Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[AuH2O]

Generally I don't believe in it, but I don't think it should be banned. I mean, if some fat white girl wants to "marry" a thug, I don't really care.

Now, if my sister (not that she's this dumb) were to so much as go out on a date with a black guy, there would be a problem.

I believe in diversity and pluralism. Thus I support the survival of all ethnic groups, American whites and blacks and all. Some people are racist-- they want to eliminate the many ethnic groups in favor of a uniform race.

[AuH2O]

Generally I don't believe in it, but I don't think it should be banned. I mean, if some fat white girl wants to "marry" a thug, I don't really care.

Now, if my sister (not that she's this dumb) were to so much as go out on a date with a black guy, there would be a problem.

I believe in diversity and pluralism. Thus I support the survival of all ethnic groups, American whites and blacks and all. Some people are racist-- they want to eliminate the many ethnic groups in favor of a uniform race.

I appreciate your honesty.  These are hard issues, and definitely cross party lines.  Say your sister brings home a n.  Or, just for fun, let's say she brings home a woman!  okay, wrong thread.  Let's go back to the n.  What do you do?  I'm a uniform racist myself, but I recognize that not all are.  In fact, I've never been to china, but I'd imagine that's a spot where I could find in excess of a billion people who are hard-core racists.  It's well known that something like 98% of the chinese people are of pure Han descent.  And goddamned well proud of it.  and that measley 2% get sh**t on every day of their miserable lives.  Not just informally, but by officially-sanctioned government action.  Most of those poor bastards wouldn't even think of marrying a Han woman.  Or man.  But this ain't some third world communist country.  And we can talk openly.  Of course, you realize that and you do talk openly.  I admire that.  Lots of folks here (mostly democrats, not surprisingly, as they're closer to communism the we are) will demonize you for being so open.  I won't.  I welcome it.  So I ask.  In all seriousness.  You sister brings home a n, and what do you say to your sister (whom you love, presumably) when she meets a nice man who shares her values but who isn't white.  You gonna go and lynch the bastard?  I'm guessing you're not a murderer.  So what do you do?  Beat the bitch?  yeah, that solves the problem for about five seconds.  What do you do?  Pay some white guy money to date her?  that solves the problem for about five days.  What do you do?

See, the reason I ask is because the first time I ever introduced my sister to a black woman that I was doing she freaked.  I mean totally freaked out.  WTF??!  She thought I was nuts.  Funny, she was the one who ended up marrying that large handsome man with the groovy Alabama tube steak.  Not me.  Actually, he's a nice guy.  Of course, now they're divorced.  But I'm genuinely curious.  You don't have to explain your motives to me or anyone else.  But I'd genuinely like to know how you think you should appropriately handle such a situation.

I'm glad you like my honesty. The truth is, if you study interracial marriages, what you find is that a lot of people are all in favor-- until their son or daughter is involved. What you will also find is that blacks are generally less in favor of interracial marriage than whites (this is a fact, by the way, not my opinion-- feel free to study the literature). Some sociologists claim blacks are more likely to overcome their initial misgivings, but I am not sure that has been adequately studied.

Now, there are other races than black and white. But certainly that is where most of the controversy is. Note that I never said I would actually STOP interracial marriages, I just said I didn't personally support them. The reason is actually philosophical, and not a very simple concept (though many posters do appear to enjoy simplicity, even when it comes at the price of reality). My views are probably most closely related to George Santayana, the great American 20th century philosopher (though he was born in Spain and moved here as a child).

Quite possible I am also influenced by my practical views of marriage-- I don't buy the idea everyone has "one" person out there or whatever nonsense like that. Half of marriages end in divorce. Interracial marriages are even more likely to. Now, I should make an important clarification: I am not really opposed to interracial marriage, it is interracial reproduction that I disagree with.  They are more likely to produce children conflicted by their split heritage. I find neither of those particularly desireable. The reality is this: race exists. Period. Anyone that disagrees is either a fool or is delusional.

