Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 46 } Location: Soon to be in Europe
Posted: Sat 04 Jun 2005 14:04 Post subject: Absolutes
I know of no verbal construct which more captures the North American "black/white" "race" notion than the one which juxtaposes "racial" discrimination with gender discrimination.
Gender discrimination is a serious topic--more so than "race"--nevertheless, its juxtaposition with "racial" bias points to the "absolute" or "all-or-nothing" notion of membership in the "black" group in the United States: the group Frank quite accurately calls the Black Endogamous Group.
In the United States, one is either "black" or not. It's that simple. There are no partial "blacks" (just as there are no partial females). One is either in or out in both cases. Yet, in this juxtaposition, North Americans completely miss the social dynamics attendant to females and males (not to mention the "racial" distortions we have all been writing about for years on the internet).
Females and males have to love each other in order to exist. Need proof? In order to be a functioning human being, I, a male, must love my Mom (a female), my wife (a female), my daughter (a female).
[By contrast, different "racial" and ethnic groups do not have to love each other]
Females and males cannot live separately from each other. This doesn't even have to be portrayed by an example.
[By contrast, different "racial" and ethnic groups can live separately Dominicans can live separately from Mexicans quite nicely]
Females and males are socialized by members of the opposite sex. I was socialized by my Mom (and Dad). I helped socialize my daughter.
[By contrast, different "racial" and ethnic groups do not socialize each other, except in cases of cultural diffusion--and this is much more dispersed than opposite sex socialization]
I could go on and on but the reader should see the point.
Moreover, it is not only laymen who make to gender/"race" juxtaposition. Folks with letters after their names are often the biggest culprits.
Now I ask you.........how can anyone get through to people who think this way about just how bogus this U.S. "race" business is?
Posted: Mon 06 Jun 2005 00:20 Post subject: Absolutes
William Javier Nelson wrote:
I know of no verbal construct which more captures the North American "black/white" "race" notion than the one which juxtaposes "racial" discrimination with gender discrimination.
Does traditional heterosexual marriage unjustly commit gender discrimination by its excluding "same-sex marriage"? Javier does not say what particular gender discrimination? But I must agree with him anyway. No possible gender discrimination issue properly juxtaposes with racial discrimination. As Javier indicates, the alleged "different races" are verbal, language constructs with no necessary natural foundation.
Sex difference, on the other hand, is biologically necessary. We biologically cannot exist without two sexes and one species identifying our one human race. ("Race" invokes "roots," here nearly infinitely long.) Therefore these both are necessary biological facts, necessary to our existence. I don't know how any scientific law might be more solidly grounded.
California's Legislature yesterday (6/03/05) narrowly rejected another bill attempting to redefine "marriage" to mean "a union of two persons." It would have redefined "marriage" as a partnership expressly irrelevant to the sex of spouses. But marriage is sex-linked. Redefining it irrelevant to sex (so that it will also define same-sex "marriage") destroys the special distinction of marriage apart from general partnership agreements (sex irrelevant). A generic partnership formed for the purpose of engaging in sex acts is something less, I think, than procreating a human race, regardless whether mutual supportive commitments and prioritized hospital visitation, etc., are part of the scheme or not.
The marriage redefinition campaign for legalizing "same sex marriage" wins its victories mostly in the courts. The reason, I think, is that our court jurisprudence is grounded on the Constitution, which does not define a human race. It implies existence of "different races," though, in numerous ways. One way is the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause that historically, we know, was adopted in 1868 to quell mounting oppression of the Freedmen (whose racially "black" lineage had been legal fiction from their inherited slave status) -- a conflict perceived between "the races" then known as "white" and "black." The Constitution does not define sex either, regardless that sex is so fundamental to Life that every man's sperm cells are about equally male and female. (Sexless eggs passively await sperm-fertilization with "X" or "Y" DNA chromosomal charges determining embryonic sex.) Asian Indian gynecologists peer down microscopes screening out female sperm cells for mothers wanting only boys. The point our courts don't get, because missing from the Constitution, is the necessity of sex as a principal so fundamental to life that it precedes our species. And court's don't grasp that "race difference" is merely an unnecessary verbal construct around arbitrary racial features -- raw ethnic complexion chauvinism written into antebellum law books. "Different races" were made court-visible by 300 years of legislation classifying each individual. For courts these classifications name "different races" as legally salient and mutually exclusive as species. In fact "races" are not necessary. They are arbitrary. And meanwhile, our courts view sex through Medieval eyes (baffled) listening to Neo-Marxists arguing that sex and "the races" are alike optional social constructs. (I.e., thus good for census self-classification, & accessible to persuasion to identity politicians!)
