Just to be a little devil's advocate . . .

Someone explain why interracial marriage is not immoral.

I can think of some reasons why it is immoral, and I would like to see some responses.

Reason 1: It's unnatural
For our first reason, I'll use evolution as a basis for my argument.

One way evolution occurs (so I've heard) is when a certain species splits into separate mating groups, between which little mating occurs. They may be split by distance, by an obstacle such as a geological formation, or by when their mating seasons are.

The different human races (as I've heard) were once one race, but had been split by distance. They then went on their own evolutionary paths. The European humans lost some skin, eye, and hair pigment due to the fact that they simply didn't need it anymore. Some Aisian humans developed specially-shaped eyes that blocked out glare from the snow.

If we allowed members of different races to intermarry, we'd be disrupting the evolutionary process. This is unnatural. Therefore, one can conclude that interracial marriage is immoral.

Thus concludes Reason 1. Moving on now to Reason 2.

Reason 2: A child produced by an interracial marriage cannot develop a racial identity
I'll use psychology for this next reason.

If you look at pop culture, it's obvious that the different races are . . . different. The races have things with which only they can identify.

African-Americans, for example, have their own dialect of English, known to some as African-American Vernacular English, but more commonly known as Ebonics. They not only have this to identify with, but they lay claim to a genre of music. Most music artists who perform rap music are African-Americans.

Another example are the Hispanics. The majority of people that speak Spanish in the household are Hispanics. They have an entirely different language with which they can identify.

A child must be able to feel like they have an identity. Most children can, because they are born of parents who are the same race. They can confidently say "I'm , and I'm proud of that."

Some children, however, are born of parents who are different races. They are biracial and aren't sure which one they really belong to. They may be rejected by social groups from both races in school. This is detrimental to a child's development. So therefore, two people of different races should not be allowed to have children.

Now that we're done with Reason 2, we're ready for Reason 3.

[I]Reason 3: God separated them for a reason
I'll appeal to the religious with this reason.

Whenever God does something, He does it for a reason. He had a reason for creating the universe and the first humans. He had a reason for casting the first humans out of the Garden of Eden. He had a reason for writing the Ten Commandments which we all must follow. He had a reason for sending us His Son to become our Lord and Savior.

God has placed the different races of the world in different places. He has a reason for having the races separate. He obviously didn't want the races mixed in the first place. Therefore, we cannot allow them to mix. It goes against God's will.

Thus ends my argument.

Please give me yer thoughts on these reasons, and on the matter. Thanks in advance.

(In case there's any confusion, I don't actually believe interracial marriage is immoral. Like I said earlier, I'm just being a little devil's advocate here.)

— Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf.

Evolution is not written in stone. If previously isolated population become interbreeding populations again then that is perfectly natural. It happens all the time.

Racial identity is bullshit. My sister's children are the 'unnatural' result of an interbreeding. They don't need an race indentity. They are fully aware that they are not white and that doesn't bother them the least. They don't give a shit about it. They have a cultural identity. They are typical for the region of holland where they grew up and the particular city and the particular family.

You can't use god as an argument if you use evolution as an argument too.

Possibly you just have to admit you are just a plain racist and you should try to seek some counceling.

Evolution is not written in stone. If previously isolated population become interbreeding populations again then that is perfectly natural. It happens all the time.

Good point.

Racial identity is bullshit. My sister's children are the 'unnatural' result of an interbreeding. They don't need an race indentity.

Thank you for providing a launching board for how I connect this issue with another. :)

You can't use god as an argument if you use evolution as an argument too.

Not necessarily. The Bible isn't as anti-evolutionary as people think.

Even if it were, I used both those examples to make both the scientific and the religious groups equally able to contribute their thoughts to the thread. Also, I knew that the religious would debate the very validity of evolution, and the scientific the validity of religion, if I had only argued for one of them.

Just making everyone happy . . . Ya know?

Possibly you just have to admit you are just a plain racist and you should try to seek some counceling.

You didn't read all of my post, did ya?

Just to be a little devil's advocate . . .
[ . . . ]
(In case there's any confusion, I don't actually believe interracial marriage is immoral. Like I said earlier, I'm just being a little devil's advocate here.)

There's a purpose behind my thread. I'm just withholding that purpose to see where the thread will go if the posters are ignorant of it.

the premise is the evil shit. always check the premise you are stuck on. ie.,, 'if GOG did xyz in so and so' then why etc. do you see, you have accepted a crap belief to BEGIN with and from THERe try and reason
this is what of the scientist people do. their premise is that we are biochemical machines...and from there make a godawful fukin shittin mess of everything

rather start with the premise of THIS IS REAL LIFE HERE WE ARE DEALING WITH. REAL PEOPLE, AND REAL PEOPLES FEELINGS, AND IF I AM AN IGNOREANT SO AND SO WITH DAFT UNPROVEN PREMISES COMING FROM A DAFT IRRATIONAL THINKY THUNKY MIND, THEN I CAM GONNA FURTHER ALL THE CONFUSION AND VIOLENCE AROUND ME. EVEN A NASTY LOOK AT A MIXED RACE PERSON WILL CREATE FURTHER BAD VIBES....stuff like that

i am so-called mixed race, and am one of the luvliest people whove ever lived. honest

i am so-called mixed race, and am one of the luvliest people whove ever lived. honest
Well, if there were any questions about athelwulf's reason #2, that pretty much poops on #2.

Athelulf,

So what would you say to someone who says that its immoral/unethical (lets not confuse the terms..) to marry outside of your immediate family?

Us halfbreeds are just as messed up as them. And you might as well say that its unethical to preserve lines of genetic disease in the purebreeds.

But I'll give you some refutation: Hybrid vigor- when two distant members of the same species produce offspring, they will (often) share some of the strongest traits of both parents. Set aside your prejudice, and imagine the culture and genes of an asian and Jew colliding.

I've had great fun breeding tomato plants to this effect. You come up with amazingly weird combinations. Sometimes the product is utter crap, but most of the time you'll get your effort back.

The ONLY problem I see with mixing races is the hit to blood banks that these hybrid blood combinations will produce in the future.

Only if you consider risk-taking, in and of itself, immoral. Mixed marriages are high-risk ventures, both statistically and historically

As someone previously and kindly explained, you do indeed have such a thing as 'hybrid vigour', where the child has the strongest elements of both parents, and none of the weaknesses of either.

Moreover, if you could quantify beauty at the genetic level, and had two unrelated people with exactly the same high count, one mixed, one white, you'd find that the mixed race individual would be more appealing to most people. Mixed race is still somewhat 'exotic', and as such, given it's relative rarity value, accentuates the two extremes of beauty and ugliness, hence the 'high-risk, high reward' factor.

Jaybee

I only see one human being that loves another and if they marry then that's their business not mine to determine.

As blacks do marry whites [and vice-versa] there's no point asking whether they can.

whats the big deal , i have been stayin in africa from last 5 yrs and have many such cases like this ,,,...

its people like you , you distinguish whites and black , they all are the same , does not matter ....

Sure they can marry, but for a white women to marry a black man this white women will be against so incredible odds to maintain this marrige or even start a family.

For one nearly 70% of black children are raised without the black fathers support:
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/print.php?id=169

Two is the fact that blacks carry a overwelming rate of sexual diseases with in their community:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Take also into account the facts that black males lead all other groups in cheating on their spouse murder, rape, assault, and ALL VIOLENT crimes http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ovrelracetab.htm , and this white women who marrys a black man has very low chances of having a successful and meaningful life.

I believe many white women marry blacks because white women are very compassionate and in many ways feel guilty and sorry for blacks. Alot of black males harrass and scare white women with their aggressive behaviour and tell white women that they are "racist" if they won't "hook up" with blacks.

I think white males don't want black women because black women on the average are annoying, ignorant and just plain ugly.

1. It's innapropriate to use nature as a model for morality. There are spiders that eat their own mates after sex.
There might be a built in prejudice against anyone not like yourself, but there's no modern reason to maintain this kind of separation. Evolutionary-wise, blacks and whites are almost identical. Interbreeding will make us stronger by creating more diversity in the genes. We already interrupted the evolutionary process with agriculture, medicine, the industrial revolution, etc...