Once you accept race exists, like a rational being, you recognize that race IS part of who someone is. This is different from a stereotype-- race has real cultural implications that exist regardless of biological differences (though those exist as well). The frequency with which race is discussed proves this ON FACE-- there is no debate or question, because it is plainly visible in every medium thousands of times per day.

So far as my sister, this isn't an issue, so it was merely hypothetical. Very few upper middle class (or middle, or upper) white females will actually date a black guy, though of course if asked they would respond otherwise. Though one time a football player with an IQ of about 75 said some nice things to her in school and called a couple times... I wouldn't have liked him regardless of race. I assume your question was, in the case she liked a black guy that was intelligent, from a good family, etc. (since I dislike white guys if they don't meet those qualifications).

In that case, I would still oppose it, but certainly not with violence. I would just have nothing to do with her or her boyfriend/husband. That's a personal decision, after all. If someone is too stupid to realize the value of Western civilization, oh well, but the majority of people in that category are white trash to begin with, or ideologically driven. So in the end, I'm not particularly concerned about the overall issue... only in the case of a sibling or son/daughter would it bother me.

Consider though, when a white and black person have a child, the child is treated as black. By white and black people, by the government, everyone. Tiger Woods is what, 25% black? I think that says it all. If people really bought equality, like all these people say they do, that wouldn't be so. But 90% of the people that say they buy equality are liars. A lot of the black people that say it are liars. Because at dinner they still talk about how LIGHT skinned their daughter's (black) boyfriend is.

They hold up whiteness as a virtue but then denounce people that would tell a white person to have white kids. They're hypocrites. I just tell it like it is.

[AuH2O]

Didn't you say once you would like to f**ck a Filipina chick because lots of them are hot?

That's another main reason for it, all those hot Filipinas and Latinas.

I didn't say anything bad about doing them, did I? That's different from marrying one and having kids.

[AuH2O]

Actually I'm quite a mut-- a little less than 50% Jewish, then 25% German, the rest split between Irish and Spanish (touch of Romanian and Scandinavian). Not very "inbred" and I have no Southern ancestors that I'm aware of (and based on my family history it's almost impossible I have any at all, since my dad's side didn't arrive until the early 20th century and my mom's side was pretty much all from NJ/PA going back to ~1850). Make no mistake, it was an issue when my parents were dating... most Jewish parents want their children to marry a Jew, though the degree to which they enforce that is varied.

Poorer whites are more likely to be drawn into what is culturally associated with blackness... from music to clothing, on down the line. Consequently most interracial marriage results from poor whites rejecting "white" culture by marrying a black person (most commonly a white female and black male). So class divisions factor in as well as racial divisions.

So far as the science of race, since Darwin it has been reduced to three races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid) in terms of understanding genetic heritage. Those three subraces of homo sapiens have been differentiated for a very, very long time-- dating back to the origin of all three in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. There is no real inbreeding problem except in extremely small groups; some diseases are common to Jews, for instance, but at one point the Jewish population was extremely small (say, 4000 years ago) and Jews haven't tended to interbreed heavily, which is why they still exist.

There is no genetic benefit to racial mixing-- for whites at least. Blacks are actually less intelligent on average because of microevolutionary developments dating back to their defeat of Caucasoids and Mongoloids, resulting in those groups leaving Africa (the archaelogical evidence is there, and I see no other explanation for them leaving). Because of harsh conditions found to the north and east, not to mention preexisting variation that probably favored the latter two intellectually and the former physically, whites and asians are, on average, more intelligent than blacks.

Culture is obviously not a determining factor because asians with no knowledge of english score quite well. Environmental factors do exist in Africa but not with regard to blacks in the US, who also have substantial European genetic admixture (as high as ~25% average). Yet they score substantially lower than whites and asians. Empirically, this is evident as well... Africa has never been the source of innovation or any kind of real development or civilization, except as imposed by Europeans. It was Europeans and Asians that developed civilization in a meaningful sense. That process was simply too long and involved to be the result of 'luck.'