Proponents of "same sex marriage" apply the precedent of Loving v. Virginia, 288 U.S. 1 (1967), which overturned laws against our interracial marriages, for authority that the Fourteenth Amendment bans any definition of exclusively heterosexual marriage. Courts lap it up. And why wouldn't this "equal entitlements" line of argument justify polygamy and incest even more? (Here sex organs fit together, as designed!) What becomes of our institution of marriage then?
I don't know how much further the Neo-Left wants to take "All-nurture, No-nature" social outcome-equality? They seem to combine the anti-establishment '60s' rejection of Jim Crow and the Vietnam War with the anti-Western anti-imperialism honoring murderous Islamic suicide terrorism, equally, by cultural relativism. Is their anti-"white" quest for sex-blind "equality" about our gene-pool filling a bubbling vat in the end -- or maybe filling two or more resentful "of color" vats? One thing is sure. Vat scum invariably floats to the top.
George
Posted: Mon 06 Jun 2005 21:45 Post subject: Absolute
Winwinkel,
The "specialness" of marriage because a man and a women are involved? That's very heterosexist and dismissive of the way that marriage is treated in are society. The divorce rate is 50%. How frequent is infidelity? How many couples are swingers?
Sure, a great many people have one spouse and are faithful; but a lot of others aren't. Rush Limbaugh just divorced wife number 5. Larry King is on wife 8.
That said, your definition of gender is binary and obsolete given the latest genetic discoveries. What about people who are intersex (hermaphordites) or have other genetic gender disorders? Do you know that it is quite common for genetically male babies to be born with female appearing genitalia because they have a genetic disorder that makes recognition of testerone in utero impossible. Because these people don't fit into your myopic, fundamentalist worldview why should that make them any less human?
And tossing out the canard of incest or polygamy as being next acceptable thing if same sex marriage is legal while using Loving v. Virgina? Come on, how many "conservatives" used or felt the same line of reasoning with interracial marriage?! As if they didn't think of non-whites as sub-human.
Posted: Tue 07 Jun 2005 20:05 Post subject: Re: Absolute
triguy wrote:
Winwinkel,
The "specialness" of marriage because a man and a women are involved? That's very heterosexist and dismissive of the way that marriage is treated in are society. ...
New user Triguy should know that we try not to do back-and-forth first person colloquies here on One Drop Rule Forum. (Frank's rule.) We try to address arguments to the whole panel.
"Specialness" is precisely the word of choice, I reasoned, because human male and female define our species. ("Species" - "special" -- two words, same reference. Isn't "special" verb participial of "species"?) Our species is defined by our males and females procreating fertile offspring. This is the basic unit of taxonomy, not "subspecies," not "race," "breed," "cline," or anything. The reason, species are the necessary and sufficient breeding population. (Mutually exclusive, exhaustive in our case.) All smaller divisions ("race," "subspecies," etc.) are industrial art. Maybe useful for someone's describing or classifying, but biologically unnecessary.
Other times I have argued further, that the biologically unnecessary, arbitrary quality of named "different races" burdens would-be taxonomists with proving their sub-specific human taxonomy is justified against the very grave, historically glaring cost of its divisiveness. Biologically it is not necessary.