2. Races are mostly different due to culture. One should develop their own culture and ignore mass culture, which is stupid.

3. There's no God.

Evolutionary-wise, blacks and whites are almost identical.
Almost huh, that is one big almost.

http://www.powow.com/radio88/wb.htm

whats the big deal , i have been stayin in africa from last 5 yrs and have many such cases like this ,,,...

its people like you , you distinguish whites and black , they all are the same , does not matter ....
Ya sure,
TODAY'S AFRICAN NEWS:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050219103803315C822723

Big D,
I said evolutionary-wise. There are very few genes that separate us, and they mostly determine outer appearances. Consider the people of mixed race, they aren't black, and they aren't white. This illustrates how unreal the idea of race is. Many, many black people in the US have, due to the widespread raping of black slaves, white genes. Also, many people that think they of a "pure" race actually have genes from all over the world.

Ya sure,
TODAY'S AFRICAN NEWS:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050219103803315C822723

I hope they succeed, it's only fair.

I believe many white women marry blacks because white women are very compassionate and in many ways feel guilty and sorry for blacks.

Wow, how do I get me one of those pitty marriages!

I think its pretty obvious that Big D is just a troll, he obviously can't believe the things he is saying.

the premise is the evil shit. always check the premise you are stuck on. ie.,, 'if GOG did xyz in so and so' then why etc. do you see, you have accepted a crap belief to BEGIN with and from THERe try and reason

Woden forbid I make my argument diverse!

So ya think it's crap. That's fine, I think it's crap too.

this is what of the scientist people do. their premise is that we are biochemical machines...and from there make a godawful fukin shittin mess of everything

. . . Okay.

rather start with the premise of THIS IS REAL LIFE HERE WE ARE DEALING WITH. REAL PEOPLE, AND REAL PEOPLES FEELINGS, AND IF I AM AN IGNOREANT SO AND SO WITH DAFT UNPROVEN PREMISES COMING FROM A DAFT IRRATIONAL THINKY THUNKY MIND, THEN I CAM GONNA FURTHER ALL THE CONFUSION AND VIOLENCE AROUND ME. EVEN A NASTY LOOK AT A MIXED RACE PERSON WILL CREATE FURTHER BAD VIBES....stuff like that

STOP YELLING. And I agree.

i am so-called mixed race, and am one of the luvliest people whove ever lived. honest

There was no doubt in my mind.

So what would you say to someone who says that its immoral/unethical (lets not confuse the terms..) to marry outside of your immediate family?

I'd say, "Fine, let yer babies be birth-defect-ridden."

Us halfbreeds are just as messed up as them. And you might as well say that its unethical to preserve lines of genetic disease in the purebreeds.

Elaborate.

But I'll give you some refutation: Hybrid vigor- when two distant members of the same species produce offspring, they will (often) share some of the strongest traits of both parents.

I realize that.

Set aside your prejudice, and imagine the culture and genes of an asian and Jew colliding.

Learn how to read.

The ONLY problem I see with mixing races is the hit to blood banks that these hybrid blood combinations will produce in the future.

Elaborate.

Only if you consider risk-taking, in and of itself, immoral. Mixed marriages are high-risk ventures, both statistically and historically

As someone previously and kindly explained, you do indeed have such a thing as 'hybrid vigour', where the child has the strongest elements of both parents, and none of the weaknesses of either.

Moreover, if you could quantify beauty at the genetic level, and had two unrelated people with exactly the same high count, one mixed, one white, you'd find that the mixed race individual would be more appealing to most people. Mixed race is still somewhat 'exotic', and as such, given it's relative rarity value, accentuates the two extremes of beauty and ugliness, hence the 'high-risk, high reward' factor.

But looks mean nothing if you have an ill-developed mind, as one could argue.

I only see one human being that loves another and if they marry then that's their business not mine to determine.

Very true.

As blacks do marry whites [and vice-versa] there's no point asking whether they can.

Yes there is.

whats the big deal , i have been stayin in africa from last 5 yrs and have many such cases like this ,,,...

I say the same thing: "What's the big deal?"

its people like you , you distinguish whites and black , . . .

Learn how to read.

they all are the same , does not matter ....

Agreed.

Sure they can marry, but for a white women to marry a black man this white women will be against so incredible odds to maintain this marrige or even start a family.

For one nearly 70% of black children are raised without the black fathers support:
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/print.php?id=169

Two is the fact that blacks carry a overwelming rate of sexual diseases with in their community:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Take also into account the facts that black males lead all other groups in cheating on their spouse murder, rape, assault, and ALL VIOLENT crimes http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homici...vrelracetab.htm , and this white women who marrys a black man has very low chances of having a successful and meaningful life.

I believe many white women marry blacks because white women are very compassionate and in many ways feel guilty and sorry for blacks. Alot of black males harrass and scare white women with their aggressive behaviour and tell white women that they are "racist" if they won't "hook up" with blacks.

I think white males don't want black women because black women on the average are annoying, ignorant and just plain ugly.

Although I don't agree with any of these statements, you have provided a good launching board for how I connect this issue with another. :)

1. It's innapropriate to use nature as a model for morality. There are spiders that eat their own mates after sex.
There might be a built in prejudice against anyone not like yourself, but there's no modern reason to maintain this kind of separation.

Agreed.

Evolutionary-wise, blacks and whites are almost identical.

They're almost identical now, but they were starting to diverge from each other.

Interbreeding will make us stronger by creating more diversity in the genes.

Agreed.

We already interrupted the evolutionary process with agriculture, medicine, the industrial revolution, etc...

That's not a reason to continue interrupting.

2. Races are mostly different due to culture. One should develop their own culture and ignore mass culture, which is stupid.

Agreed.

3. There's no God.

Verily agreed.

They're almost identical now, but they were starting to diverge from each other.

Completely baseless. Do you believe that modern Africans are a different species?

Athelwulf, you must be an imbecilic racist. Your disclaimer hoodwinks no man.

Know what you speak of before attempting to spread your rot.

To end this shit:

We are too fucked up anyways... racial matters are simple unnatural! We are doing the unnatural by WORRYING about it and TRYING to find differences between ourselves. Get over it!

We are fucked up... why not fuck it up a little more? If we inter-marry, then it IS a part of the evolutionary path that WE create. What we do determines how we evolve.

A caveman thousands of years ago didnt start fishing because he felt it was on our evolutionary path, he did it because he felt like it. (Just and example). So, if we feel like interracial marriage is ok, then so be it.

You people sicken me, not because you are racist or anything, but because you are so fucking ignorant that you decide to even worry about it in the first place.

My exact words:
"Who the fuck cares?"

Most evolutionary divergence happened with geographical isolation like an island or lake or mountain range. I don't think any kind of isolation is now possible (or even desirable) that would encourage humanity diverging into seperate species. There is religious isolation, but that isn't total. The problem with this newfound mobility is that we might be wiped out by a plague.

Actually, I thought of another reason why your reason #1 is invalid. Species don't just diverge, parallel lines sometimes rejoin. What seem to be branches on the tree of life are made up of multiple interlacing lines of descent.

I think if you put a group of white scandinavians in africa and isolated them for a thousand years, they would become black. Black skin is just an adaptation to the sun, like white skin is an adaptation to the lack of sun in northern regions.

Completely baseless. Do you believe that modern Africans are a different species?

No.

Athelwulf, you must be an imbecilic racist. Your disclaimer hoodwinks no man.

I must be a racist? Prove it. With the scientific method. :p

Know what you speak of before attempting to spread your rot.

Ditto.

To end this shit:

We are too fucked up anyways... racial matters are simple unnatural! We are doing the unnatural by WORRYING about it and TRYING to find differences between ourselves. Get over it!

We are fucked up... why not fuck it up a little more? If we inter-marry, then it IS a part of the evolutionary path that WE create. What we do determines how we evolve.

A caveman thousands of years ago didnt start fishing because he felt it was on our evolutionary path, he did it because he felt like it. (Just and example). So, if we feel like interracial marriage is ok, then so be it.

I agree.

You people sicken me, not because you are racist or anything, but because you are so fucking ignorant that you decide to even worry about it in the first place.

Was that directed at me?

My exact words:
"Who the fuck cares?"

