For some unkown reason, the media is given full access to the medical records of people who do not want thier information given out to the public.

Marrying someone for tax breaks is not considered fraud. It isn't a crime at all. While it may violate the spirit of the tax break, it isn't exactly "wrong."

And Daganev, racists who claim to be racialists (apparently, it is a better term) make the argument that there is a difference in a black person versus a white person. They cite generic info to support this. Thus, they feel because a difference does exist (remember your man/woman argument?), we should be able to ban interracial marriage. A black can get married - to a black woman.

While this twisted rationale plays upon words and notion, it is a very good example of a half-truth argument. If we were to follow your rationale, we could conclude that these people opposed to interracial marriage are in fact NOT biggots.

Your right they arn't biggots, they are just ignorants to the facts.

Either that, or I'm a biggot when it comes to men and woman, because I feel deep down that I know there is a difference between men and woman, and I think anyone who denies that difference is in for a world of problems when it comes to relationships.

In a lot of cases, it is done so illegally. However, it isn't pressed (or rather it becomes difficult to press) so nothing happens.

Ignorant to what facts? If we look at African Americans versus White Americans versus Chinese Americans on a genetic standpoint, we are talking HUGE differences in allele frequencies, base pairing combination in DNA, etc. There are differences - differences that mean jack but none the less differences.

And I find that bigots tend to be ignorant... not void of it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/rush...ling.guest.html

I took the first hit on google.

The state high court in Acosta held: “The statute states in simple, direct language that medical records ‘may not be furnished’ and the medical condition of a patient ‘may not be discussed’ except upon written authorization of the patient. The obvious purpose of this first sentence is to prohibit disclosure of patient medical records and the patient’s medical condition to anyone except the patient” and the patient’s doctors.

Quoting from the Acosta decision, Mr. Black argued that the Medical Privacy Statutes provide “a strict scheme for limited disclosure” of medical records, and that strict scheme expressly excludes search warrants. Instead, the scheme requires notice to the patient, a subpoena and a hearing, before anyone, including the police, can obtain patient medical records without the patient’s consent.

They would be ignorant of the fact that a green pea has 94% matching DNA to humans, so any variances in DNA mean really nothing.  The only thing DNA is usefull for is finding out about an individual, not finding out about a group of people.

QUOTE
The state high court in Acosta held: “The statute states in simple, direct language that medical records ‘may not be furnished’ and the medical condition of a patient ‘may not be discussed’ except upon written authorization of the patient. The obvious purpose of this first sentence is to prohibit disclosure of patient medical records and the patient’s medical condition to anyone except the patient” and the patient’s doctors.

Quoting from the Acosta decision, Mr. Black argued that the Medical Privacy Statutes provide “a strict scheme for limited disclosure” of medical records, and that strict scheme expressly excludes search warrants. Instead, the scheme requires notice to the patient, a subpoena and a hearing, before anyone, including the police, can obtain patient medical records without the patient’s consent.

What's the genetic difference from a man versus a woman compared to a black man versus a white man? We are talking small, very very very small differences.

Right, thus using DNA to say that two types of people are the same or different is not really a valid argument, since the genetic difference between a  particular Vegetable and a human are really very very small as well.

You will note for reference in this conversation that two hermaphrodites may marry.

Gilmetdinova moved to Haris's town soon after that. Haris developed a fondness for the new resident and they started dating. "I liked him a lot indeed. But when people told me about his secret, I was really scared. I decided to stay away from him for a while. When a week passed, I realized that I could not live without him. My father blessed our marriage," Nurgalam said. Haris Kamalov became a perfect husband: he neither drank, nor smoked; he was a hard-working person too. Haris and Hurgalam could not register their marriage, though, because Haris was officially registered as a woman. "I could have changed my passport, but it was all about red tape. I am still listed as a woman," Haris says. "When he was young, he was very good as a man. He was very gentle and caressing in bed. He had women's bosom, yes, but it did not bother me. Nobody has

Isn't it something like all humans have more than 99% identical DNA?

According to this article about a hermaphadite marrying a woman, this is not the case.
edit: Full article for refrance.. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:JJ51rkv...+marriage&hl=en

A hermaphadite can marry a hermaphadite ONLY if one is registered as a male and the other registerd as a female.

My point was simply that if we look at what makes a man and woman different (genetically), we find that there isn't too much more that makes a white man different from a black man (primarily because the differences are so so slim).

Thus, for you to conclude that there is a "difference" between a woman/man but not a white/black man is a bit misleading.

hahaha, I am not the Devil's Advocate.

That's not true in my state. Furthermore, I don't think it would hold up in court either as a hermaphrodite by definition could claim both sexes if he or she desired and the ability to "claim" sex is typically done by parents at a young age.

Again, using DNA to describe "difference"s is not a valid argument.

I would wager that I could find two white men who had a larger DNA difference than   a man and a woman or a black man and a white man.  Especially if one of those white men was full of allergies and cancers and other birth defects.