<p>
</p>
<p>This is very incorrect. You have to believe your race is actually SUPERIOR to be a racist. Acknowledging differences in culture doesn’t make you a racist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Proof that bigotry is alive and well even in this thread. <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Acknowledging differences in culture and then treating someone differently based on those differences is racist (which I didn’t say was necessarily a bad thing). Racism does not have to necessarily include discrimination, it has to include the belief that different races are inherently different.</p>
<p>Also, by choosing only to date within your own race, isn’t that saying that for you, that race is superior in terms of choosing a mate?</p>
<p>I have to say that this thread is only about preference. Sure people can have their preferences, but why impose them. I know tall men who only want to marry tall women because they don’t want a crick in their neck from looking down. Others don’t have this bias. There are tall women who will only date men taller than they are in their tallest heels and others who don’t mind the height of their husbands. There are short women who only want to marry tall men to improve their sons’ chances of being tall.</p>
<p>There are blonds who want to marry blue eyed blondes and blondes like Heidi Klum who don’t care.</p>
<p>I guess I am the only one on this thread who finds religion, ethnicity, “race”, and yes, even gender, to be in the same category as preference.</p>
<p>As for “race” I studied genetics in college with one of the most brilliant genetic scientists in the US and he always insisted that race is a social category without any biological status at all. For example, we can’t predict someone’s race from their blood, DNA or skeleton (even though they do on CSI.)</p>
<p>So, if people want to enshrine their preferences and then impose them on others, I can’t stop them, but it is very arbitrary.</p>
<p>I remember a discussion in a class in which my students said they thought laws should prohibit any gay individual from adopting a child. I said that I thought that anyone in the US Congress who voted for Star Wars should be prohibited from adopting a child. Of course, this was a quirky prejudice of mine, and I would have no right to impose it. But my point is so was theirs a quirky bias that they would have no right to impose.</p>
<p>To my mind, anyone certainly has this right to make this decision for him/herself (though some positions seem unpleasant to me such as I’ll only date women who have the physical attributes of models or I’ll only date men who earn more than $100,000 per year.)</p>
<p>I don’t think we have the right to impose these preferences, no matter how dear to our hearts, on our children.</p>
<p>And if society doesn’t see it that way, well, we’re society and can make whatever kind of society we want.</p>
<p>I have felt as close to a boyfriend from Bangladesh as I have to my husband who grew up just across LI from me and is from my ethnic group. Well…he was south shore and I north shore (Da! I’m kidding.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree with P3T, my previous life I worked with an Isreal company. I met Jews that came to live in Israel from South America, who are 100% Spanish. I also worked with people who are 100% Iranian and also are Jewish.</p>
<p>I agree with mythmom post. It’s definitely preference. I would never marry anybody who is a picky eater, who does not love food, etc… I prefer laid back easy going people vs picky, critical and neat freak. I stay away from being friend with people who are overly critical. So my choice of who I would want to date(Ok, I’m married, this is hypothetical) definitely based on my preference.</p>
<p>Jessiewhl, I don’t think that I am a bigot for my statement that many agnostic/atheists have an “anything goes” moral compass and that I would be concerned about my daughter dating someone with that set of values. The reality is that religion has served the purpose of causing people to “tow the line” regarding certain hedonistic behaviors under the threat of “hell”. When you remove that threat, as agnosticism/atheism does, you are led to the question of “Well, why not?” </p>
<p>I am generally agnostic myself, but religious belief cannot be generalized. Having been raised Catholic, I have basically chosen to take what makes sense and discard what does not. For example, I think that the Ten Commandments make sense as rules of life to live by, regardless of their religious source. So I can say that I am an agnostic that lives by them. Many agnostics/atheists would throw the baby out with the bathwater and discard the Commandments because of the source. </p>
