rbell said:
Thirdly, we keep dancing around the "interracial" issue...
Absolutely correct, here! The real issue of bigotry, and specifically the bigotry of skin pigmentation, is hiding behind what is allegedly an interracial question. That is not usually the question, at all. And in my neck of the woods, there seems to be a difference between what is the 'races' in question, at that. Not to mention, in about as many instances as not, the issue is not that of 'race', at all, but that of ethnicity or culture, which is a misnomer when used for 'race', by definition.
... let's face it: most folks have no probem (sic) except with black/white.
Once again, correct! In fact, I will offer a link to this thread running in the Polls forum on the Baptist Board to show an example of this very thing.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=41762&page=18
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as an "Hispanic" (or 'Latino') race (this is a cultural distinctive, only), this poll, at the current tally, shows this here on the BB. There are four of five distinct 'races' given, here, often identified or known by the general skin color of black, red, white and yellow, alphabetically. (The fifth 'race' is that of 'brown', FTR.) Each of the five is distinct from the other four. And one pairing is no more, or no less bi-racial than another.
Yet there are somehow exactly the same number who "have a problem" with a white/black marriage, as the rest of the categories of "interracial marriages" all put together.
And that, my friends, is nothing more or less than racial discrimination, bigotry, and prejudice! If it were not, and were indeed a Biblical conviction, the numbers would all be exactly the same.
We could probably find many, many interracial" relationships, as long as we looked in other "combinations."
'Selective looking', ya' think?
Ed