My opinion is that the drive to re-define the word "marriage" to include "same sex" (homosexual) unions does our human species no favors.
We (the interracial/multiracial) have been dragged into the controversy by the homosexual "marriage" lobby's relentlessly invoking Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Loving applied the Fourteenth Amendment (& other constitutional rights) to the equal protection of our interracial marriages. What possible relevance can Loving have to the biological monstrosity of "same-sex marriage"? (I am not claiming all the private, consensual homosexual acts are monstrous. This is different from re-defining marriage in law.) The activists pushing for "same-sex marriage" try, admittedly, to persuade the public, law-makers, and especially the courts that sex and "races" are on a par as being mere social constructs.
Human marriage (heterosexual) clearly is biologically analogous in every way to animal pair-bonding -- repeatedly seen in high-functioning animals of many species of the animal world. Many of these (e.g. albatross) pair-bond for life. They raise their chicks together year after year, because the burdens are too much for the hen, the mother alone. The America (whole world!) that I was born in functioned the same way. I am skeptical of the permanence of the Welfare State. We probably will see the biological imperative of stable heterosexual families again. I hate seeing the remaining, at least half, stable family-based society undermined by the destruction of legal marriage. I explained it last time.
A small minority of birth-defect children are born with sex organ ambiguity. There is no chance these poor kids represent a viable "third sex." Sexually reproducing life apparently started with Devonian sponges about 2 billion years ago. Our heterosexual human race as we know it started then. (All just as closely knit together then, all same as now.) Birth defect-suffering children are not changing this ancient biological design. I never heard that any adult who had been born sexually ambiguous supports "same-sex marriage"?
George
Posted: Tue 07 Jun 2005 23:51 Post subject: Don't think so
But marriage before the law is not about reproduction of the species!
When couples marry they are not required to sign a contract with the state guaranteeing that they will attempt to procreate or have the ability to do so. If procreation were a requirement for marriage then why would we allow a sterile heterosexual to marry?
We don't say to someone who has had testicular cancer and become sterile "You can't marry because you can't procreate!" We don't say that either to someone who has had a hysterectomy. Hell, although men generally are fertile for all their life, women aren't. I've never heard of outlawing all post-menopausal women from marrying. Hell, if two heterosexual people know that they have a good chance of passing a terrible genetic disease on to a child, are they forbidden to marry? Nope. They marry and get genetic counseling to help prevent passing the genes on.
And I don't under stand how you can possibly say "biological monstrosity of "same-sex marriage""? How is it biologically monstrous? Gay people are fully capable of reproducing; they just need to use sperm donors or surrogate mothers. End result is a baby, right?
Also, it's your opinion that same sex marriage is not the equivalent of "interracial marriage" but others believe differently. The parallels are similar: a bigoted society says that two people can't marry because of societal mores. Racists used to use the same language of biology that you use: miscegenation will create a mongrel race; miscegenation is unnatural; blah, blah, blah. Scientific terms misused to defend bigotry.
Marriage is a civil contract that gives rights and privileges codified by both state and federal law: who gets tax deductions or inheritance rights.
Marriage as a religious act is a separate thing thus the requirement for a marriage LICENSE.
Your views on marriage are based on your culture. Native American culture allowed for same sex marriages. Why is it that your culture is better than my ancestral culture? Is it because your culture is the dominant culture?
Also, how can you take control of the multiracial movement and say that all of us should take umbrage at the use of Loving v. Virginia?
Homophobia is just as evil as racism. Using the canard of incest or polygamy or (God forbid) bestiality is reaching for any excuse to keep sexual minorities oppressed as second class human beings. And as a mixed-race person, I have no desire to deny anyone else the full expression of her/his humanity or to hold my humanity or expression as superior to his.
God made gay people. There have always been gay people. Humans have this tendency to twist God's words to suit their purposes. King James was queer as a three dollar bill. Slavery is AOK because those Africans are the children of Ham! A disrespectful child should be stoned. Lest not ye judge...
