Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

Hugh Freaking Dillon

soulsinging wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

inmytree wrote:

he can still be a racist and do all the things you mention...the man did not want to be part of "mixing races"...what part of that is not racist....?

I can easily throw that same point back to many of you........"what part of that IS racist?". Asking a question is not an argument.

The man simply, to my knowledge, has no prejudice against any race. He just doesn't think they should mix.

that is, in itself, racist. it's the same argument used by the nazis against the jews and the KKK to uphold Jim Crow and separate but equal. the only reason to feel that way is becos you feel one will pollute the purity of the other.

yes, many racists hold that standard, but not all those that hold that standard are racists. Whether you want to believe that or not is up to the individual (obviously).

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inmytree wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Would he have been okay with a Swede marrying an Italian? English/Greek? Chinese/Korean?

(of course)

Now, would he have been okay with any of those ethnicities marrying a black person?

and how do you know that? that was one of my main points a few pages ago. many ethnicities have an issue with their offspring marrying outside of their own heritage. is that considered racist? no one answered that question.

I'll answer....

yes...

then I guess you consider a good portion of baby boomers and and the majority of those older, racist then? that's a pretty bold statement.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

soulsinging wrote:

the only reason to feel that way is becos you feel one will pollute the purity of the other.

by that reasoning he's also racist towards his own race, which makes no sense.

soulsinging

Johnny Sitar wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Would he have been okay with a Swede marrying an Italian? English/Greek? Chinese/Korean?

(of course)

Now, would he have been okay with any of those ethnicities marrying a black person?

and how do you know that? that was one of my main points a few pages ago. many ethnicities have an issue with their offspring marrying outside of their own heritage. is that considered racist? no one answered that question.

there's a big difference between one person saying 'i want to be with someone that shares my heritage' and someone saying 'i don't want your kind to mix with my kind.'

inmytree

Johnny Sitar wrote:

then I guess you consider a good portion of baby boomers and and the majority of those older, racist then? that's a pretty bold statement.

yup...

I guess you think 1964 was centuries ago...

keeponrockin

Johnny Sitar wrote:

then I guess you consider a good portion of baby boomers and and the majority of those older, racist then? that's a pretty bold statement.

Yes I would certainly argue that.

blackredyellow

soulsinging wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Would he have been okay with a Swede marrying an Italian? English/Greek? Chinese/Korean?

(of course)

Now, would he have been okay with any of those ethnicities marrying a black person?

and how do you know that? that was one of my main points a few pages ago. many ethnicities have an issue with their offspring marrying outside of their own heritage. is that considered racist? no one answered that question.

there's a big difference between one person saying 'i want to be with someone that shares my heritage' and someone saying 'i don't want your kind to mix with my kind.'

And this is one area where there is a grey area... of course some people my parents' age would have the first reaction that they don't want their kid marrying someone from a different race... but that initial, racist reaction usually softens when they get to know the person and see that their kid is happy, etc... etc...

That is much different than the racist assholes who disown kids for marrying a different race, or like this jackass, someone who uses their elected position to decide what couples can and can't marry because of their races.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inmytree wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

then I guess you consider a good portion of baby boomers and and the majority of those older, racist then? that's a pretty bold statement.

yup...

I guess you think 1964 was centuries ago...

No offense, but I would consider that an ignorant statement.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

soulsinging wrote:

there's a big difference between one person saying 'i want to be with someone that shares my heritage' and someone saying 'i don't want your kind to mix with my kind.'

really???? so where do you tell people they can draw that racist/non-racist line?

and both of those statements were not what I nor he said. My example was not of someone saying "I want to be with someone who shares my heritage", I said a parent forbidding a child to marry someone outside their heritage. There's a difference there.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I gotta get off this topic. I'm going to get fired.

inmytree

Johnny Sitar wrote:

inmytree wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

then I guess you consider a good portion of baby boomers and and the majority of those older, racist then? that's a pretty bold statement.

yup...

I guess you think 1964 was centuries ago...

No offense, but I would consider that an ignorant statement.

No offense taken...

you originally said it was a bold statement, and now it's an ignorant statement...

make up you mind, please...

honestly, if you think the prevention of "mixing races" is not racist, I really can't find the words to continue this discussion...

pandora

I didn't read all this but fundamentally there are those who just don't want the white race to be extinct in
the not so distant future. I think thats where it comes from which is not really racist because they don't dislike other races or feel that they are less. Being a natural green eyed blonde from viking country descent I know my gene pool wouldn't stand a chance against some of the other races . With that being said though if my kids feel in love with someone of another race I would not care as long as the person of their affection makes them very happy and meets their needs.
But I think thats where this justice of the peace was coming from but
he's in the wrong line of work I dare say.

soulsinging

Johnny Sitar wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

the only reason to feel that way is becos you feel one will pollute the purity of the other.

by that reasoning he's also racist towards his own race, which makes no sense.

how do you figure that? saying "i dont like that darkie blood polluting our pure white heritage" pretty clearly singles out one particular race.

soulsinging

keeponrockin wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

then I guess you consider a good portion of baby boomers and and the majority of those older, racist then? that's a pretty bold statement.

