Are those who oppose interracial marriages racist? Should it matter where that belief comes from?

[Humanist_Activist]

I ask because a lot of apologists of the Pope like to say he's not a homophobe and a bigot for being opposed to same sex marriage, so my question is, if you think my first question above is yes, and the second one is no, then why the different standards?

Oh, and before the disingenuous arguments, yes I mean opposing interracial and/or same sex marriages for everyone, not just themselves, etc.

[bravenak]

1. Yes.

It is bigotry. Period. I could care less where bigots get their ideas from if the ideas are hateful.

[cbayer]

2. While at one time, interracial marriage was thought by many to be a bad thing,

that has changed very dramatically over time.

Were the people who held the belief racist? Probably, but not necessarily. They may have truly believed that there were biological, social or cultural reasons reasons to support their position.

The good news is that now pretty much everyone would see this position as racist and most people would reject it.

The attitude towards GLBT civil rights is also a rapidly changing dynamic. Are all the people who opposed it in the past homophobic? Probably, but not necessarily. It may have been a position based on some false premises, lack of understanding and a dearth of exposure to GLBT people.

That is also changing in a way where those that continue to object have less cause to do so and are being seen as homophobic.

While the pope has had a decidedly anti-GLBT marriage position, his overall views may be changing. Is he personally a homophobe? I couldn't tell you, but he might be. He is certainly not taking the stand I would wish for in terms of what is happening in Uganda.

Time will tell on this one, but the catholic church is a massive ship to try and turn and it won't happen quickly.

[Humanist_Activist]

3. So basically you defend racism and homophobia with ignorance, is Pope Francis ignorant?

Because its either one or the other.

Also, everyone keeps talking about his "changing views" you do realize, within the past month, that he again verbally slapped down same sex parenting?

[cbayer]

4. If you read that as defending racism and homophobia, I really don't

have anything to say to you.

I know things are often black and white in your world, but that's not always the case.

My step-daughter recently married a Muslim. Her mother was apoplectic and begged her not to do it. She had a lot of reasons.

Is she a racist? Was part of the reason racism but other parts based on genuine concerns for her daughter?

I'm not defending the pope on this issue. I think he's completely wrong. But what you want is for me to clearly label him as something and I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Nor does it matter whether his stance is based on bigotry or not - it's just wrong, imo.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. You know, my Mom had reservations about me dating a black woman...

back when I was a late teenager, she gave me the whole different cultures and difficulty in raising children argument. Bear in mind that my best friend growing up was half black and half white. I told her to her face that that was a racist attitude to have. This was, of course years ago, and I love my mother, but that attitude was wrong and racist and I called her out on it, and she did, after a little bit of time, come around to agreeing with me that it is a racist attitude to have.

The issue is that its so easy to wrap ignorance, fear, and hatred into "concern", look at what the Pope says about same sex parenting, its all "concern" about the children, that does NOT negate the fact that it is still a homophobic position.

ON EDIT: To be frank, my own mother was a racist, and I argued with her about it, and told her she was being a racist. Her views actually genuinely changed after that.

[cbayer]

7. The same scenario has pretty much ensued in the example I gave.

Her mother has recognized that much of her anxiety and objection was based on her own prejudice and has come around to a very large degree.

I personally think opposing GLBT rights is bigotry and agree that it is a homophobic position to take and those who would defend the pope's position in this area are as wrong as he is.

OTOH, supporting the pope when he does the right thing in other areas does not make one an apologist for bigotry and homophobia.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. I don't see people supporting the Pope when he does the right thing, I see people...

making excuses for his homophobia, even outright denying it exists.

[cbayer]

14. I haven't seen much of that, really.

But I have seen a lot of members being called apologists for homophobia and bigotry when they support him for other things that he is doing right.

If anyone here is defending his position on GLBT civil rights, I would think that would be a problem.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. Really? Have you looked at this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126423

[cbayer]

17. No, because it was hidden for me,

but I will take a look at it and get back to you.

[cbayer]

18. So, I read the thread.

While there were things being said in there that I do not agree with, it was essentially the same, ugly back and forth where one group calls the other group bigots.

And on and on and on.

The poll is a push poll. It was not posted in good faith, imo, but as flame bait to ignite a discussion in which no reasonable discussion could ever take place about the pope's position on GLBT rights. It was meant to call out anyone who felt that the answer to the question might be more complex than just a yes or no and then attack them.

I think that your thread is somewhat more thoughtful than that, as you have set up a valid comparison, although the two issues are at different points historically.