Exactly.

Hmm . . . The discussion is starting to get ugly. I didn't expect it to happen so fast. Maybe I should reveal my hand tomorrow.

If we allowed members of different races to intermarry, we'd be disrupting the evolutionary process. This is unnatural. Therefore, one can conclude that interracial marriage is immoral.
Why does one have to regard this separation as a LAW not to be broken? Is it unnatural to travel?

Reason 2: A child produced by an interracial marriage cannot develop a racial identity
I'll use psychology for this next reason.
Not at all true. It merely depends upon the environment in which one is raised.

Reason 3: God separated them for a reason
Certainly He does everything for a reason, but he doesn't separate people on the basis of letting them never marry each other. He probably just didn't want them all to occupy the same area.

Thus ends my argument.
Or what weak propositions there existed in the place of your argument.

Whether or not you are actually being a devil's advocate, what it comes down to is that it is a personal choice. If you believe these reasons, then don't marry a person of a different race.

I don't believe these are valid reasons at all. You take accepted premises (e.g. "breaking evolutionary process is unnatural", and "God does everything for a reason"), and you use those to extrapolate things that are simply bogus (e.g. "interracial marriage is unnatural", and "God does not want the races to mix").

But it is a personal choice.

Rubiks, good of ya to come around.

Why does one have to regard this separation as a LAW not to be broken?

In actuality, one doesn't.

Is it unnatural to travel?

I don't think so, but one could take the argument to the extreme . . .

Not at all true. It merely depends upon the environment in which one is raised.

Well, the environment in which a biracial child is raised can be shown to be different from that of a uniracial child.

Certainly He does everything for a reason, but he doesn't separate people on the basis of letting them never marry each other.

Can you know for sure?

He probably just didn't want them all to occupy the same area.

. . . I guess ya can't.

Or what weak propositions there existed in the place of your argument.

Wow . . . I never thought I'd ever agree to such a statement coming from you. :D

Whether or not you are actually being a devil's advocate, what it comes down to is that it is a personal choice. If you believe these reasons, then don't marry a person of a different race.

I agree again.

I don't believe these are valid reasons at all. You take accepted premises (e.g. "breaking evolutionary process is unnatural", and "God does everything for a reason"), and you use those to extrapolate things that are simply bogus (e.g. "interracial marriage is unnatural", and "God does not want the races to mix").

I agree. And thank you for giving me a launching pad.

Well, the environment in which a biracial child is raised can be shown to be different from that of a uniracial child.
So? Does it make it a wrong environment? Environments such as these are what give people uniqueness.

I don't think so, but one could take the argument to the extreme . . .
Yes. My point is that in this topic, when taken to this extreme, all rationality is lost.

Can you know for sure?
No. But neither can you. I have read enough of the Bible to know that He is a loving God, not wanting to separate people on the basis of race. And I think one part even says that the people shall mix.

Wow . . . I never thought I'd ever agree to such a statement coming from you.
You are finally coming to realize that I am usually right! YESSSS!

No. But neither can you. I have read enough of the Bible to know that He is a loving God, not wanting to separate people on the basis of race. And I think one part even says that the people shall mix.

Nehemiah 13:23-27 (NIV): Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab ... I rebuked them and called curses down on them ... I made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"


Genesis 24:1-4 (NIV): Abraham was now old and well advanced in years, and the LORD had blessed him in every way. He said to the chief servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh. I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac."

Try substituting 'Cananites' for 'blacks'.

http://www.creationtheory.org/BiblicalMorality/Racism.shtml

More fun for you RubiksMaster. Feel free to defend.

Originally Posted by Xerxes
"The ONLY problem I see with mixing races is the hit to blood banks that these hybrid blood combinations will produce in the future.
”

Elaborate.

Do you know ANYTHING about biology, or are you just writing about whatever fits your moral dogma? Those who do (take spuriousmonkey for example) see right through your argument.

So what is it you're trying to say? That your liberal christian parents are trying to rationalize keeping you away from the black girls?

So? Does it make it a wrong environment? Environments such as these are what give people uniqueness.

Take a quick look at Big D's first link. I think it relates to the topic.

No. But neither can you. I have read enough of the Bible to know that He is a loving God, not wanting to separate people on the basis of race. And I think one part even says that the people shall mix.

May I inquire as to what part that is?

You are finally coming to realize that I am usually right! YESSSS!

Don't get too excited. Ye'r setting yerself up for a letdown.

Do you know ANYTHING about biology, or are you just writing about whatever fits your moral dogma?

Thanks for elaborating<Sub>&iexcl;</Sub> I see now what ye'r talking about<Sub>&iexcl;</Sub>

By the way . . . REALLY learn how to read. Or maybe you need to work on reading comprehension next. Yeah, that's it. Learn how to comprehend what you read.

Those who do (take spuriousmonkey for example) see right through your argument.

I don't care. I actually wanted that.

So what is it you're trying to say? That your liberal christian parents are trying to rationalize keeping you away from the black girls?

Prove that my parents are liberal Christians.

Prove that they are even talking to me about the black girls, let alone telling me to stay away from them.

Don't go off accusing me of being a racist when I have overtly said that I don't really hold this opinion.

Now please elaborate on how the blood supply will take a hit from the hybrid blood. Unless, o' course, ya'd rather attack me senseless again.

I honestly don't know what all of this uproar over Athel's argument is all about. What bothers all of you, especially you, RubiksMaster, about anything he's said here?

Isn't this the level of political discourse that we as a nation (At least in the United States) accept as the status quo and tolerate (despite the objections of some few whiny activists who call it absurd)?

If you ask me, Athel ought to be commended for his political awareness and astute grasp of the policies and rhetoric alive and well in the political theaters all across America. Pat him on the head, he's a bright lad, and I couldn't agree more with what he's got to say.

If I may be so bold as to crib some lyrics from Roger Waters, we've got to find "The final solution to strengthen the strain!" and end the eminent threat posed by these attacks on traditional race-identity.

To those detractors who have had some harsh words for Athel in this thread I'd advise that you take out your dictionaries and look up the words "allegory" and "sarcasm". Though I'm fairly certain that you're all already familiar with the meaning of these terms, it may help your critical thinking processes enough to understand what you're actually reading here.


Or what weak propositions there existed in the place of your argument.

Whether or not you are actually being a devil's advocate, what it comes down to is that it is a personal choice. If you believe these reasons, then don't marry a person of a different race.

I don't believe these are valid reasons at all. You take accepted premises (e.g. "breaking evolutionary process is unnatural", and "God does everything for a reason"), and you use those to extrapolate things that are simply bogus (e.g. "interracial marriage is unnatural", and "God does not want the races to mix").

But it is a personal choice.

What a lovely tune Athel has inspired you to sing, RubiksMaster-and even after you said that you couln't! See, just beleive in yourself and you can achieve anything.

In the end, though, I think that Big D is the only one we've got to give a cockeyed glance at and wonder what exactly went wrong in his childhood. That is, of course, assuming that he's not simply a troll as SpyMoose suggested, which I think may be rather likely.

Oh, and for the record, though I'm gay, and a white man, even I have to admit that I might get with a black-chick if the opportunity arose. . . they've just got it goin' on in so many ways that most other girls don't, you know? haha.

pretty interesting thread here........

I must say whether blacks marry whites or say whites marry blacks doesn't really matter its been going on for decades, I am white and I have a black uncle which is one of the nicest relatives I have.

I myself would not hold the color of a girls skin against a girl if I liked her and wanted to date her or marry her but thats just me

I honestly don't know what all of this uproar over Athel's argument is all about. What bothers all of you, especially you, RubiksMaster, about anything he's said here?

My problem is mainly the ignorance that is displayed.

Whats this 'launching pad' you're preparing athelwolf? I think this is the right time to abase the few racist that your little plan has spurred.

Or then you're a self-loathing racist.
So goddamn cunning.

The only 'problem' in interracial marriages is the offspring. Don't reproduce and it's all fine. I rather like the fact that there are differences in the masses.
+ What the fuck would benetton do in a world of grey mush?

My problem is mainly the ignorance that is displayed.

