Going fifty years back in time:
Marriage is a priveledge and not a right. No one is denying Africans the priveledge of marriage. A Negro man can marry a Negro woman just like a white man can marry a white woman. What inter-racial people are seeking is a special right. Unnatural love for other races is a choice and science does not support their claim that they are born that way. These people define themselves based on their sexual behavior and they should not be granted special rights because of it.
Oh, and if we let the blacks marry whites, where do we stop? Eventually we'll have gays trying to marry each others! Abolish inter-racial marriage! And while we're at it, most people dislike black rights (think 'democracy'), and the only reason we're giving them rights is they're protesting like little children! Look:
[qimg]http://idealog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/foxnews.jpg[/qimg]
[end parody]
Same [rule something], different wrapping. New and Improved Bigotry bar, now with 50% less fat and 5% more Christian Love™! As seen on the Internet!
Oh, and how do you define 'special rights'? You're making it sound as if they're seeking rights the rest of us aren't getting, which is simply not the case. It's a new right to us modern people, sure, but that doesn't make it 'special treatment'.
Actually comparing the so-called civil rights movement of the 1960's with the current homosexual special rights movement of the 2000's is not a bad analogy. No one was denying blacks the privelege of marriage as long as they married someone of the same race. Whites had the same restriction placed on them, so no one was denying blacks a right that anyone else had that they did not. No one was saying to blacks you can't marry just stick to your own like whites had to do as well. The fact that some blacks didn't want to marry their own kind is irrelevant. Homosexuals don't want to marry the opposite sex either but why should marriage be radically redefined to suit the whims of a tiny twisted minority?
Now today similarily no one is denying the homosexual the priveledge of marriage as long as it is to a person of the opposite sex. Heterosexuals are not permitted to marry someone of the same sex either, so no one is denying the homosexual a right that heterosexuals have that they do not. What the homosexual is seeking is a special right that no one else has, just as the black so-called civil rights campaigner of the 1960's was doing.
Christians in the 1960's warned that if so-called interracial marriage was allowed it would open the floodgates to all sorts of perverse "marital" arrangements. Pretty soon people would be even clamoring to "marry" people of the same sex! Others laughed this off at the time, but now that prophecy is sadly and shockingly becoming a reality. Yesterday it was interracial "marriage", today it is "gay" "marriage", perhaps tomorrow it will be inter-species or incestious "marriage". I would define a special right as a right that a group within society seeks that is denied not only to them but to everyone else in society such as interracial "marriage" in the 1960s or same-sex "marriage" today. So comparing the so-called civil rights movement with the homosexual agenda won't wash with me, I don't believe in interracial "marriage" anymore than I agree with same-sex "marriage"! Both are an abomination and both are a threat to society. Same-sex marriage is obviously worse though because it will lead to the extinction of humanity.
If everyone married people of a different race, individual races would become extinct. Similary, if everyone "married" a person of the same sex the whole human species would become extinct. God obviously wanted there to be racial diversity otherwise why would he have created more than one race? The logical conclusion of race mixing is racial genocide and ethnic cleansing. I don't believe that there is no such thing as race because you only have to look at an African and a white man to see the obvious physical differences. Of course racial differences go far beyond mere physical characteristics, it appears that many African countries since the leftist tyranny of decolonization are only kept afloat from handouts from the West and indeed Africa is the only continent over the last 20 years that has got poorer while all others have advanced. Scientists who have studied racial differences between groups have found that Whites, north-eastern Asians and Jews are the most intelligent while Negroes are the least intelligent of all races, and no they are not Nazis doing these experiments either, it is just a fact that racial differences exist and they are more than skin deep.
These views may not be popular in these times of rampant political correctness where anyone can't say anything negative about non-white races without getting shouted down for being a "filthy racist" but at least they are factual and honest.
It seems to me that the so-called civil rights movement of the 1960's was more of a de-segregation movement by blacks than a civil-rights movement. Whites were quite happy with the status-quo of the time believing it to be in agreement with their Bibles. What rights did blacks have after the so-called civil rights movement that they did not have before? Weren't both races treated more or less equally just seperate? The right to sit at the front of a bus perhaps? Is that really a right? Is that really worth fighting for? Is that the best they can come up with? Oh, the hardship, not being able to sit at the front of a bus! Really compares to 6 million Jews being holocausted by the Nazis or the 55+ million babies that liberals have murdered since the satan inspired feminazi movement won the "right" for promiscious females to murder their unwanted unborn children! Does that mean then if i'm sat at the front of the bus, some negro climbs aboard and there's no more room at the front, I must immediately go and sit at the back of the bus because blacks now have an ineliable right to sit at the front? Sounds like political correctness run amok!