Returning to the characteristics of intermarrying whites, there are a variety of factors, including the presence of non-whites (if you're in Vermont there aren't very many blacks or asians). On a more basic level, many white women just aren't attracted to non-white men. In fact, people tend to be attracted to people that look like them... that's scientific fact and we can discuss the research on that topic if you wish. The only significant "balancing" tendency researchers have found is the tendency for short women to like tall men.

The fact white men rarely marry black women seems to vindicate this. If, indeed, there was a biological neutrality (or tendency!!!) towards other races, it would be reflected equally. In reality, there is a biological favoritism towards people of similar charateristics that is easily understood in evolutionary terms (knowing who is friend and who is foe). Humans are ultimately tribal in nature, however that tribe is structured.

Interracial marriage is thus a product of ideological and social pressures, not biology. This is also supported by the literature and empirical evidence. Were race never to be discussed in society, interracial marriage would remain a small minority of unions. Thus it is interracial marriage that is socially constructed, not vice-versa. Affluent people are less likely to be unduly influenced by that, hence they are less like to participate in interracial unions.

Actually I'm more sympathic to homosexual unions than interracial ones, because the former is at least based in biology (even if abnormal biology) whereas the latter is based on communist assumptions about how people should choose mates. There is, quite simply, no utility to interracial marriage, which incurs a loss of cultural identity. It can be argued that the US has no such thing anyway, but I don't buy it (for the aforementioned distinctions between racial cultures in the US).

Interracial marriage is, then, driven on a base level by self-hate. Normal people look for similarity in a mate (even if possessing "opposite" personalities-- that is a completely different issue). While some societies are racial mixtures-- India for one-- none are particularly successful. The most successful- the major European states, China, Japan, etc., are mostly homogeneous. The issue is not skin color, which just happens to be a visual indication of much more substantial racial differences.

[AuH2O]

um yeah, he's not racist.

Btw, if anyone thought it odd I gave Byrd a 2 and not a 1, his 'white n' comments a couple years ago alone were enough for the extra point.

Your sense of humor is lacking.

[AuH2O]

I'm not sure I can explain angus' fixation on "white trash," I certainly don't consider myself such. I never said you were either, merely that white-black marriages are usually between lower-class people (thus the 'white trash' description). White-asian relationships are not characterized in that way, in fact, probably the opposite. I consider the latter to be much more tolerable than the former.

Thus, your case is not really the kind I'm addressing. It's still societally counterproductive but does not involve self-hate to any great degree.

Speaking of which, it's possible you misunderstand what I mean by "self-hate." It's not a concious feeling usually, though it is manifested in visible ways. Rather than favoring likeness, as is biologically normal, some people, due to low self-esteem, actually seek out unlikeness and public humiliation.

These people are not politically motivated. HOWEVER, the media and government ARE politically motivated to encourage interracial marriage. There are a number of reasons, but clearly communism can be understood fundamentally as anti-civilizational. Those who originate civilization-- code named "capitalists" and "imperialists" by communists-- are the targets of their wrath.

Leftists in the US so strongly have supported racial destruction on the basis of Jewish influence. This is fairly obvious: being a small minority can leave a group vulnerable, so Jews are smart enough to know that destroying white conciousness (the majority) is a means of self-defense. Jews themselves usually marry other Jews, though obviously I'm the result of an exception. In any case, the same leftists that demand whites marry blacks tell their own kids to marry people of the same ethnicity.

This hypocrisy is amazingly obvious, but many people are so blind, and so stupid, that they are ignorant of reality.

[AuH2O]

You're deranged, not to mention a pervert. Don't actually expect me to respond to your spittle.

[AuH2O]

What, you think that's going to get a rise out of me? lol please

Just because you hate white people doesn't mean everyone else has to. Just because you like 12 year olds doesn't mean everyone else has to either.

