"Marry in your own race"

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The gender communication differences vary more IMHO than any other differences but you combine the other factors to arrive at a model.

So what is the harm in including these other factors in the calculus of finding a suitable spouse? Politically correct naivete does no one any favors here. Simply acknowledge those factors MIGHT have an impact on a relationship, discuss them as a couple prior to marriage and then there are fewer surprises to deal with afterwards.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Acknowledging there are differences due to being from different cultural backgrounds, even without ascribing one as superior to the other, amounts to racism?

Someone let me know when Waters is capable of rational thought.

you think different race means different culture?

Again, someone let me know when Indy stops spouting racism.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you think different race means different culture?

Since ER is MIA, maybe you can tell me why we use the term African American instead of black or *gasp* negro.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you think different race means different culture?

Again, someone let me know when Indy stops spouting racism.

Another non-response from MW. Speaks volumes.

[MikeWaters]

If you can't see the racism, I can't help you. Simple as that.

[Indy Coug]

So when the Hutus committed genocide against the Tutsis, that wasn't a racially motivated catastrophe? Do you think skin color is the sole driver of what constitutes "race"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you can't see the racism, I can't help you. Simple as that.

Crying "Wolf!" doesn't in and of itself mean that a wolf is present.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So when the Hutus committed genocide against the Tutsis, that wasn't a racially motivated catastrophe? Do you think skin color is the sole driver of what constitutes "race"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu

Race, as this article implies, is a social construction. However, I doubt SWK thought of it in terms other than skin color, especially in the USA.

This thread (and the related ones of the past few days) presents an interesting reversal of norms: the staunch defenders of the faith are arguing for a more "spirit of the law" interpretation of the lesson and the statement. The more critical are pinning the letter to the law.

I think SIEQ used to have a quote in his signature about how we all trust our own unorthodoxies. I guess we're all "mullahs" about something.

[MikeWaters]

If anyone doubted that racism was alive and well in the LDS church, I give you Exhibit A.

They don't use the word "miscegenation" anymore, but the message is the same.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Acknowledging there are differences due to being from different cultural backgrounds, even without ascribing one as superior to the other, amounts to racism?

Someone let me know when Waters is capable of rational thought.

So let's assume you are in my ward and your kids are socializing with my kids. And one of my brown skinned boys and your daughter begin to date, aside from discussing morality issues with her, at what point do you bring up the "cultural" differences and the impact they could have on a relationship? And what would you tell your daughter?

Let's face it, SWK's quote is outdated and should not be used in any lesson manual. Am I offended by it? Again, NO I am not. But, the message it conveys, whether intended or not, is one we do not want our children to embrace.