I would take issue with that as well, but only because so many people seem to be taking this thread entirely the wrong way. I suppose the context just isn't reaching most of the posters here. I suppose most of the reactions are predictable and commendable in their own way, but it is a bit saddening that we're on the second page already and there seems to be a lack of discussion about what I thought was the very obvious point of Athel's initial post.

At any rate, the longer we all go on like this, and the more people post seriously as the meaning zooms right over their heads, the stronger Athel's intended point becomes.

I know alth's hidden point that he wants to use all this as a launchpad for and don’t think dragging this on is going to make it any more powerful. The people who he wants to barb with it already have enough cognitive dissonance going on, and they've already heard this argument and rationalized it. The only thing this thread is doing is showing off peoples stupidity when they say things like
The only 'problem' in interracial marriages is the offspring. Don't reproduce and it's all fine.
The core problem here is that the allegory is not going to work in any way shape or form, because the sorts of minds we are dealing with here aren’t capable of understanding it. This quoted phrase illustrates the sort of idiocy we are dealing with.

The simple, and as yet un-stated analogy that can be drawn between this topic and the other one that athel has hinted at is only as poewrful as his opponents willingness to see the relationship. They don't want to see it, we already know that from much prodding in other threads.

My problem is mainly the ignorance that is displayed.

In a way, it's supposed to be ignorant. But it's supposed to be thought-out ignorance. Does that make sense? If it doesn't, it will soon.

Whats this 'launching pad' you're preparing athelwolf?

It's Athelwulf.

I think this is the right time to abase the few racist that your little plan has spurred.

Or then you're a self-loathing racist.
So goddamn cunning.

What are ya going on about?

The only 'problem' in interracial marriages is the offspring. Don't reproduce and it's all fine. I rather like the fact that there are differences in the masses.

That reason alone is reason enough to ban interracial marriage? Sorry, but I disagree with it.

+ What the fuck would benetton do in a world of grey mush?

I don't know &mdash; What the fuck would benetton do? . . . Who- or whatever the fuck benetton is . . .

And the world wouldn't be gray mush. It would be a hazely mix. Light brown (white) and dark brown (black) don't make gray, but a medium shade of brown.

I know alth's hidden point that he wants to use all this as a launchpad for and don’t think dragging this on is going to make it any more powerful.

I suppose that's mostly true, save for the fact that I have more material from people to make a launching pad.

The people who he wants to barb with it already have enough cognitive dissonance going on, and they've already heard this argument and rationalized it.

True. So ultimately, I'm dragging it on kuz I feel like it.

The only thing this thread is doing is showing off peoples stupidity when they say things like
The only 'problem' in interracial marriages is the offspring. Don't reproduce and it's all fine.

And it's mildly entertaining. :D

The core problem here is that the allegory is not going to work in any way shape or form, because the sorts of minds we are dealing with here aren’t capable of understanding it. This quoted phrase illustrates the sort of idiocy we are dealing with.

True, though it doesn't hurt to try, for the sake of people that are capable of understanding it.

The simple, and as yet un-stated analogy that can be drawn between this topic and the other one that athel has hinted at is only as poewrful as his opponents willingness to see the relationship. They don't want to see it, we already know that from much prodding in other threads.

I suppose ye'r right, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to try this either.

Originally Posted by Perkele
The only 'problem' in interracial marriages is the offspring. Don't reproduce and it's all fine. ”


WHAT THE F#CK!!!!!!!

I have a problem with that I have a few close cousins that are from one white parent and one black parent and they are some of the best relatives I have

umm, yeah, this racist stuff is old-world, wake up and smell the new century.

I go to a school that's half black, and any differences are those we assign ourselves. blacks lean toward their fashion and music, we whitties ours, and hispanics, asians, everyone to their respective trends. genetics, skin color, why the hell would that matter anymore? ok ok , i'll give the asians credit, i believe asians are superior in that asian women are simply GORGEOUS. but yeah, we all get along, we celebrate differences, and mixing is totally normal. I dont understand how you think you can analyze the hell out of this like some broken-down history teacher bickering with the english teach on small-town wyoming where white majority is everywhere (i believe). Please, let me know if that's at least almost the case so i can have a hardy laugh. peace out, love your black/white/tan/radioactive-green neighbors.

peace out, love your black/white/tan/radioactive-green neighbors.

I hate those radioactive green types. A whole bunch of them just moved into my town...you know how they are. They ride past you in their cars blairing their music that just sounds like a bunch of clicks and whistles to me. I would go so far as to accuse them of lax morals, and low aptitudes!

Speaking for NZ, the Maoris marry out of their race at historically very high levels--there are whites here who don't like that because they're pissed off about Maoris marrying whites. Now, there are Maoris who are also pissed off about it, but for a more subtle and long-term reason; they realise that the Maori race is being gradually attenuated and submerged genetically by a tide of intermarriage. In truth, the greatest levels of intermarriage in NZ began right from the start of contact in the early 1800's, when the whalers and sealers and loggers were here. White women were as rare as hens teeth, but there were always plenty of Maori women available. It was the practice to adopt a white man into the tribe and make him ''our trader" so that he would give the local people an advantage in any moneymaking to be done.

When European women started arriving in New Zealand in the 1840's, the Maori/European intermarriage rate dropped right away, and stayed at fairly low levels for quite a long time. Then ater WW2, when the Maoris started coming into the towns to find work, the intermarriage rate started rising again, and has remained high to the present day.

The Maori objection to intermarriage is that eventually their race will be so diluted that they'll end up being absorbed. Well, that may happen in the physical sense, given enough time; but cultural absorbtion is a much longer process--taking centuries.

To spymoose and athelw0lf.

You dont get it, you little racists
Basicly what i was saying was - i love your colour so much i want to preserve it. Yet you turned it to be as if im a weakling who wants to maintain a fucking feud between colours. You are the ones who need to mix ethnicities before you can accept them. You act like we should be tolerant and come together, but only when it follows your lead which is to jumble together every little individual trait different people posses.

weed eater guy: "we celebrate differences, and mixing is totally normal"

It is normal, and should be, and when mixing comes something beyond normal, we stop celebrating differences- for there are non. Which was kind of my point.

"i believe asians are superior in that asian women are simply GORGEOUS."

Yeah, finally an ethnicity that can 'celebrate' the size of your below avarage endownment.

The Maori objection to intermarriage is that eventually their race will be so diluted that they'll end up being absorbed. Well, that may happen in the physical sense, given enough time; but cultural absorbtion is a much longer process--taking centuries.
And surely what you will end up with is a rather nice blend, culturally, socially, biologically, linguistically, historically of the best of the two 'races'. Much as has been happening repeatedly around the planet for several tens of thousands of years. It's one of the reasons humans show much less genetic diversity than almost any other species. [That and almost going extinct 80k years ago] Race is a chimera.

Was that directed at me?

No. Definetely not, i like the way you think on many subjects i've read. Its directed as society and people in general that add restrictions and unnatural rules to idiotic things, then expect people to conform to them, and try to force them to with lack of common sense or logic. Basically anyways...

Perkele,

To spymoose and athelw0lf.

Who's Athelw0lf?

You dont get it, you little racists

No, you don't get it. You don't get why this thread is even here. And ye'r not even trying to figure it out, or giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Just kuz it's getting really annoying, I'll repost it for the last time:

(In case there's any confusion, I don't actually believe interracial marriage is immoral. Like I said earlier, I'm just being a little devil's advocate here.)

So . . . If ya don't know what ye'r talking about, then don't say anything.

Basicly what i was saying was - i love your colour so much i want to preserve it.

If ye'r telling the truth, then I can at least say for you that ya mean well.

Yet you turned it to be as if im a weakling who wants to maintain a fucking feud between colours.

No I didn't.

You are the ones who need to mix ethnicities before you can accept them. You act like we should be tolerant and come together, but only when it follows your lead which is to jumble together every little individual trait different people posses.

That's not it at all.

It's illogical to assume that race will cease to exist if interracial marriage is allowed. There will still be a large number of people that will wish only to marry someone of the same race.

Besides, people with different eye colors intermarry all the time, and there are still defined populations of brown-eyes, blue-eyes, and green-eyes.

It is normal, and should be, and when mixing comes something beyond normal, we stop celebrating differences- for there are non. Which was kind of my point.