<p>Perhaps sex/marriage is the most complicated area for me. Although I have cast away many of the beliefs that I was raised with, I still believe that marriage is a spiritual union. There’s no logic, rhyme, or reason for this, given that I no longer acknowledge or deny the existence of a deity. But the belief is still there. Atheists and many agnostics would not believe in a “spiritual union” any more than a deity. This is has been my experience, that once religious values are cast away, there is a questioning of all societal rules, you no longer believe in repurcussions/karma for your deeds, and people can become more selfish in this life. I don’t think that it makes me a bigot to state my (very educated) observances over my lifetime.</p>
<p>To be fair about the culture thing: My father remarried a few years ago to the daughter of an Italian Immigrant who identifies very strongly with her Italian heritage. At the wedding, my grandmother made “rugelach meets biscotti” baggies, which everyone found very amusing (rugelach are a traditional jewish desert). But that is, ultimately, how their marriage works, and how my half-brother, now 3 and a half, is being raised. He had a briss in Jewish tradation, but his name is extremely Italian (and his middle name is my step-mother’s maiden name). He is being raised bi-lingual (though neither of them are fluent), and has been to Italy to meet my step-mother’s family more times than most people go in their lives. He has to formally go through the conversion process to be recognized as a real Jew, since it is matralineal, but he will be pushed through it. Fortunately, my step-mother was raised completely a-religiously (went to Ethical Culture School), so the religious aspect is irrelevant to her.</p>
<p>All this goes to show that if it is made a prirotiy, two people who love each-other but have different cultures can certainly pass on both to their child. Many people are just unwilling to compromise or see this as an option.</p>
<p>On the other hand, my mother is already pushing me to date Jewish girls and hinting I shouldn’t consider my current long term relationship as serious (she’s asian).</p>
<p>Secular people have morals in an equal ratio to religious individuals</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree. I once read that marriage “is hard and not for the faint of heart.” One needs flexibility to make a marriage works in any culture. I’ve seen plenty of marriages from people withthe same race, same culture, same religion that end up in divorce.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having grown up in the Bible Belt as an atheist child and been routinely mocked, bullied, and otherwise persecuted for it by both children and adults, some of whom used the same logic that you do to justify their attitudes, I respectfully disagree that a generalization that atheists and agnostics have an inadequate moral compass is not bigoted.</p>
<p>I realize that you said “many” and not “all”, but you also said that you wouldn’t want your daughter dating an atheist or agnostic because of your generalization, which seems to negate the mitigating effect of “many”. In other words, you have prejudged potential dating partners based on religion. Which is religion-based prejudice.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what this is not coming through in the tone of my post, but my point is that this has been my experience in dealing with the people that I have met, in my region. I am not opposed to my daughter dating another agnostic/atheist, as she is one herself, but I would be “concerned” based on what I have seen in others-- that they would not be like her. I have stated in my posts that these are my concerns based on my interactions with others. I would be open to knowing the person, but a person would make a mistake if they believed that because my daughter is agnostic that I would necessarily think that any agnostic would be suitable as a mate.</p>
<p>Likewise, I recall sitting in my college class and hearing a professor generalize that most single mothers on welfare are uneducated, when I in fact was in exactly that position, only I was sitting her her class, working on my doctorate, with 5 darned scholarships. I didn’t appreciate her generalization, but even I had to acknowledge that I was a rarity.</p>
<p>And on that note, I hate to admit it, but I don’t think that I’d want my son to grow up an marry a woman with my history (and baggage). While I think that it has made me a unique and strong person, I think that people can do without my experiences, thank you very much. I’m glad that my husband valued and loved me, but his history of growing up with a single mother enabled him to do that. But if given a choice, I’d rather my son grow up to marry someone like my own daughter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Replace agnostic with person, and that sentences is fair and makes perfect sense:</p>
<p>I would be open to knowing the person, but a person would make a mistake if they believed that because my daughter is a person that I would necessarily think that any person would be suitable as a mate.</p>
