Does Your Religious Belief Affect Your View Of Interracial Marriage?

[MrSykes]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

So you follow ALL of these laws???

" * Laws regarding the regulations for different types of sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7):
o Burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and thank-offerings (Leviticus 1-3)
o Sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings (Leviticus 4-5)
o Priestly duties and rights concerning the offering of sacrifices (Leviticus 6-7)
* The practical application of the sacrificial laws, within a narrative of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8-10)
o Aaron's first offering for himself and the people (Leviticus 8)
o The incident in which "strange fire" is brought to the Tabernacle by Aaron's sons Nadav and Avihu, leading to their death directly at the hands of God for doing so (Leviticus 9-10)
* Laws concerning purity and impurity (Leviticus 11-16)
o Laws about clean and unclean animals (Leviticus 11)
o Laws concerning ritual cleanliness after childbirth (Leviticus 12)
o Laws concerning tzaraath of people, and of clothes and houses, often translated as leprosy, and mildew, respectively (Leviticus 13-14)
o Laws concerning bodily discharges (such as blood, pus, etc.) and purification (Leviticus 15)
o Laws regarding a day of national atonement, Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16)
* Laws concerning the commutation of vows (Leviticus 27)

The second part, Leviticus 17-26, is known as the Holiness Code, and places particular, and noticeable, emphasis on holiness, and the holy. It is notably more of a miscellany of laws. Within this section are:

* Laws concerning idolatry, the slaughter of animals, dead animals, and the consumption of blood (Leviticus 17)
* Laws concerning sexual conduct (including some that are referring to male homosexuality), sorcery, and moloch (Leviticus 18, and also Leviticus 20, in which penalties are given)
* Laws concerning molten gods, peace-offerings, scraps of the harvest, fraud, the deaf, blind, elderly, and poor, poisoning the well, hate, sex with slaves, self harm, shaving, prostitution, sabbaths, sorcery, familiars, strangers, and just weights and measure (Leviticus 19)
* Laws concerning priestly conduct, and prohibitions against the disabled, ill, and superfluously blemished, from becoming priests, or becoming sacrifices, for descendants of Aaron, and animals, respectively (Leviticus 21-22)
* Laws concerning the observation of the annual feasts, and the sabbath, (Leviticus 23)
* Laws concerning the altar of incense (Leviticus 24:1-9)
* The case law lesson of a blasphemer being stoned to death, and other applications of the death penalty (Leviticus 24:10-23), including anyone having "a familiar ghost or spirit", a child insulting its parents (Leviticus 20), and a special case for prostitution (burning them alive) (Leviticus 21)
* Laws concerning the Sabbath and Jubilee years (Leviticus 25)
* A hortatory conclusion to the section, giving promises regarding obedience to these commandments, and warnings and threats for those that might disobey them, including sending wild animals to devour their children. (Leviticus 26:22)"

And yes, I know that Christians choose not to follow all of these... but you said "I practice what I preach" when BigThirsty asked if you followed all laws of Leviticus - so just calling you out on that! Would you stone me to death for blasphemy, kill a child for disrespecting their parents, or condemn burning a prostitute alive? And how did you commemorate Yom Kippur this year? I went to Temple and fasted for most of the 24 hours... did you??

Wow, someone had some free time today.

I read BigThirsty's question to mean whether I personally adhere to the laws regarding sexual morality, specifically the ones outlined in Lev 18 and 20, which deal mainly with adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, and incest. And I responded as such, as that was the subject at hand. I was deliberately non-explicit with my response, as I was trying to refrain from going into detail about my sex life here.

These laws tend to be more or less consistent throughout the Bible, and manifest themselves today as the social mores of any civilized society. Most reasonable people in this country today would recognize incest, bestiality, and infidelity as morally offensive acts, regardless of religious stance.

Fornication and homosexuality are obviously in debate, but the Bible is clear about those too.

I've always wondered in an increasingly liberal society where the line of sexual permissiveness will ever end? Say homosexual marriage becomes ubiquitously accepted. Then what? Infidelity has already become increasingly "normalized" as a legitimate "alternative sexual practice" with "swingers" parties and so on (so long of course the adultery remains 'controlled'). Should we go ahead and allow polygamy too? Will there be an advent of relatives wanting to marry eachother, claiming they were "born" that way? Or what about Bubba who wants to marry his dog? Would we have a constitutional amendment extending the right of a woman to marry her beloved inanimate object, car perhaps?

Of course I have strayed way off topic here, but I couldn't resist.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by MrSykes

Wow, someone had some free time today.

Uh... that was a 3-second search with a 2-second copy and paste. Doesn't take a lot of time for a reference librarian, LOL.

I've always wondered in an increasingly liberal society where the line of sexual permissiveness will ever end? Say homosexual marriage becomes ubiquitously accepted. Then what? Infidelity has already become increasingly "normalized" as a legitimate "alternative sexual practice" with "swingers" parties and so on (so long of course the adultery remains 'controlled'). Should we go ahead and allow polygamy too? Will there be an advent of relatives wanting to marry eachother, claiming they were "born" that way? Or what about Bubba who wants to marry his dog? Would we have a constitutional amendment extending the right of a woman to marry her beloved inanimate object, car perhaps?

Of course I have strayed way off topic here, but I couldn't resist.