People won't mix to the point where there are no races. Seriously, think logically.

So you are not a racist. You are just trying to fuel racial hatred.

Don't know which one is worse.

Wulfie,
Next time you play Devil's Adovacte, try and play it past your first post. What you said here was "I'm not a rascist, but pretend I am."
So people did, and then you shout "I'M NOT A RASCIST, DUMMY!"

You aren't playing devil's anything.

There is a trend in the United States and most of the world towards an absorption and mediation of different cultures this is not a bad thing. The world culture is absorbing what works for large groups and dropping what does not this is producing a super culture that emphasizes centrist positions and smoothes out rough areas of disagreement. It is not about eliminating differences it is about eliminating differences which cause discord. How many wars would be eliminated if every one spoke the same language and were the same race? This will not happen in our lifetimes but it is on the way. Every family and town has its own culture that merges with the common culture of the state and country. There will always be small differences (what is your favorite flavor of ice cream?). The unification of culture and race that is occurring is frightening but probably a good thing.

That's great. Let's just sit around agreeing with everyone else, never doing anything constructive or creative, and generally decaying.

You could sit around and play video games, Xev.
I played one last night where you strangle a man with a plastic bag and punch him in the face while a man moans in your ear about "good snuff."

Manhunter.
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is not bad.
But that just illustrates my point. You end up with some washed-out, boring fag superculture with no spiritual relevence or racial identity. And then you buy video games. Stupid.

"Yeah, finally an ethnicity that can 'celebrate' the size of your below avarage endownment."

Perkele rules.
Is that Finnish? There's a Finnish death metal band called Impaled Nazarene with a song of that title.

So you are not a racist. You are just trying to fuel racial hatred.

No, not really. You'll get it when I reveal my hand.

Next time you play Devil's Adovacte, try and play it past your first post. What you said here was "I'm not a rascist, but pretend I am."

Not really. What I said was "Argue away these points". I didn't say "Pretend I'm a racist". Reread the post.

So people did, and then you shout "I'M NOT A RASCIST, DUMMY!"

Um . . . I did that kuz people were accusing me of being a racist. I put up those points for people to explain away. I didn't say "I'm a racist". In fact, I said just the opposite.

You aren't playing devil's anything.

And you aren't reading my post for what it is. Trust me. You aren't. But for now, that's okay, kuz you too will get it when I reveal my hand.

But that just illustrates my point.
I know it does. I was just hoping you'd say this:
You end up with some washed-out, boring fag superculture with no spiritual relevence or racial identity. And then you buy video games. Stupid.
And I say, who gives a damn? Seriously, try and make anyone care. I mean, why should we? Safety seems like a much better option than amazon women burning down churches. With safety, we all get to pretend to be what we're not, rather than dying at 20.
Maybe you should die?

No, not really. You'll get it when I reveal my hand.


You just married a black?

Guess again, spurious.

You'll know tomorrow . . . Promise.

Is it because you're having an argument with someone and need ammo? Or something similar?

To spymoose and athelw0lf.
Fuck you if you cant handle life as it is.

I'll just leave this quote here and let others decide who isn't quite clear on how life is.

I believe many white women marry blacks because white women are very compassionate and in many ways feel guilty and sorry for blacks. Alot of black males harrass and scare white women with their aggressive behaviour and tell white women that they are "racist" if they won't "hook up" with blacks.

I think white males don't want black women because black women on the average are annoying, ignorant and just plain ugly.

Is it because you're having an argument with someone and need ammo? Or something similar?

It's not that I need ammo. Although the responses in this thread have been useful. And it's not that I'm having an argument with one person, but with a general group of people.

So to answer yer question . . . It's something similar.

So to answer yer question . . . It's something similar.
Oh just spill the beans Athel! The mental invalids are not going to figure out your allegory on their own. I can do it for you if you like!

With safety, we all get to pretend to be what we're not, rather than dying at 20.
I want people dying at 20, and younger. I want sweet little fanny to go missing when she goes to pick wild flowers in the meadow. Only for her severed head to later be found impaled on a spike outside of the village.
Then I want the villagers to get their pitch forks and burning torches and hunt down the local sweet natured elephant man, cooking him alive because his gruesome appearance makes him seem like the most likely suspect.
All the while the real culprit was a travelling band of dirty gypsies.

I probably can't make anyone care, they're not supposed to, they're simple animals surviving in their little habitats. I would like to place them in the wild against their will.
Ofcourse they'd rather sit inside safely playing manhunt contracts and digging meat hooks into mental patients.
But if I had it my way everyone would be out living life in all it's literararily(sic) significant glory.
I'd be out there against my will. Maybe dying at 20, tough shit for me.
I don't consider my boring and predictable aversion to un-safety to be a higher priority than the aesthetics of the planet.

I don't see how xev dieing would address the problems she's talking about. How is that going to help?
You can't seem to escape this individual-centric perspective. Look at the bigger picture. Imagine you don't exist, or you're looking down at the earth like it's a reality tv show, wouldn't the modern world be the most boring, ugly and stupid show compared to what it could be?
Consider how majestically glorious it could be, then think about how the thing stopping that is people wanting to be safe and play video games. It's frustratingly retarded. How can keeping people safe and well stocked with various video games be considered a more significant and admirable venture for humanity to embark on then making the world a brilliantly inspiring story?
You made a good point in that art thread against po-mo gay art compared to cave paintings. This is in a similar vein.
The planet is now like those andy warhol pieces of shit, when it could be like cave paintings, or 14th century european oil paintings.
Just not weird patterns and colours where some beret wearing douche has to explain all the bullshit social commentaries in his "piece"(of shit eyesore), please.
There's NOTHING pretty about multiculturalism, tolerance, caution signs, etc. Notice the trend in children's playgrounds? Ugh, my god, it's all so depressing.

It would be worth giving up my safety to get the planet aesthetically pleasing again.
It's not just that I want to go around killing people, or "live life on the edge".
I want the world to be beautifull, which would happen to be at odds with my safety and the existence of x-boxes, but I struggle to put any significant value in the safety of people and the presence of x-boxes in light of the magnitude of what the various cultures on earth could be. Humans are the worst animal when they could be the best, they seem to be designed to be the best. A summary of earth's diversity, but no, we're the mockery.
All because we fear pain and death. Every animal does that, we're not exhibitting anything that is worth showing off when we go to great lengths to avoid pain and death.

It's not even like I realistically think we could go back, but it should be noted that our modern mish mash of cultures and the values that mish mash has - being nice and tolerant and keeping every human happy and alive for as long as possible, expending every resource available to obtain these "goals"(?), all that, is hideous, meaningless, embarrassing, stupid and laughable.
We aren't an admirable species, we aren't a species other races of space would want to write about.
In the days of the roman empire perhaps, but not now.
This might all seem unimportant, in day to day life, but really, what could be more important?
Fat kids around the world having graze-free knees? I disagree.

Roman:
And I say, who gives a damn? Seriously, try and make anyone care.

Why would I?
I do quite well on my college courses without too much effort. Why? Because I don't really give a shit and they're easy. The pampered brats I go to school with find them incredibly difficult. The assignments are too hard, community college* calculus I too intellectually demanding. As a result my instructor curves the grade, giving me an easy A in a class I only needed a B+ in.

Am I going to complain?
Again, this feeds my own argument. You're saying that people are weak and want to have soft, comforting lies spoon-fed them. Why, yes, I'm saying the same thing.

With safety, we all get to pretend to be what we're not,

I have always aspired to pretend to be what I am not.

Maybe you should die?

If that is what the Norns will. But I suspect that you'd precede me.


*It transfers to my four-year institution of choice, so don't even ask.

*Incoherent ranting about how I want to be free to kill people and break things, but no one wants to let me foster my destructive urges boo hoo*
Thats a bit of a paraphrase, but I think I kept it true to the spirit of your words. If it makes you feel any better, Lou, American soldiers *are* killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in a war that dissregards such faggotry as international law. You know there are unsafe places in the world, but for some reason you just keep sitting in front of your computer!

What unsafe places are there for Dr. Lou Natic?

I suppose it would be intense and brvtl for him to visit some place such as Thailand where there are eleven year old aids infected hookers just waiting? Ooh, sordid. Intense.

