it is sinful for anyone but middle-class and better white Americans to reproduce, and that we should aim for a largely male population like China because women still face many hardships.
And I must ask what is more sinful; to continue to accept things the way they are, even though this means severe inequality and social and institutional discrimination, or to work to improve society to the point biracial children are no longer shunned for not being either-or?

I think it is a good thing for a society to improve and to eliminate severe inequalities and social discrimination, but I believe it would be sinful to do that at the expense of children. If in your own words "society is too rigid to easliy accept the inbetweens...", is it not sinful to willfully create an inbetween that is not easily accepted?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it is a good thing for a society to improve and to eliminate severe inequalities and social discrimination, but I believe it would be sinful to do that at the expense of children. If in your own words "society is too rigid to easliy accept the inbetweens...", is it not sinful to willfully create an inbetween that is not easily accepted?

No. What is sin is marginalizing people because they do not fit into a black-or-white mold (which includes gender, children of immigrants, even moderate political views are demonized). To think they shouldn't exist just because is what is sinful. A product of love simply is not sin. Society cannot change if people simply submit to the tyranny of the majority.

 

[MD]

Many countries in the world are 'inbetweens', ancient countries.

India is a mix of like 5 different ethnic groups: Aryans, Dravidians, Australoid tribes, East Asian tribes, West Asians, etc.

Brazil is a mix of indigenous people, Africans and Europeans

Middle Easterners are a mix of Caucasian, with a good deal of black African and some central Asian admixture

 

[Sonofason]

No. What is sin is marginalizing people because they do not fit into a black-or-white mold (which includes gender, children of immigrants, even moderate political views are demonized). To think they shouldn't exist just because is what is sinful. A product of love simply is not sin. Society cannot change if people simply submit to the tyranny of the majority.

Wait a minute, I never said that a biracial person should not exist. All I said was that interracial marriage is sinful, and recently I have modified that statement somewhat to suggest that it may not always be sinful, but certainly can be. I would never marginalize a child for being a product of an inter-racial marriage.

Furthermore, love has absolutely nothing to do with procreation. Love and procreation are separate matters that can overlap, but not necessarily so. One is not integral to the other by any means.

 

[MD]

Wait a minute, I never said that a biracial person should not exist. All I said was that interracial marriage is sinful, and recently I have modified that statement somewhat to suggest that it may not always be sinful, but certainly can be. I would never marginalize a child for being a product of an inter-racial marriage.

Furthermore, love has absolutely nothing to do with procreation. Love and procreation are separate matters that can overlap, but not necessarily so. One is not integral to the other by any means.

How do you define race though? I have Mongol and East African blood in me, 5% and 15% respectively (did a free DNA test). The rest of my DNA makeup is North African and Middle Eastern (which is basically Mediterranean, again an admixture of mostly Caucasian and some Sub Saharan peoples). What's my race?

I think defining people by ethnicities is better.

 

[Delta-9]

Well...Swedes tend not to breed with Mediterraneans to safeguard their race. Should we crucify them for that?
I think that each person has the tendency to fall in love with the people of their own race.

But if two people of different races fall in love with each other, it's absolutely normal. Even if not that frequent

I think falling in love primarily with people of the same 'race' is more culturally learned than biological. You're right it's perfectly normal, and I think we should have more 'mixed race' people running around to increase the hardiness of the human gene pool.

 

[Sonofason]

How do you define race though? I have Mongol and East African blood in me, 5% and 15% respectively (did a free DNA test). The rest of my DNA makeup is North African and Middle Eastern (which is basically Mediterranean, again an admixture of mostly Caucasian and some Sub Saharan peoples). What's my race?

I think defining people by ethnicities is better.

I have addressed this in post 96.

I agree with you. The word race is meaningless. You are a member of the human race. And you are a member of the Caucasian race, and you are a member of the Sub Saharan race, and you are also possibly the beginning of a new race. And it's completely meaningless, unless perhaps there are cultural, religious, and ethnic differences that exist between you and other people.

 

[Sonofason]

Many countries in the world are 'inbetweens', ancient countries.

India is a mix of like 5 different ethnic groups: Aryans, Dravidians, Australoid tribes, East Asian tribes, West Asians, etc.

Brazil is a mix of indigenous people, Africans and Europeans

Middle Easterners are a mix of Caucasian, with a good deal of black African and some central Asian admixture

And each of these regions are developing into a new race of people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have addressed this in post 96.

I agree with you. The word race is meaningless. You are a member of the human race. And you are a member of the Caucasian race, and you are a member of the Sub Saharan race, and you are also possibly the beginning of a new race. And it's completely meaningless, unless perhaps there are cultural, religious, and ethnic differences that exist between you and other people.