Ah, the old slippery-slope theory... but if we legalize eating, then people will get fat, and then we'll legalize stomach-stapling surgery, and people will die, or they'll become anorexic, so we'll have to make that acceptable too - and you get my point. Anyway, I don't care who marries whom, even if they want multiple spouses... as long as all are consenting, aware HUMAN adults, who really cares?? Live and let live. And bringing dogs or inanimate objects into the argument is irrelevant, since they aren't capable of consenting to a relationship, thus making it rape (a whole different issue!!). Though I guess nobody cares if you rape a couch, so yeah - go ahead and marry one if it makes ya happy! How exactly could a man's relationship with his sofa affect you, or damage society?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

How exactly could a man's relationship with his sofa affect you, or damage society?

Well it could affect me if I coveted his sofa.
And it is a crime in society to treat your married spouse as just an inanimate object, right?
I could even bodily harm him when I have reasons to believe that he does not treat his spouse as one should.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by gizmo980 Well it could affect me if I coveted his sofa.
And it is a crime in society to treat your married spouse as just an inanimate object, right?
I could even bodily harm him when I have reasons to believe that he does not treat his spouse as one should.

So would the cops have to arrest you for furniture abuse?? Now you see why the slippery-slope theory can be silly and irrelevant... LOL.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

So would the cops have to arrest you for furniture abuse??

Whaddaya mean? I wasn't the guy who abused the sofa.
I only had a 'domestic' dispute with the guy I believed to be abusing the sofa he married.

[MrSykes]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Ah, the old slippery-slope theory... but if we legalize eating, then people will get fat, and then we'll legalize stomach-stapling surgery, and people will die, or they'll become anorexic, so we'll have to make that acceptable too - and you get my point.

Nutritional guidelines exist to promote positive dietary health decisions. Will they be followed by all? Certainly not. And that is fine. But just because there will always be those who choose to overindulge does not mean we should fundamentally redefine these guidelines to accomodate those with such inclinations (i.e., "eat and let eat").

Anyway, I don't care who marries whom, even if they want multiple spouses... as long as all are consenting, aware HUMAN adults, who really cares??

To be sure, I certainly don't. People are free to live and do as they wish, and are just as obliged to accept whatever consequences may come of their lifestyle decision, good and bad.

I see that you've decided to put some friction on the slippery slope with your "consenting human adult" qualification. Fair enough. But what about those who happen to have differing interpretations of what exactly an adult is? Should we take these into account? After all, I'm not sure everyone can really agree on what an adult is anyway.

Live and let live. And bringing dogs or inanimate objects into the argument is irrelevant, since they aren't capable of consenting to a relationship, thus making it rape (a whole different issue!!).

Rape? Nahh. More like sodomy.

But why not fully legitimize pansexuality as well? We don't wish to leave anyone (or thing) out after all.

Live and let live....without qualification.

Though I guess nobody cares if you rape a couch, so yeah - go ahead and marry it if makes ya happy! How exactly could a man's relationship with his sofa affect you, or damage society?

Fewer options for a place to have a seat while watching the game at his house, perhaps? Unless, of course, he and his beloved sofa each render their consent.

The slippery slope theory, by its very nature and function, is meant to be absurd, as it highlights what I argue to be the inherent absurdity of unchecked sexual permissiveness in society.

But in the end, do as you wish. It is not my place to render judgement regarding what a man does in his bedroom. That is between him and his object of worship, moral code, etc. But again, like everyone else, he remains beholden to the consequences of his choices.

My argument is that, while a comparison between homosexuality and interracial marriage on biblical grounds may be tempting to some, it is simply unwarranted, as the Bible says nothing in opposition to interracial marriage. One can "interpret" what the Bible says about homosexuality all he wants, contextualizing and decontextualizing the scriptures to his heart's desire to fit his agenda, but I will maintain that the Bible I've been reading remains unequivocal in its stance against it.

Hey, I didn't write it, but it is what I choose to follow.

[I LIKE WHO I M]

you guys need to go look on the dictonary, "interracial" when a person say interracial couple it mean black and white. other race is not imterracial couple

[MontanaGuy]

I LIKE WHO I M wrote:

you guys need to go look on the dictonary, "interracial" when a person say interracial couple it mean black and white. other race is not imterracial couple

I see you dredged up an ancient thread of mine. I just looked up the meaning of interracial in my dictionary and it states: "Of, between, and for persons of different races". It's very obvious that there are more than two racial groups of human beings. I don't see a person's race as being of any particular importance when it comes to marriage or any other interactions between people and as I recall most Christians who responded to this thread feel the same way.

[Miss Shawn_2828]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

I realize that some people still have issues with interracial marriages. I'm wondering what certain religions might have to say on this subject if anything. I see nothing wrong with it at all and I think the younger generation pretty much accepts it. It's probably the older people who just aren't used to the idea that might have a problem with it. I would think that Christians wouldn't have a problem with it although I've never really heard ministers say anything one way or the other (not that I really listen to ministers very often). Does anyone have any thoughts about it?

No, it doesn't and don't see why it would be a issue. Most people that I come in contact with that have problems with interracial marriages, it is because of their own hate and has nothing to do with religion.

I see it as a beautiful thing to date someone of another race because you get to experience different things that you might not see within your own race.