Lou,
Humans are just not built to care about the aesthetics of the planet. People will always choose today's meal over tomorrow's panda. I'm sorry it has to be this way, but I've come to grips with it.
I've been to the most diverse terrestial ecosystem, only to return to find it razed for the timber industry and yuppie furniture. It's a giant conversion of nature into hardwood for San Franciscans.
There's nothing quite like the sound of chainsaws replacing gibbon calls.

But as I've said, I've come to grips with what we are, and our absurdity. I can't change anyone's mind, because people will be people.

As to us fearing pain and death, fearing pain and death makes us good animals. We are really perfect animals, and not too much more. We're terrible people though.

The aesthetic means nothing to survival. And we are trying very much to survive. There's no way such a perfect animal as ourselves would remove us from the world picture.

Besides, your loathing (mine too) of roads and suburbia and the mall are recent phenomena. It wasn't until nature was too far subdues to threaten us that we began to view nature as something precious. Back in the days when dire bears ate us, we did all we could to stay in the light.
Back when we were peasants, we hated the woods because they were full of wolves. We turned the woods into fire and farmland, and no longer were we et in the night by predators. Being the animal we are, we always take safety over aesthetic.

We'll just have to wait awhile until we change, biologically and culturally.

SpyMoose,
I want to point out that that was your 1337 post.
Heh heh heh.
Heh.
Ahem.
Excuse me.

Guess again, spurious.

You'll know tomorrow . . . Promise.


You made a black girl pregnant?

Sure they can marry, but for a white women to marry a black man this white women will be against so incredible odds to maintain this marrige or even start a family.

For one nearly 70% of black children are raised without the black fathers support:
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/print.php?id=169

Two is the fact that blacks carry a overwelming rate of sexual diseases with in their community:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Take also into account the facts that black males lead all other groups in cheating on their spouse murder, rape, assault, and ALL VIOLENT crimes http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ovrelracetab.htm , and this white women who marrys a black man has very low chances of having a successful and meaningful life.

I believe many white women marry blacks because white women are very compassionate and in many ways feel guilty and sorry for blacks. Alot of black males harrass and scare white women with their aggressive behaviour and tell white women that they are "racist" if they won't "hook up" with blacks.

I think white males don't want black women because black women on the average are annoying, ignorant and just plain ugly.

I'm a black guy (well, actually my skin is more of a light bronze brown) and I was in a great relationship for eight years with a tall blonde who liked me because of me ; not because of some silly guilt complex or because she was intimidated by me. I'm 6'2" and she was 5'10" and not intimidated by anyone.

Now here's a novel thought for you: there are some white women who prefer black guys because white guys treat them like crap and it's only a rascist sterotype that all black men beat and intimidate their [white] wives. With a 62 per cent divorce rate, you have to ask what are all of those white men doing to their white wives that make them so unhappy and ready to jump from guy to guy to guy, hmm?

And your only kidding yourself if you think that no black guy has anything to offer to any white woman even if it's only because some white chicks prefer someone different from all the [white] guys around them. Have you asked the other side of the question: why do so many white men go after black women, huh? Nothing is as cut and dry as you think it is. Almost nothing about mixed relationships is based upon your whacked assumptions; sometimes it's just a matter of a woman finding a guy mate material and she doesn't care if he's black, red, or green.

The Doctor

Lou,
Humans are just not built to care about the aesthetics of the planet. People will always choose today's meal over tomorrow's panda.

We are really perfect animals, and not too much more. We're terrible people though.
Besides, your loathing (mine too) of roads and suburbia and the mall are recent phenomena.

Haha, wow, somone missread Dr. Lou's ethos. He's not an environmentalist, and he thinks humans are awful animals in the name of being great (read liberal pansy) people. He gets off on the idea of killing kids to find out which the tough ones are. You know, that kind of thing.

Doc & Xev,
I understand the disgust for safety you both hold. How often have we wanted to beat the shit out of a stranger? I know I have. However, society prevents us from doing such a thing. I understand this. It's sort of like the interpreation of fate called wyrd.
We have a choice, but most of our choices are non-choices. Our fate is to live out our lives as docile, soft westernized flesh, and to try and deviate from that will end us. Hence our not clubbing strangers. I'm faced with this dilemma everytime I leave my house.
So don't take my "why don't you die" comment too seriously. I was attempting irony.

Doc,
I don't believe in the aesthetic. The only objective stand is that from nature. I'm an ecologist through and through, so biological determinism is what I use to interpret my slice of reality.
My interpretation of your aesthetic ideal is thus (albeit moronically simple):
Your wish for a return to nature and the appeal of the barbaric life seems simple to what you are faced with today, as well more fitting to what you are made to do. In a state where you can return to force, you feel that you could rise to dominance. Succeed. Reproduce.
But you also acknowledge the riskiness of it.
Your refusal to return to nature is simply your true nature overriding your ideal– that of survival.
Easier to complain than actually change. Not that you could, anyhow. This is no criticism, just an observation of our situation.

But your aesthetic, your expressed ideal anyhow, far overrides any poor highschoolers wish for anarchy. And I acknowledge that. You're more extreme on the anarchy spectrum. Perhaps you should convert to fundamentalist Mormonism and move to Utah? I hear that's good and patriarchal.

I think human behaviour mostly centers around the selfish. Any good we do is for ourselves. Thus our allegiance to the group. Two men working together can get more done than three working alone. So we had to sacrifice some of our freedom to get along with the other person. A tribe is safer than being alone, as long as you follow tribe rules.
As primitive man was concerned, this was essential for survival. So through selective breeding and selective culture, groups came into power because they were more willing to work as a collective.

Now we're stuck with what our domesticated selves, and there is no way to return to what we were. Any attempt to would cause the group to eliminate us. Cops are around to make sure we all follow tribe rules.

It's ironic, really. At a time when a single life is more worthless than ever (there was a time when tens of thousands of Iraqis would have been a country), we love people more than ever. And that's our destiny. Those of us, like you Doc, who hate people and hate what we are doing will be selectively removed from the population.

A lot of us will come to hate it, and a lot of aleady do, but it is far too late to do anything. We're part of the machine now, and headed down a path of sissyfication. It's self-perpetuating.

But Doc, I'm curious, as one human savage to another, what are you doing to keep from being sissyfied? And I mean this not in the idiotic rhetorical way of SpyMoose, but in a curious way to see what a savage's got to do to stay a savage.

Oh just spill the beans Athel! The mental invalids are not going to figure out your allegory on their own. I can do it for you if you like!

Alright, I'll show my hand. Although I don't doubt that some people figured it out on their own . . .

I posted this thread with none other than homosexual marriage in mind.

There are quite a few similarities I see between interracial and homosexual marriage:

1. One could try to argue that either is immoral.
2. One could try to say that either is unnatural.
3. Neither is "traditional".
4. Both were/are argued against before they were/are generally accepted by the majority of the population.
5. Both were/are argued against by saying children raised by either would be psychologically defective in some sense.
6. Both were/are argued against with "God".

That's very telling, methinks.

Concerning my evolution argument:
One point I was trying to illustrate was that using nature to argue against homosexual marriage is not particularly logical. Another point that one could draw out of the parallel (and one that a fellow SciForumer pointed out to me) is that just as nature evolves, so does society. Think about it. Species evolve to suit the environment, just as society evolves to suit the population's new mentality.

Concerning my psychology argument:
I was trying to illustrate here that children raised by two people of different races are not raised in the "normal" environment of a "traditional" family, just as children raised by two people of the same sex. One could try to argue that since both are not "normal" environments, they're somehow detrimental to a child's psychological development. With either, one could argue that the child cannot properly develop a certain "identity". In the case of interracial marriage, that would be their racial identity; in the case of homosexual marriage, their sexual identity. Both of which only matter in a society that values labels and stereotypes, and our particular society has evolved past that stage. So to accept one but reject the other is not logical.

Concerning my God argument:
Quite a few evangelicals can come up with outlandish reasons why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Coincidently, those reasons involve this God of theirs. Well, such reasons don't hold up for a secular government. Such a government cannot consent to restricting people's lives to a certain religion's liking when they use their religion as an argument. That's because it's a secular government, which means, religion, keep yer damn hands off!