Humans also have the tendency to twist science to justify their insidious actions. Up until 1974, some states in the US sterilized unsupecting people because it was thought that they would pass on genes for poverty, etc. Many of these people were of color-- Native Americans, "blacks," mixed-raced--or were poor or orphans. Eugenics. Another evil committed by pseudo science loving bigots trying to build or defend their idea of a better world by victimizing others.
So, in summary:
What's the divorce rate in the US? How common has adultery been historically? Who are the primary users of prostitutes? How often has marriage been used as a political or business device? Contraceptives have been legal for how long in the US?
The irony is that homosexuals are always portrayed as promiscous but when they want to codify their monagamy their further chastised.
Indeed, as a multiracial, I find it very disquieting when someone starts talking about the biological reasons why two unrelated people should not be married. That line of reasoning has been used to stop people like me from being born.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 09 Jun 2005 19:52 Post subject:
triguy wrote:
And I don't under stand how you can possibly say "biological monstrosity of "same-sex marriage""? How is it biologically monstrous? Gay people are fully capable of reproducing; they just need to use sperm donors or surrogate mothers. End result is a baby, right?
Correct, but approximately 30 years ago and more, there were no such things as sperm donors or surrogate mothers, therefore, homosexuals that could biologically reproduce, would not be able to.
triguy wrote:
Also, it's your opinion that same sex marriage is not the equivalent of "interracial marriage" but others believe differently. The parallels are similar: a bigoted society says that two people can't marry because of societal mores. Racists used to use the same language of biology that you use: miscegenation will create a mongrel race; miscegenation is unnatural; blah, blah, blah. Scientific terms misused to defend bigotry.
No, same sex marriage is not even close to being equivalent to "interracial marriage" The homosexual lobby and the left in general like to make that assertion. But as you know, "interracial marraige" is between a man and a woman. And the racists that you are referring to are by and large American versions as such. Also opposition to same sex marriage has existed in most cultures the world over throughout history. You cannot say the same about "interracial marriage" An apples to oranges comparison if there ever was one.
triguy wrote:
Marriage is a civil contract that gives rights and privileges codified by both state and federal law: who gets tax deductions or inheritance rights.
Yes, this is true.
triguy wrote:
Marriage as a religious act is a separate thing thus the requirement for a marriage LICENSE.
This is correct.
triguy wrote:
Your views on marriage are based on your culture. Native American culture allowed for same sex marriages. Why is it that your culture is better than my ancestral culture? Is it because your culture is the dominant culture?
Which Native American cultures are you referring to?? Certainly not the Navajos!!!!!
Quote:
Navajos Override Gay-Marriage Ban Veto
By ANNA MACIAS AGUAYO
Associated Press Writer
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- The Navajo Nation's tribal government voted Friday to override its president's veto of a measure banning same-sex marriage on the nation's largest Indian reservation.
Dine is the Navajos' name for themselves.
"In the traditional Navajo ways, gay marriage is a big no-no," said Kenneth Maryboy, a delegate from Montezuma Creek, Utah. "It all boils down to the circle of life. We were put on the earth to produce offspring."
triguy wrote:
Homophobia is just as evil as racism. Using the canard of incest or polygamy or (God forbid) bestiality is reaching for any excuse to keep sexual minorities oppressed as second class human beings. And as a mixed-race person, I have no desire to deny anyone else the full expression of her/his humanity or to hold my humanity or expression as superior to his.
What do you define "homophobia" as being??? The homosexual lobby has a very broad definition of what homophobia means, just about any belief or view that contradicts theirs. I am against any form of discrimination. However, I do not think that a ban on same sex marriage is discrimination. No one is saying that them being in a relationship is breaking any law. They just cannot get legally married. I know there are many problems with marriage. But in places where they have legalized same sex marriage, marriage in general has diminished. Sweden is a perfect example, though the institution of marriage had been suffering there before homosexual marriage was legalized.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