<p>As it stands, your imposition of the limitation of “agnostic” makes you bigoted. It’s an ugly word, I know, but you have a prejudice against agnostics and atheists, that being “They’re less moral”. Why specify that any agnostic wouldn’t be a suitable mate? Of course just any wouldn’t. Nor would just any person of your race, or just any person who shares a hobby with her. That goes without saying to a rational thinker- that you felt compelled to point out agnostics specifically shows a bias.</p>
<p>Understood paying3tuitions :)</p>
<p>
No. It means that there is a certain way you choose to raise your future offspring and that you want to avoid issues with in-laws. </p>
<p>
Oy vey. Jewish mothers. <em>eye roll</em> I have much sympathy for your gf.</p>
<p>Where does one draw the line between acknowledging traits common to a group and being a bigot? That’s my problem.</p>
<p>Behaviors can be tied to religious/cultural/racial groups. For that matter, they can be tied to men vs. women!</p>
<p>Having been raised Italian, I know that there is truth to the term “Mama’s boy” when I hear people complain that Italian men are “Mama’s boys”. It is part of the culture to put family first, and it’s how an Italian identifies “family”, which tends not to include “in-laws”. It’s not just my family, it’s virtually every Italian family in my old neighborhood and that I’ve met.</p>
<p>What about complaints about the sexes? That women are emotional and men are violent? Is there not truth to these statements? Does that make one a sexist/mysogynist to see truth to these statements? Or am I just imagining that out of ~170 prison facilities in NY, only 2 of them are for women, and the rest are filled with men?</p>
<p>Why is it ok to tolerate some religious beliefs and not others? It’s acceptable for a school to acknowledge mainstream religions, but not acknowledge paganism? Is that not bigoted to give credence to some but not others?</p>
<p>Heck, how about animals. Anyone think about the fact that some animals receive special protection and a label called “domesticated” just because some people love them and others are called “wild” and receive none? Why should a cat be any more protected than a tarantula? Nobody will go to jail for killing a tarantula, but you will if you kill a cat. Why? Because you love them? I am deathly allergic to cats. A neighbor who allows his/her cat to chronically roam does not realize that if that cat gets into my house, not only cannot I not retrieve it safely, but it’s protein left in my house can actually kill me. But even though it would endanger my life, I am not allowed to treat that cat as the danger to my life that it is. But since EVERYONE perceives a tarantula as dangerous, nobody would care if I killed it, since they perceive my risk of death as being greater, when in fact maybe the tarantula would not have harmed me at all. </p>
<p>Why is it ok to accept that “blue collar workers” should be paid less than “professional” and “white collar workers”? All of us have the time in our lives tick on by towards death. We all crap and eat the same. It can’t be based on necessity of the occupation since I think that we’d all agree that someone has to collect the garbage. So why does Oprah make huge sums of money for espousing her opinions and I get so little for mine? LOL.</p>
<p>To address your last point, it has to do with supply and demand. Any schmuck can build a house (albeit it takes skill/training to do it well, but nearly anyone can acquire those through time). Precious few have the rare balance or leadership ability, mental acuity, and a head for figures required to run a fortune 500 company. That make sense to you? And the point is that while you can recognize such things as true (Everyone does, even if they won’t admit it), you it becomes bigoted when you start judging people prior to meeting them based on it. I’m male, so therefore I’m violent? It’d be pretty ludicrous for you to flinch when you met me and I extended my hand to shake for fear of my hitting you. Believing something is generally true about a group or groups: Unfortunate truth, but tolerable. Acting on those beliefs: Bigotry.</p>
<p>I felt I needed to clarify the “Beyonce” parentage, lol. Her mother is of creole heritage and identifies as African American, therefore, Beyonce does not have a white mother and black father. You were correct on Halle Berry’s parentage. :)</p>
<p>What do you think about ethnic heritage groups like the Colonial geneological associations, Sons of Italy, Hibernia, etc. ? Are members of those groups racists?</p>
<p>dke, I am identified as a Black American, and in my ancestry there is a Revolutionary War veteran. All colonial genealogical associations do not equate white american only.</p>
<p>By the way, my ancestor who was the Revolutionary War Veteran was identified as a Free Person of Color, so for sure I am not talking about a white american.</p>