And the way you talk about black men, it appears you are rather interested in them. I hope so-- that's a good way to get AIDS, and goodness knows the world would be better off without you.

[AuH2O]

What, you think that's going to get a rise out of me? lol please

Just because you hate white people doesn't mean everyone else has to. Just because you like 12 year olds doesn't mean everyone else has to either.

And the way you talk about black men, it appears you are rather interested in them. I hope so-- that's a good way to get AIDS, and goodness knows the world would be better off without you.

Don't assume blacks have AIDS.  What is your sister dating a black guy?  If so, TOO BAD!  GET OVER IT!  I personally wouldn't date a black woman, but have no problem if others do.  opebo is not wrong here.

Of course she's not. It was all hypothetical... but opebo can't stop himself from mentioning black dick as often as possible and in as many ways as possible.

Not that his mental imbalance is news...

[AuH2O]

By the way, I should add that I don't believe in "race."  There's only one race: the human race.  Anything else is simply insignificant differences.

Then I don't believe in different breeds of dog. They are all identical except for some superficial differences, right? Pitbulls and collies, what's the difference...

[AuH2O]

By the way, I should add that I don't believe in "race."  There's only one race: the human race.  Anything else is simply insignificant differences.

Then I don't believe in different breeds of dog. They are all identical except for some superficial differences, right? Pitbulls and collies, what's the difference...

Considering the vast differences in breeds of dogs relative to the differences in the different races of humans, I think that's not a very good comparison.

You're right. The human races are actually much, much more different from each other than any breeds of dog are. The gap between a white and black person is genetically huge... it sounds small when you say ".01%," but when you consider how few genes are actually manifested, and how few determine key characteristics, the difference is very large for members of the same overall species.

Only the relative youth of the homo sapiens species prevents reproductive isolation.

[AuH2O]

LOL Ebowed, a "conservative" organization, hilarious. Please keep it up.

dazzle: do you want to discuss the science? I am more than prepared to do so. You might "think" one thing, but like Ebowed, and like a lot of people, you believe it because you've been told that by the media.

Anyone that knows basic genetics knows there is such a thing as race, period. And anyone so ignorant they have to cite some weirdo "Christian" website has no business making declarative scientific statements.

[AuH2O]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

[AuH2O]

What might seem like small differences in theory have massive implications in practice.

Race is not skin-deep, and actually there are physical differences between the races that are visible in terms of professional and olympic sports.

Those differences extend into biochemistry, which of course is regulated by genes just like anything else. In combination with variations in intellectual distribution, blacks are more likely to pursue their short-term interests at the expense of their long-term interests.

The results vary, from higher criminality to less investment and saving (i.e. more consumer spending). In other words, even law-abiding and affluent blacks exhibit the same characteristics ON THE WHOLE-- certainly there are many exceptions.

But those exceptions prove nothing. If I faced Johan Santana 100 times, I could probably get a hit, but that hit wouldn't change the fact he was dominating me.

[AuH2O]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

I recall reading about a scientific study that was researching the topic of how different races are from each other.  The scientist had people look at a group of bones, and take a guess at the race that each bone's owner was.

The number of correct responses given was no larger than what one would expect to get if completely random answers were given.

There obviously are differences between the races, but they're only skin deep.  Blacks can be sophisticated, and whites can be gangsters.  Asians can be untalented, and hispanics can be extremely talented.  The perceived difference is largely a cultural one more than anything: it's the same reason as why Australians act differently than Americans, who act differently than Canadians, who act differently than the English, etc., even when all people considered from each group are white.

You're quite simply wrong. It's clear you know virtually nothing about science. Pulling stuff out of your ass doesn't make a valid argument.

[AuH2O]

Thank you angus.

Gabu: How can I evaluate an article I can't even see? Are you high? I am supposed to take a brief and nonsensical recollection by one person of some article somewhere, sometime as EVIDENCE? Wow.