At any rate, whether the pope is a bigot or homophobe when it comes to GLBT rights should an important discussion. Using it to label fellow DUer's as bigots and homophobes is not.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Some positions and people deserve to be called out, that's simply a fact.

Particularly when it comes to excusing beliefs, behaviors, and actions of a person due to their position or religion.

The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Turning a blind eye is just as bad.

[cbayer]

21. I agree with that and would suggest that it's equally important

to call out the position that anyone who shows any support of this pope is an apologist for bigotry and homophobia. That's it's own kind of bigotry and prejudice.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. But its not just support for the Pope, its the denialism of his bigotry that I'm calling out...

That's why I started this thread in the first place.

[skepticscott]

32. The pope is either a bigot or he isn't

You either agree that his well documented statements about same-sex marriage and adoption, and homosexuality in general, as well as his unflagging support for Catholic doctrine regarding those issues are bigoted, or you don't. I know you always like to hedge and fence-sit and waffle that "it's complex" on everything, especially when to do otherwise would be to side with those you have a personal hatred for, but your argument that the pope shouldn't be labeled as a bigot because that's not all he is, or because he also does some nicey-nice things, is just silly. Cliven Bundy is not JUST a bigot. Donald Sterling is not JUST a bigot. They may even do nice things sometimes. But they are still undeniably bigots, just as the pope is.

The poll was posted, among other reasons, to put the lie to the claim by some in this Group that defense of the pope's anti-gay bigotry doesn't happen here. That thread and this one have demonstrated otherwise very clearly.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Is 'muslim' a race now?

Clearly I missed a memo. (Or your anecdote is missing some details.)


It matters, in the case of the pope, because he guides over a billion people in the interpretation of the tenets of their faith. One of which he continues to HURT same sex couples with, for instance, by calling the adoption of a child by a same sex couple 'discrimination against the child'.

http://world.time.com/2013/12/30/report-pope-francis-shocked-by-same-sex-adoption-proposal/


Pope francis is a bigot. His position of authority in the RCC is troubling, for the bigoted ideas he supports/propagates.

[cbayer]

9. Well, what do we have here?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. You tell me.

[cbayer]

12. This would not be terribly funny if you didn't feel the

need to repeatedly state that you have me on ignore.

What made you change your mind?

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I was accused of conflating delusion with mental illness, like you did a few threads back.

I had to unblock you in order to link the poster who made that accusation, to posts wherein I clearly express that I do not hold religious faith as a delusion in the context of mental illness.

When you hide someone, you not only hide that person's posts, but you hide your own post history in response to that person. A slightly obnoxious result of using the feature.

Whether I put you back on ignore depends on the next few minutes I suppose.

[cbayer]

20. Oh, that explains it.

Unless my recollection is very faulty, I think we came to the agreement that there was a vernacular use of the term that was pretty much just a put down and not a statement that religious believers were psychiatrically ill.

You made the point that a person using it should be asked to clarify in what way they were using it, which I agreed with, and then made it clear that you were using is in the put down way.

Just for the record, you can do a search for your own posts and find them even if you have since put someone on ignore and the subthread is blocked to you.

Spare me, AC. I don't give a shit whether you put me back on ignore or not. That's entirely up to you and won't alter a thing about how I do or do not respond to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. You can search for your own posts and view them if you can craft a keyword query close enough

to actually hit the fuckin' post. Yes. Another approach would be to sign out of DU and then start searching.


We agreed in one thread, but in another, you inexplicably substituted my use of the word 'credulous' with 'deluded' and then went on a rage about how that was a slur, when I didn't even say it. I objected, pointed out I not only didn't use it in that context, but that I didn't use it AT ALL, but you never responded after that.

My one reference to possible mental illness in that thread was in a communicative/voices context of holding a conversation with a deity. Something that even hrmjustin also expressed concern about in the same context, and I seriously don't think that poster is being vicious/using a slur about it.


On the hide thing, you asked, so I responded. Don't feign disinterest on me now.

[cbayer]

24. I'm not interested at all in refighting that fight.

I acknowledged that you had a point and openly gave you kudos for not taking the position that religious people were psychiatrically ill.

I'm not feigning disinterest. I was curious as to why you took me off ignore after crowing about it so often, and I honestly don't give a shit if you put me back on.

You are the one that has to make that decision.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. There are times when we have had useful/productive discussions.

And then times where all fuckin' hell breaks loose for no apparent (to me) reason.

I was pretty pissed there for a while, after our last few exchanges. Perhaps unreasonably so. We shall see.

[cbayer]

29. I agree with that and am willing to continue the useful/productive

discussions.