I hope this has provoked some thought in some people here. And hopefully, you all see now why I was being a devil's advocate. Thank you for the responses you've given, and for the ones you will now give me.

Concerning my psychology argument:
I was trying to illustrate here that children raised by two people of different races are not raised in the "normal" environment of a "traditional" family, just as children raised by two people of the same sex.
Having two moms, or two dads, would be considered less "traditional" pretty much everywhere, but I think since most people have gotten over the stigma of mixed race families, most will get over the gay thing, too. If some gay couples will take the kids off of the system's hands, or the street, more power to them.

Concerning my God argument:
Quite a few evangelicals can come up with outlandish reasons why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Coincidently, those reasons involve this God of theirs. Well, such reasons don't hold up for a secular government. Such a government cannot consent to restricting people's lives to a certain religion's liking when they use their religion as an argument. That's because it's a secular government, which means, religion, keep yer damn hands off!
Those evangelicals are quite arrogant. There are other arrogant people who broadcast what others should believe, right here on sciforums, people that aren't evangelicals, so maybe it is just human nature. Sad.

The Doctor:
who liked me because of me ; not because of some silly guilt complex or because she was intimidated by me. I'm 6'2" and she was 5'10" and not intimidated by anyone.

Now here's a novel thought for you: there are some white women who prefer black guys

So, basically what you're telling us is that your girlfriend didn't like you because you were black, but prefers black men? Interesting.

So, basically what you're telling us is that your girlfriend didn't like you because you were black, but prefers black men? Interesting.

Yes, surely the idea that his girlfriend might actually like him as a human being as opposed to from some maternal guilt complex or the like is absurd. Good angle to take in this thread, Counsler, I wish you luck with it.

Could we possibly pause to think before we decide which arguments we're going to jump on in and support?

Coffee is pointing out a logical inconsistancy.

"My girlfriend does not like me for being black" and "my girlfriend preferred black men" are somewhat inconsistant. There is possible logical resolution, but as Coffee pointed out, the two statements don't fully mesh.

The Doctor:


So, basically what you're telling us is that your girlfriend didn't like you because you were black, but prefers black men? Interesting.

What kind of twisted nonsense is that? I never said any damn such thing, and I prefer you not twist my words, thank you very much!

The Doctor

The Doctor:

You made that statement, not me.
there are some white women who prefer black guys

Your girlfriend prefers black men; there's nothing wrong with it. Your girlfriend does like you for being you, but at the same time likes you for being black.

Mystech:
Yes, surely the idea that his girlfriend might actually like him as a human being as opposed to from some maternal guilt complex or the like is absurd

That is not what I said. People judge based on looks, so his girlfriend likes him for being black as well as his personality. Why is it so hard to grasp this concept? Xev understands.

What kind of twisted nonsense is that?

As disturbing as it may seem, good Doctor, my advice is to let it go. After a while, you just tune out that kind of twisted nonsense. Attempts to correct mistakes of reading comprehension will draw accusations of elitism. Attempts to respond in kind will draw accusations of violated integrity. Attempts to respond with logic, reason, and constructive discussion will only be ignored in favor of more twisted nonsense.

Sciforums generally gives people much leeway in terms of defining "useful" or "acceptable" discussion. Patterns of behavior extending beyond a week or two don't generally get discussed until they're way out of hand. We like to give folks time to catch up, to figure it out, to learn to read if that's what it takes.

In the meantime, unfortunately, what that spells for you and other posters is an increased demand of picking the line between not being snobby, and being too vulgar.

I'm of the opinion that it comes from a lack of substance regarding certain issues. After all, the diverse techniques of dragging discussions down around here have a certain thematic relationship with American politics. Vacuous deflection, preemptive defense, desperate equivocation, and a general disdain for arguable theses or even a calm, coherent discussion tend to be the stnadard among the lead-weight swimmers, and since some people literally aren't smart enough to go beyond the word "argument" and realize that, "Kant's moral imperative suffered a number of erroneous presuppositions leading subsequent application of the principle astray," and "You're an asshat!" aren't exactly the same thing.

The agonizing scrutiny we could give your words suggests that Xev, despite her inability to communicate like a civilized person, has a certain point. And that point, when we cut away all the horsepucky, is simply this: You must be syntactically and grammatically perfect in order to avoid a digression by one or another illiterate punk with no other issue to raise. In other words, while the vagary does exist within the sentence, one need not be particularly or especially intelligent compared to their neighbors to realize the condemning interpretation is incorrect.

Quite simply, people looking for conflict will presume conflict at every opportunity. From the early days of this forum, nobody has been inclined to do a mass-banning in order to thin out the idiocy among the masses.

And so we tolerate them. My best advice is to treat them like a retarded relative, with patience and compassion. They're not well.

The alternative, of course, is to get into a yelling match, and I can speak from experience that no matter how strongly or persuasively you present your case, the only reason these folks want to have a yelling match is to yell and scream. It's ... sort of a delicate balance.

In the meantime, welcome. We do hope you enjoy your time with us.

That is not what I said. People judge based on looks, so his girlfriend likes him for being black as well as his personality. Why is it so hard to grasp this concept? Xev understands.

My apologies, Counsler, you're a saint, I'm sorry I didn't realize it sooner. What an amazing bastion of relevant and meaningful points you are! Being that I seem to have clearly misunderstood your intent, just what idea are you trying to further with your statements on the subject of The Doctor's girlfriend?

And I mean this not in the idiotic rhetorical way of SpyMoose, but in a curious way to see what a savage's got to do to stay a savage.

I assume you are referring to my suggestion to Dr.Lou that he go somewhere savage if savagery is what he wants (How about sub Saharan Africa? Or even any number of wilderness areas where you would prove your evolutionary gusto by surviving like the animals) when you bring up idiotic rhetoric. I would further my buffoonery by suggesting to you that engaging in savagery is all that a savage must do to stay a savage, and the fact that neither you nor Lou do is proof that you are nothing but byproducts of the victimized white suburban male culture, and not in fact real tough guys. You are in fact choosing civilization as a scapegoat for your own general feelings of angst and un-fulfillment.

I guess you have the right to speak as you will....

However, I totally disagree

The Doctor:

You made that statement, not me.


Your girlfriend prefers black men; there's nothing wrong with it. Your girlfriend does like you for being you, but at the same time likes you for being black.

Mystech:


That is not what I said. People judge based on looks, so his girlfriend likes him for being black as well as his personality. Why is it so hard to grasp this concept? Xev understands.


These were my exact words:

"I'm a black guy (well, actually my skin is more of a light bronze brown) and I was in a great relationship for eight years with a tall blonde who liked me because of me ; not because of some silly guilt complex or because she was intimidated by me. I'm 6'2" and she was 5'10" and not intimidated by anyone."

There was nothing I said about her liking black men. That's an assumption you came up with. I would say to anyone reading this-- and especially you, to read the whole damn post, it's not hard to find; then I hope you choke on your words.

The Doctor

Coffee is pointing out a logical inconsistancy.

"My girlfriend does not like me for being black" and "my girlfriend preferred black men" are somewhat inconsistant. There is possible logical resolution, but as Coffee pointed out, the two statements don't fully mesh.

You would realize this if you were not a hysterical little load that should have been swallowed.

Well, that might be true if anybody actually said those two conflicting statements. I know for a sure fact that I didn't say any such things. What comes out of Coffee's demented little brain is bound to be contradictory since he's making it up as he goes along.

The Doctor

Mod Hat - The score at the break ....

The score so far:

772401 - delete off-topic post
772402 - delete off-topic post
772410 - delete off-topic post
772608 - delete off-topic post
772966 - delete off-topic post
773433 - delete off-topic post (n/r)
773532 - remove "fuck you ..."
774303 - remove "fucking", "fuck you ..."
774972 - remove something about a pecker
775001 - remove "fuck off"
775056 - delete response to moderated text
775596 - remove best insult so far
775940 - remove "fucking"
775997 - remove "dipshit"

Topic + 79 replies = 80 posts

80 posts + 7 deleted posts = 87 posts

(14 mod edits) / (87 posts) = 0.1609195 = 16% posts in topic require moderation.