It can easily be proven blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. But why waste my time on people that won't listen and/or are so stupid they think people with substantial visible (genetic) differences cannot possibly have non-visible (genetic) differences.

I mean, when you are THAT lacking in reason, no argument or proof could ever sway you. A million articles won't do it, because you won't understand them anyway and will come up with some reason it doesn't apply.

If someone wants a real debate, then every single claim will have to be supported by cited evidence. I'll do it. None of you will.

[AuH2O]

Also note that the crime issue can easily be proven statistically with only the FBI uniform crime report and income data with racial AND gender breakdowns. Anyone with an IQ above 50 should see as much once they examine the data; tragically, I'm not sure anyone disagreeing with me on that issue meets the qualification.

[AuH2O]

Fine, you want evidence, I'll give you some evidence. With some explanation of course.

But no one will actually take a rational look at the data. That is a 100% certainty.

[AuH2O]

Well, while being attacked by a multitude of posters all at once, it's somewhat difficult to actually put together the links I'm talking about.

So maybe hold your attacks for just a few minutes? Maybe?

[AuH2O]

It will be a few minutes. I changed my mind-- please continue to attack me rather than at least wait to see what I most post.

Your maturity is impressive.

[AuH2O]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

Now, in terms of the idea blacks commit more crime because they are more often in poverty:

2004 US Census Press Release

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:e6p-Ou2fnowJ:www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html+income+data+by+race&hl=en

Whites account for 44% of Americans in "poverty." Taking into account black population size at the time of the census, roughly 8.6 million blacks were in poverty; slightly less than hispanics and only slightly more than half the number of whites in poverty.

Taking into account the Uniform Crime Report's inclusion of hispanics into their "white" dataset, the property crime rates seem to follow the above numbers.

In other words, it is not surprising that 28.9% of forgery arrests were made on black offenders; though they make up roughly ~25% of those in poverty, that is a fairly small difference.

The inconsistencies emerge with regard to violent crimes. Blacks, for instance, again commit ~29% of arsons designed to attack property-- but 37% committed for violent purposes.

Blacks commit 23.9% of non-rape sex offenses, which again is higher per capita than whites but not unreasonable given poverty rates. However, they commit 33.3% of forcible rapes, well above the expected number.






If anyone is interested in intelligent discussion, which I doubt, the topic is more than suitable.

[AuH2O]

Exactly as I predicted. Presenting a few stats to some of these idiots is like asking a monkey to run a nuclear power plant.

Fine, whatever, I know some people are just worthless and thus not really worth my time. But:

IF BLACKS COME FROM "WORSE" NEIGHBORHOODS, WHY ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CRIMES NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED?

WHY DON'T BLACKS ALSO COMMIT 49% OF FORGERY, JUST LIKE 49% OF MURDER?

[AuH2O]

I'm not even refuting your point. You still haven't told me why it matters.

Dog, I'm sorry, you have to understand how many angles I'm getting blitzed from. Right now I'm probably wasting my time by dealing with things like Ebowed. But since if I don't he was going to keep attacking me anyway, what can I do?

I haven't been able to make a complete argument because every single post of mine, even when obviously true, is attacked with 10 flames. Maybe we can start a thread where only people interested in actual discussion can post?

[AuH2O]

My question:

If blacks are simply more likely to commit crime, why do they disproportionately commit VIOLENT crimes, particularly murder?

Ebowed',s response:

"Because not every issue is black and white."



LOL

I hope you had better answers when your professors gave you exams. Seriously, you are a joke. I'm done with your dog and pony show.

[AuH2O]

Yeah but keep in mind, I was trying to make it so that even Ebowed (OK, maybe not him) could understand it without difficulty.

You can statistically account for those criminals not arrested. But trust me it doesn't seriously affect the data. If you really want I could explain why and put up adjusted numbers.