You have a right to get pissed, as do I.

I will say this. I will try to remain civil with you. I think you are, at the heart of it, a thoughtful and good person.

If things get heated, they get heated. If they get personal, we have probably crossed the line.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Fair enough.

I apologize for my somewhat gleeful 'oh boy I blocked that person' posts. Those were mean-spirited.

[cbayer]

31. It's really, really hard not to do that at times, particularly if you have blocked someone

because you are angry at them.

I have some people on ignore. My reasons had little to do with anger and more to do with just setting limits for myself in terms of what I would and would not tolerate from other people.

It's made my DU experience much, much better, but I have to consciously avoid saying anything about it.

Like I didn't do just now, lol.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. "Were the people who held the belief racist? Probably, but not necessarily."

jeebus.

They were racists. It does not matter one wit if they thought their racism was justified by "biological, social or cultural reasons", although it is fucking fascinating that you left out "religion".

ditto homophobic nonsense.

For future reference:

While at one time, interracial marriage was thought by many to be a bad thing,





that has changed very dramatically over time.

Were the people who held the belief racist? Probably, but not necessarily. They may have truly believed that there were biological, social or cultural reasons reasons to support their position.

The good news is that now pretty much everyone would see this position as racist and most people would reject it.

The attitude towards GLBT civil rights is also a rapidly changing dynamic. Are all the people who opposed it in the past homophobic? Probably, but not necessarily. It may have been a position based on some false premises, lack of understanding and a dearth of exposure to GLBT people.

That is also changing in a way where those that continue to object have less cause to do so and are being seen as homophobic.

While the pope has had a decidedly anti-GLBT marriage position, his overall views may be changing. Is he personally a homophobe? I couldn't tell you, but he might be. He is certainly not taking the stand I would wish for in terms of what is happening in Uganda.

Time will tell on this one, but the catholic church is a massive ship to try and turn and it won't happen quickly.

[Heddi]

13. What's next? "We cannot condemn slave owners because they lived in a different time...."

and they did what they thought was right by owning other people and treating them in brutal and inhumane ways. They probably had some reason to believe that blacks were less than human and not even elevated to the status of "animal"



I guess we excuse old people who still call blacks "niggers" because "that's the time they grew up in" and "that's the language they used then," despite such attitudes and language being completely inappropriate now.

But as long as religion gets a pass for bad behaviour, that's all that matters!

See, they THOUGHT that blacks weren't people. They THOUGHT that Gays were peophilles. They THOUGHT that interracial marriage would lead to monkey-babies. They BELIEVED that same-sex marriage is the same as people marrying bicycles, dead grandmothers, and voles. Whoops...that was her husband who made the last statement. Whoopsie. I can see why that big of hateful drivel was allowed to stand unopposed....

[el_bryanto]

25. I think there is a distinction between acknowledging racist or homophobic positions

and having sympathy for people who hold those positions. One of my grandmothers said some racist things as I was growing up - I disagreed with her at times and kept my mouth shut at others, but she was still my grandmother, and I could understand, but not condone where her opinions were coming from.

I'm not sure that's where you are coming from - racist and homophobic opinions shouldn't be condoned, but you can show understanding towards people who have them, without condoning them.

Bryant

[cbayer]

28. I agree, and you often find yourself with an opportunity to educate.

And sometimes you just have to walk away.

Condoning it is a critical difference.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. Where does this understanding come from?

I'll make a broad stroke generalization here and say that ALL racist and homophobic opinions come from a combination of prejudice, which is irrational, and/or ignorance. That is where my "understanding" ends. As far as when or where such things are challenged, tact and appropriate time and place matter. Can you give an example of this "understanding" you would show?

[el_bryanto]

35. Well in that case it was taking my Grandmother for all she was - both good and bad

and like you say using tact and the appropriate moment. In other words, treating her like a person and not just a stereotype. And when the moment came to talk about my black friends or Latino friends, use that to explain some things to her (grew up in Southern California).

Bryant

[JI7]

26. both are bigots

[LostOne4Ever]

33. Anyone who opposes same sex marriage or interracial marriage is a bigot.

I make no exceptions.

If you don't like homosexuality or interracial marriage don't get married to someone of the same sex or the different race.

But by opposing these things you are trying to force your views on others and are actively going out of your way to hurt others and silence different opinions via law. This is the definition of intolerance and bigotry.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intolerance
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bigotry?q=bigotry

I don't care if you are the Pope, Ghandi, Archie Bunker, or my neighbor down the street. Its bigotry.

[Iggo]

36. Yes.