There is no "caucasian" or "sub saharan" or any other notion of race. There are variations in skin pigmentation and some other physical traits that developed as a response to the environment of our ancestors, but there is only one race of homo sapiens. Biology simply does not support the notion of there being multiple human races.

 

[Sonofason]

There is no "caucasian" or "sub saharan" or any other notion of race. There are variations in skin pigmentation and some other physical traits that developed as a response to the environment of our ancestors, but there is only one race of homo sapiens. Biology simply does not support the notion of there being multiple human races.

I did not write the definitions. I just try to use the definitions that actually exist in order to communicate more effectively.

race: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
Race - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

stock: the descendants of one individual
Stock - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If these definitions are the least bit true, then race exists. And not only that, it exists on many levels, as I have shown.

I prefer to consider all definitions of a word before I start making assumptions about a particular word.

 

[Sonofason]

There is no "caucasian" or "sub saharan" or any other notion of race. There are variations in skin pigmentation and some other physical traits that developed as a response to the environment of our ancestors, but there is only one race of homo sapiens. Biology simply does not support the notion of there being multiple human races.

I did not write the definitions. I just try to use the definitions that actually exist in order to communicate more effectively.

race: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
Race - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

stock: the descendants of one individual
Stock - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If these definitions are the least bit true, then race exists. And not only that, it exists on many levels, as I have shown.

I prefer to consider all definitions of a word before I start making assumptions about a particular word.

Variations in skin pigmentation are genetic. And therefore qualifiers for the origins of new races.

 

[columbus]

And each of these regions are developing into a new race of people.

No they're not.

For most of human history few people ever got further than the edges of their ancestral homeland. So they tended to procreate with people similar to them. That's where the minor differences we refer to as races came from.

The world is different now, and has been changing for centuries. People from wildly divergent places find each other and get together. The blurring of lines drawn by primitive peoples is going to continue. That egg can't be unscrambled. And the fact is that multiracial children tend to inherit the strongest genes from each parent.

In other words, multiracial children are better. People who believe that their scripture says differently will be proved wrong, along with their scripture.

Tom

 

[sojourner]

Many things CAN lead to violence. Differences in religion, differences in politics, socio/economic differences can lead to violence. But they don't have to. Violence is a path a person chooses to take.

Simply asserting that one ethnicity, race, genetic group, etc. is "better" or "purer" than another is violence, because it automatically excludes. Exclusion is violence.

 

[Sonofason]

No they're not.

For most of human history few people ever got further than the edges of their ancestral homeland. So they tended to procreate with people similar to them. That's where the minor differences we refer to as races came from.

The world is different now, and has been changing for centuries. People from wildly divergent places find each other and get together. The blurring of lines drawn by primitive peoples is going to continue. That egg can't be unscrambled. And the fact is that multiracial children tend to inherit the strongest genes from each parent.

In other words, multiracial children are better. People who believe that their scripture says differently will be proved wrong, along with their scripture.

Tom

Is that your take? People with stronger genes are better people than those with weaker genes?

That is a very sad approach to this discussion.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Is that your take? People with stronger genes are better people than those with weaker genes?

That is a very sad approach to this discussion.

And you are saying that people with purer genes are better people. How hypocritical of you.

 

[columbus]

Is that your take? People with stronger genes are better people than those with weaker genes?

That is a very sad approach to this discussion.

It's simple. Yes, people with stronger genes are luckier and stronger.

What is sad is that so many people still believe what ancient people thought about stuff like this when ethics and knowledge have progressed so much. That's one of the main reasons I don't believe the Bible has much to do with God. It is too obviously wrong about too much.

Tom

 

[Sonofason]

Simply asserting that one ethnicity, race, genetic group, etc. is "better" or "purer" than another is violence, because it automatically excludes. Exclusion is violence.

I agree, asserting that one ethnicity, race, or genetic group is better or purer can lead to violence. You say it is violence, but that is simply a lack of wisdom and understanding on your part. You are assuming that I have said such things, but you are sadly mistaken.

Take note that your buddy columbus did actually say something like what you are falsely accusing me of, but I doubt you will reprimand him. You guys are buddies.

He just said, in his post #114, "multiracial children are better."

What a sad day to be you aye?

 

[Sonofason]

And you are saying that people with purer genes are better people. How hypocritical of you.

Why don't you let me answer your stupid question before you pass judgement on me?

No, people with purer genes are not better people. How hypocritical of you.

I'm sorry, I just noticed that your stupid comment wasn't at all a stupid question. You draw what ever conclusions you like about me. How you feel with regard to me means absolutely nothing.