Topic period: Feb. 22 - Mar. 1, 2005 (1 week).

• • •

This update is brought to you "FYI". Or maybe as "FFT". At any rate, please resume the regularly-scheduled discussion.

The Doctor:
Actually - please pay attention.

I was in a great relationship for eight years with a tall blonde who liked me because of me

Now here's a novel thought for you: there are some white women who prefer black guys

It is not absurd to assume that you mention your ex girlfriend because she would be such a "white woman"
Or perhaps you mention her as a sort of bragging.
"I had a girlfriend!! On the internet!!!!"

Hence Mr. Coffee's supposition is not "twisted". Please familiarize yourself with your own works, 'kay?

By the way:
" because white guys treat them like crap and it's only a rascist sterotype that all black men beat and intimidate their"

This is quite amusing.
It is racist, apparently, to say that black men treat black women badly, but apparently quite alright to state that Aryan men treat Aryan women badly.
Not racist at all.

Further, it would seem that your argument is not backed by statistic data:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ovrelracetab.htm

xev: "Is that Finnish? There's a Finnish death metal band called Impaled Nazarene with a song of that title."

Yeah, Finnish. I think every other Finnish metal band has a song of that title, and there are four metal bands in each block here. Perkele is actually a god of a sort in Finnish mythos, but today it's mostly a curse word used by people who dig knife fighting. When someone cuts off your leg and breakes seven of your ribs you might yell perkele.

to Athelvolva.

Using nature to argue against homosexual marriage is actually quite logical, since it's the marriage and not the sexual fixation under emphasis. Marriage is a medium of producing offspring. And if society evolves in an equivalent rate with nature (as you said) it will be a long way before our species are evolved enough for two males to have children together- purely biological reasons. Using that logic fags may never marry for the right reasons, right reasons being those which the church has set. Marriage is after all a completely religious predicament.

And then your psychological argument strolls in and tries to find equal grounds in gay and interracial marriages. The thing is, though, that the same sex can not produce offspring. Therefor the child's psychological development nor the child's identity can never be measured from the fact that feminine-daddy and moustache-daddy are the parents. There is more in the mix than just the sexual fixation of the parents.

Child (with a cute lisp) : Daddy-O! Whose womb was it that perfected me?

And as you might figure, black daddy and a white mommy will most likely not go trough that kind of questioning. They might make a mush out of the child's identity, but at least that child wont be sitting in a tower holding a sniper rifle unlike the pampered fuck who lives the life of the white value.
He might end up being a gangsta fool, but at least he can tell himself he 'gots' the street identity going for him.


volva: " And hopefully, you all see now why I was being a devil's advocate."
Yeah, sure did!

I want to try it also.

What if we slaughtered all the niggers and used their skins for millions of über cool black leather pants? ( MIND YOU IM DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE GUYS ). Now for the question; Would that reduce crime rate ( IM NOT SAYIN', JUST PLAYIN' ).

xev: Using nature to argue against homosexual marriage is actually quite logical, since it's the marriage and not the sexual fixation under emphasis. Marriage is a medium of producing offspring.

Using that logic fags may never marry for the right reasons, right reasons being those which the church has set. Marriage is after all a completely religious predicament.


That's a nice bit of rhetoric, and frankly I suppose I'd have to agree with you if any of it were actually true.

Marriage is not simply an institution for producing children (at least that is not how it is treated in much of the western world, and specifically America, which is generally the main region I'm talking about when I get onto the subject of Gay Rights). Were this the case, then couples who are incapable of producing children, barren women, and sterile men, would be barred from marriage as well. Also there exists no law in the United States, or in any western world nation of which I am aware that requires married couples to produce children lest the marriage become void.

Also, your assertion that marriage is a purely religious institution is simply flat out incorrect. Many religions recognize the institution of marriage, this is true, however it is also a civil institution and recognized and written into law by secular governing bodies specifically for purposes of setting a foundation for certain legal matters. Also if you take a look at archeology and anthropology you'll realize that in most cultures religion has been a civil institution (a financial arrangement or a legal contract) far longer than religion really had anything to do with it. In other words religion (and Christianity specifically) really hasn't got a leg to stand on in trying to dictate who can and can not marry (aside from their right to deny to perform a religious ceremony for people they deem unworthy, that’s certainly within their rights, and no one is fighting to take that from them).

to mystech


Fact is- especially in the states marriage is tightly associated with religion. Therefore all the religious puts’ get their panties in a twist when abominations like gays try to fit in the 'good-values-good-morals-white-house-two-cars-two-kids-and-a-dog' model or mentality and want to get married. Barren women and sterile men differ from gays for they are not considered sinners (I would think). From the eyes of your basic Christian moralist, barren women and sterile men are victims of an enormous tragedy. So in the eyes of the public marriage will not be anything but a nest of values, a medium for producing children and imposing virtuous morales. Of course it has many sides, but when the point is whether or not they let more people in this ‘club’- it’s all about image. And the image of marriage reflects itself more from values and such, rather than written contracts and easier taxation.

And you’re right, marriage bonds two persons together in the face of law, civil institution. Homo’s should realize this, and stop trying to get married per se. They should take the idea of marriage and view it as something more practical in the eyes of the public, view it as something else than an agreement before the eyes of god. Homo's want the same advantages and services as any normal married couple. So just change the pursued ‘marriage’ into, for example, ‘union of two’.
You know.. kind of like: “ WERE PEOPLE TOO, WE WANT BETTER TAXATIONS TROUGH THE UNION OF TWO, GODDAMIT”..
And not like: “ we want to marry before the eyes of god, who thinks we are unnatural + the Christian movement who decide most votes hate this shit”

In the end, least in the states, religion/religious types decide the faith of gay marriage.

Now here's a novel thought for you: there are some white women who prefer black guys because white guys treat them like crap and it's only a rascist sterotype that all black men beat and intimidate their [white] wives. With a 62 per cent divorce rate, you have to ask what are all of those white men doing to their white wives that make them so unhappy and ready to jump from guy to guy to guy, hmm?
The Doctor

While the divorce rate for blacks and whites was equal in 1940, by 1964 the non-white divorce rate was 40% higher.
http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1804

If A white women marrys a black man, here is the joy she has to look foward too:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/506187/

If A white women marrys a black man, here is the joy she has to look foward too:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/506187/
Working is for suckers.

"Someone explain why interracial marriage is not immoral."

You like any other person is human trying to define a purpose which may in fact not exist. You live trying to define this "purpose" as well as deal with the other issues humanity has created for itself within distraction wihich is ultimately, an integral part of the struggle to define "purpose" and accept death as an inevitability. Its very sad. Especially when pointless arguments arise such as this one which prevents humanity from further proceeding and raising its chances of survival. Arguments such as yours are a pointless (especially since it is an ancient issue which (1) should have never arose and (2) since it did arise, should have been done and over with ages ago) distraction that prevent humanity from further ensuring its survival ( I know I said this earlier but I'm just reinstating the facts).....Its all perception and illusion anyway.....sad, quite sad.

Marriage is as much an institution for producing children as it is raising them.
We're pretty much useless for our first 18 years.

You know.. kind of like: “ WERE PEOPLE TOO, WE WANT BETTER TAXATIONS TROUGH THE UNION OF TWO, GODDAMIT”..
And not like: “ we want to marry before the eyes of god, who thinks we are unnatural + the Christian movement who decide most votes hate this shit”

But they don't think that God thinks they're unnatural... they either don't believe in God or believe that God isn't homophobic. Otherwise they wouldn't be fighting for the right to marry.

Mod Hat - Closure

The score at the closing gun:

776358 - deleted post, extraneous content
776359 - deleted post, extraneous content
776593 - removed extraneous content
776604 - deleted post, extraneous content
776607 - removed extraneous content
776652 - deleted post, extraneous content
776708 - deleted post, extraneous content
776716 - deleted post, extraneous content
776718 - deleted post, extraneous content
776731 - deleted post, extraneous content
776737 - deleted post, extraneous content

Some of this extraneity I am sympathetic to, especially in the face of devil's advocacy mocked to the point of hell-flaming racism. However, this is ridiculous, and therefore this topic is closed.