Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

inmytree wrote:

Drunk or interracial...at least he has standards.... :roll:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 ... 25758.html

I can't trust someone who's eyes move so much :shock:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

show previous quotes

NoK wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

I don't have time at the moment to check, but maybe I quoted the wrong person. That was not intentional, and my argument is certainly not baseless. But nice try.

ah, nothing like someone getting off track of the actual argument to sling crap. Keep your condescension to yourself next time.

So you accept that you were wrong and quoted the wrong person but then you re-accuse me of slinging crap? Seriously, that's about as childish as you can get. You are the one getting off track by trying to play the "pity me" card. Accept and move on.

yes, I reaccused you, because you can obviously do nothing else but talk sarcastically to people. calling you out is childish? gimme a break. and where you get this "pity me" bullshit is beyond me.

"Well if you do not get this simple point then surely there is no point in explaining it any more. Plus I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings...."

you are obviously one of those people that can't actually MAKE a simple point, so you resort to such schoolyard antics such as this. Grow up. Welcome to an adult conversation.

Now I'm REALLY outta here.

Being in an interracial relationship makes me think of the many instances of ignorance I've faced when living in South Florida makes me think of.......This thread, the things said here both positive and negative about KB racist behavoir towards interracial couples compels me to the lyrics in the song by......

RUSH...*WITCH HUNT*


The night is black, without a moon.
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill.

Features distorted in the flickering light,
Faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possesed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.

The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.

They say there are strangers who threaten us,
Our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness to danger us
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,
That those who know whats best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand.

Peace

see, the point that I am in this discussion is not to make "great comebacks", it's to have a discussion. I have never painted my opinion on this matter as fact, which many here continue to do. It's not black and white, which so many have said it is.

And you once again overdramatize. I did not accuse folks of slandering me. I simply told people to calm down to keep it a legitimate discussion, not to turn it into a pissing match. Which is what is happening now.

Check all my previous posts. Why would I try to deviate from the topic at hand? I have made several points, and I stand by them. I'll check out the points you say I "don't understand" (another nice condescension) a bit later when I get to work, and I'll be happy to respond.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

It's not black and white, which so many have said it is.

I completely disagree. It is black and white. It's a simple issue. He denied them a marriage license because the man and the woman were different races. That's racism. There is no other justification for that behavior.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

show previous quotes

NoK wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

again, another giant leap. too different to generate viable offspring?? where are you coming up with this stuff? My God, he's not saying they are going to be disadvantaged in the sense of being disabled in any way, he means identifying with their roots and knowing who they are, so to speak. It's really quite simple. You are making it way more complex than it is. Don't overanazlyze too much.

Get it? :roll:

Calm yourself down a bit. You can have a perfectly logical debate without the :evil:

If you think I am not calm while typing this then you are the one overanalysing. I'm perfectly fine thank you. :roll:

I am taking a purely scientific approach to the argument. By viability I mean the fitness of the children to lead a NORMAL life. Do you not realise that a psychological disadvantage is no different than a physical one? Perhaps at times even more debilitating.

well, when someone resorts to swearing throughout their post, it seems like they are angry. Please forgive me if that's just the way you speak normally.

Yes, I realize that a psychological disadvantage is no different than a physical one. And your actual point is...?

and this is your "point" that you say I don't understand. I understand things when they are presented to me coherently. You said that a psych disadvantage is no different than a physical one. And I said "and your point is..?". It is a logical question within the context of this discussion. I never argued that they weren't different, so I asked what point were you trying to make with that statement. You were, to me, arguing a point that was never argued. Simple as that. I don't want to go into specifics, but I know personally very well why they are no different, so we can agree on that.

Now, to get back to the topic, let me give you a hypothetical:

A man owns two purebred dogs. He loves both dogs equally. Yet he doesn't want them to breed together, because he believes that they should stay within their breed. Is this man a breedist ( )? No, he wants both his dogs to breed, just not together. Does this mean he is disrespecting these dogs? Nope, he's looking out for what he believes is best for each of their future families. Do I agree with this dog-lover? Nope, because I could care less about breeds of dogs. And I think dogs should be able to f*** whoever they want!

This man acted outside of the law. He should be fired. But he is not racist with the facts that we know as reported by the media.

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?

catefrances wrote:

this thread is like a fatal car crash. i know i shouldnt look but i cant help myself.

seriously! honestly i never thought there would be any disagreement over what this shithead did! and now marriage is being compared to breeding dogs!! :roll:

inmytree wrote:

show previous quotes

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.

I'll gladly answer that question: The man actions, i.e., is refusing to marry a couple solely based on their respective races, in this case a white women marring a black man, is racist. He does not feel races should "mix", which here means, if they have children those said children would be at a disadvantage over "pure race" children...that's an amazing assumption based on his own world view...which just happens to be a wee bit racist...

your last line befuddles me...you say he has no prejudice but that he feels blacks and whites should not mix...call me kooky, but that's just plain racist...he sees a "mixed" race as being inferior...

and your example about the dogs is silly, no offense meant, but comparing this situation to dog breeding way off...they are not even in the same galaxy...

I don't believe he ever said they WOULD be inferior, more that they would have trouble identifying with any one group.

I expected that response to my dog analogy, but it was the best one I could come up with before my morning coffee.