Yes I would certainly argue that.

as would i.

soulsinging

Johnny Sitar wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

there's a big difference between one person saying 'i want to be with someone that shares my heritage' and someone saying 'i don't want your kind to mix with my kind.'

really???? so where do you tell people they can draw that racist/non-racist line?

and both of those statements were not what I nor he said. My example was not of someone saying "I want to be with someone who shares my heritage", I said a parent forbidding a child to marry someone outside their heritage. There's a difference there.

sure there's a difference, but not a remarkable one. you're talking about a parent with a vested interest in their own child and their own heritage. it's still a shit thing to do, but it's driven by positive values, not negative ones... meaning, ithe stance is adopted FOR something: preserving a culture held dear by those involved, NOT excluding one particular race becos you think they are inferior.

and i do see a difference between wanting to preserve one's heritage and wanting to exclude one race. this judge singled out black people. it's not like he's refusing to marry any interracial couples, only black-white couples. becos he doesn't want black people mixing with white. not only that, but he has no "heritage" he's trying to preserve. it's not his family, he has no stake in this. that's very different from someone saying they want to marry someone that comes from a common background. this is basic SAT-style logic you're not getting. "if a, then b" does not dictate that "if b, then a" is the case. saying "marry within our family traditions" is not the same thing as saying "though i have no stake in this, i forbid you from marrying people of x race becos i think it's wrong."

cincybearcat

blackredyellow wrote:

[
And this is one area where there is a grey area... of course some people my parents' age would have the first reaction that they don't want their kid marrying someone from a different race... but that initial, racist reaction usually softens when they get to know the person and see that their kid is happy, etc... etc...

That is much different than the racist assholes who disown kids for marrying a different race, or like this jackass, someone who uses their elected position to decide what couples can and can't marry because of their races.

Not sure I get your point because as you say they are exactly the same initial racist reaction.

It is only when you stop seeing someone as a color/race and look at them as just a person that you stop being racist.

So, if this guy meets with them and decides, "Hey, I was wrong to judge them like this"...then he would no longer be racist and hopefully had learned something along the way.

keeponrockin

Johnny Sitar wrote:

inmytree wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

then I guess you consider a good portion of baby boomers and and the majority of those older, racist then? that's a pretty bold statement.

yup...

I guess you think 1964 was centuries ago...

No offense, but I would consider that an ignorant statement.

Explain how you DON'T think the attitudes were racist?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

keeponrockin wrote:

Explain how you DON'T think the attitudes were racist?

read the rest of my posts. I explain it several times.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

soulsinging wrote:

sure there's a difference, but not a remarkable one. you're talking about a parent with a vested interest in their own child and their own heritage. it's still a shit thing to do, but it's driven by positive values, not negative ones... meaning, ithe stance is adopted FOR something: preserving a culture held dear by those involved, NOT excluding one particular race becos you think they are inferior.

and i do see a difference between wanting to preserve one's heritage and wanting to exclude one race. this judge singled out black people. it's not like he's refusing to marry any interracial couples, only black-white couples. becos he doesn't want black people mixing with white. not only that, but he has no "heritage" he's trying to preserve. it's not his family, he has no stake in this. that's very different from someone saying they want to marry someone that comes from a common background. this is basic SAT-style logic you're not getting. "if a, then b" does not dictate that "if b, then a" is the case. saying "marry within our family traditions" is not the same thing as saying "though i have no stake in this, i forbid you from marrying people of x race becos i think it's wrong."

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I "don't get" something "basic". Thanks, though.

And there is one HUGE assumption you are making that you are basing your argument on! You say he is only excluding one race. How do you know that? I saw nowhere in that article where he says he marries other interracial couples. Show me where he says that, and I may have to rethink my points of disussion.

soulsinging

Johnny Sitar wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

sure there's a difference, but not a remarkable one. you're talking about a parent with a vested interest in their own child and their own heritage. it's still a shit thing to do, but it's driven by positive values, not negative ones... meaning, ithe stance is adopted FOR something: preserving a culture held dear by those involved, NOT excluding one particular race becos you think they are inferior.

and i do see a difference between wanting to preserve one's heritage and wanting to exclude one race. this judge singled out black people. it's not like he's refusing to marry any interracial couples, only black-white couples. becos he doesn't want black people mixing with white. not only that, but he has no "heritage" he's trying to preserve. it's not his family, he has no stake in this. that's very different from someone saying they want to marry someone that comes from a common background. this is basic SAT-style logic you're not getting. "if a, then b" does not dictate that "if b, then a" is the case. saying "marry within our family traditions" is not the same thing as saying "though i have no stake in this, i forbid you from marrying people of x race becos i think it's wrong."

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I "don't get" something "basic". Thanks, though.

And there is one HUGE assumption you are making that you are basing your argument on! You say he is only excluding one race. How do you know that? I saw nowhere in that article where he says he marries other interracial couples. Show me where he says that, and I may have to rethink my points of disussion.

it has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree. it's basic linear thinking. your scenario is not at all the same as what happened here. your scenario is about the involved parties self-selecting mates. here, it's about one external party excluding a particular race. you deciding you want a pepsi is not the same as me telling you you can't have snapple.

the article said he has only ever refused to marry people 4 times, all of them black-white couples. he then goes on to discuss how he's cool with black folks, he just doesn't think they should marry white. if he's generally opposed to all interracial marriages, why single out black people to talk about? seems like guilt-driven defensiveness to me. i don't know how you can not see that this is driven by latent prejudice against blacks.

it doesnt say anything about other couples. but what it does say is that he returned repeatedly to the issue of race. he claims it's about the children, but never considers any of the 100 other things that could lead to lack of acceptance of a kid, such as religion. clearly, he's concerned only about race. and between his talk of purity, the kind of rhetoric that has ONLY ever been used by racist groups, and his classic "it's cool, i have black friends" defense, the evidence is pretty firmly on the side of him just having a problem with a black man topping a white woman. the oldest racist fear in the book.