skydyvr 0
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,172
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Interacial marriage was a problem for a lot of people, but I don't recall
> using the word "marriage" to define it as being an issue. It was/is still a
> union between man and woman.
Right. But back then, many people did not consider black men 'men' in the sense you mean. There were men and blacks. Blacks went to different schools, different churches, and they sat in the back of the bus away from the men and women.
In the 40's and 50's, marriage was used to describe a marriage between people of the same color. Indeed, our courts ruled that marriages between people of different colors were invalid. The exact wording was: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
So while blacks and whites could live together, they could not enjoy the benefits of the union we call marriage. I don't think it matters much if people objected to the word or the act; the bottom line is that they were denied the right to be married. In that case, common sense eventually prevailed, and blacks and whites were allowed to marry, even if it did go against what god wanted. I suspect common sense will eventually prevail in this case as well.
> using the word "marriage" to define it as being an issue. It was/is still a
> union between man and woman.
Right. But back then, many people did not consider black men 'men' in the sense you mean. There were men and blacks. Blacks went to different schools, different churches, and they sat in the back of the bus away from the men and women.
In the 40's and 50's, marriage was used to describe a marriage between people of the same color. Indeed, our courts ruled that marriages between people of different colors were invalid. The exact wording was: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
So while blacks and whites could live together, they could not enjoy the benefits of the union we call marriage. I don't think it matters much if people objected to the word or the act; the bottom line is that they were denied the right to be married. In that case, common sense eventually prevailed, and blacks and whites were allowed to marry, even if it did go against what god wanted. I suspect common sense will eventually prevail in this case as well.
kallend 2,217
QuoteQuoteI don't care for their stealing of the term "marriage" to define their unions, however.
Is it really stealing or a paradigm shift?
.
They already stole "gay". It's original meaning is unusable now.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
They already stole "gay". It's original meaning is unusable now.
Really. Who are "they" that did this?
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
Interacial marriage was a problem for a lot of people, but I don't recall using the word "marriage" to define it as being an issue. It was/is still a union between man and woman.
. . =(_8^(1)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites