Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

soulsinging wrote:

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.

no, actually, if you read my scenario properly it is NOT about people self-selecting race. It's about someone else imposing that selection on someone else. Same thing this guy is doing.

Yes, that article only mentions things he said about blacks and whites. So you are making an assumption based on the information that was provided to you.

Kinda like what he's doing.

inmytree · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

no, actually, if you read my scenario properly it is NOT about people self-selecting race. It's about someone else imposing that selection on someone else. Same thing this guy is doing.

Yes, that article only mentions things he said about blacks and whites. So you are making an assumption based on the information that was provided to you.

Kinda like what he's doing.

the man admitted in an interview that he only refuses to marry drunks and black/white couples...

and he only added the drunk thing to save face...

and this scenario you speak of, are you referring to the dog one...?

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

inmytree wrote:

yup...

I guess you think 1964 was centuries ago...

No offense, but I would consider that an ignorant statement.[/quote]

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...[/quote]

Yes, it was bold before the confirmation by you that it was ignorant.

honestly, not everything in this world that deals with races (positively or negatively) is considered racist. People need to get that out of their heads.

You're not looking at the meat and potatoes of this discussion. You are seeing "this white man doesn't want a black man marrying a white woman". It's a lot more complex than that.

And don't forget that very good point someone said a couple pages ago, that in essence, the media can portray this dolt anyway they want to. If they want him to look like a racist (which to most, he will, given the oversensitivity of today's populace-"did you say the work black? YOU ARE WHITE! RACIST!"), then he will look racist.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

inmytree wrote:

the man admitted in an interview that he only refuses to marry drunks and black/white couples...

IF that is true, then yes, the man is a racist.

soulsinging · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

no, actually, if you read my scenario properly it is NOT about people self-selecting race. It's about someone else imposing that selection on someone else. Same thing this guy is doing.

Yes, that article only mentions things he said about blacks and whites. So you are making an assumption based on the information that was provided to you.

Kinda like what he's doing.

i did read your scenario properly. it changes nothing. a father can say "i forbid" but nobody has to listen. and he has a personal stake in the matter as a family member. the judge does not, and he is a state official paid to provide this service. he does not get to strip these people of their rights becos of his irrational and outdated prejudices.

i am making an inference based on clearly racist statements and actions. he is throwing out random, unfounded bullshit to try to prop up his racism.

inmytree · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

Yes, it was bold before the confirmation by you that it was ignorant.

honestly, not everything in this world that deals with races (positively or negatively) is considered racist. People need to get that out of their heads.

You're not looking at the meat and potatoes of this discussion. You are seeing "this white man doesn't want a black man marrying a white woman". It's a lot more complex than that.

And don't forget that very good point someone said a couple pages ago, that in essence, the media can portray this dolt anyway they want to. If they want him to look like a racist (which to most, he will, given the oversensitivity of today's populace-"did you say the work black? YOU ARE WHITE! RACIST!"), then he will look racist.

dude, the only one showing their ignorance here is you...

and fuck complex...this is simple...it's you that wants to make it "complex" to justify your support of this racist...

soulsinging · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

honestly, not everything in this world that deals with races (positively or negatively) is considered racist. People need to get that out of their heads.

You're not looking at the meat and potatoes of this discussion. You are seeing "this white man doesn't want a black man marrying a white woman". It's a lot more complex than that.

how is it more complex than that?

inmytree · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

inmytree wrote:

the man admitted in an interview that he only refuses to marry drunks and black/white couples...

IF that is true, then yes, the man is a racist.

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

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

inmytree wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

Yes, it was bold before the confirmation by you that it was ignorant.

honestly, not everything in this world that deals with races (positively or negatively) is considered racist. People need to get that out of their heads.

You're not looking at the meat and potatoes of this discussion. You are seeing "this white man doesn't want a black man marrying a white woman". It's a lot more complex than that.

And don't forget that very good point someone said a couple pages ago, that in essence, the media can portray this dolt anyway they want to. If they want him to look like a racist (which to most, he will, given the oversensitivity of today's populace-"did you say the work black? YOU ARE WHITE! RACIST!"), then he will look racist.

dude, the only one showing their ignorance here is you...

and fuck complex...this is simple...it's you that wants to make it "complex" to justify your support of this racist...

first, I never said YOU were ignorant. I said your statement was. big difference. can the insults.

second, yeah, I forgot, race relations is a breeze. :roll:

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

inmytree wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

inmytree wrote:

the man admitted in an interview that he only refuses to marry drunks and black/white couples...

IF that is true, then yes, the man is a racist.

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

I checked the article, and this is all I saw:

"Bardwell explained that he had seen "countless" interracial couples where the children were rejected by family members". Nowhere in the article does he single out black interracial marriages. I can't view the video at work, so unless it's in there, than I still don't see anywhere to substantiate the claim that he is only biased against black/white couples.

inmytree · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

inmytree wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

Yes, it was bold before the confirmation by you that it was ignorant.

honestly, not everything in this world that deals with races (positively or negatively) is considered racist. People need to get that out of their heads.

You're not looking at the meat and potatoes of this discussion. You are seeing "this white man doesn't want a black man marrying a white woman". It's a lot more complex than that.

And don't forget that very good point someone said a couple pages ago, that in essence, the media can portray this dolt anyway they want to. If they want him to look like a racist (which to most, he will, given the oversensitivity of today's populace-"did you say the work black? YOU ARE WHITE! RACIST!"), then he will look racist.

dude, the only one showing their ignorance here is you...

and fuck complex...this is simple...it's you that wants to make it "complex" to justify your support of this racist...

first, I never said YOU were ignorant. I said your statement was. big difference. can the insults.

second, yeah, I forgot, race relations is a breeze. :roll:

well, I never said you were ignorant, I said you were showing ignorance...

as for things being complex, I guess when one is a racist, it's harder to hide those feelings and biases in today's world...I suppose that can be seen as a good thing...

NoK · October 2009

Johnny Sitar wrote:

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.

You seriously think your dog analogy works for different races of people? If you do then there is no discussion to be had here. Different races of people are not different BREEDS of humans.

But let me go with you for a while. You say the dog-breeder (not lover) is looking out for what is best for their future dog families. Seriously, you accuse me before of giant leaps then make statements like this. Where is the scientific evidence behind any of this nonsense? Let me give you some scientific evidence behind animal breeding. It is beneficial for humans (not animals) to selectively breed animals/organisms because they end up getting more "product" out of it. Its bad for animals because they become vulnerable to diseases and genetic disorders. Why? Because selective breeding results in recessive genes being inherited from both parents making diseases breed-specific. Breeds also become acclimatised to a very specific niche. If you limit the gene pool of a species then you increase the likelihood of extinction. Other examples include selective breeding of cows who now have trouble giving birth unassisted. Another one that comes to mind is hamsters and their high risk of tumor development.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

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.

Let me see if I can have a "legitimate discussion". The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.

I'll repeat this in case you forgot. Another definition of Racism, which you have accepted, is as follows:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character

Johnny Sitar wrote:

there you go. I did quote the correct person. I never said you were swearing at me, the point was you were getting all hot under the collar (IMO-if you say you were not, then fine), I just wanted to keep this discussion on the straight and narrow, that was all.

Now you are going to act like you took offense to me calling the guy a racist piece of shit. What is he your relations or something? Give me a break. If you think I'm all "hot under the collar" because I used the words "racist piece of shit" then you have serious misjudgment of emotions. If I remember correctly random swearing is not banned on this board so quit trying to act like a swear word would never come out of your mouth.

KDH12 · October 2009

Johnny Sitar 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.

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.

both my parents are in their 50's aka baby boomers ask them if they expected me to marry a black woman and they would tell you it was as far fetched as the earth being flat

I would put that in the column of unintentional racism, call it what you will but there is an ingrained part of them that expected me to marry a white woman just becuase I am white

KDH12 · October 2009

NoK wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

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.

You seriously think your dog analogy works for different races of people? If you do then there is no discussion to be had here. Different races of people are not different BREEDS of humans.

But let me go with you for a while. You say the dog-breeder (not lover) is looking out for what is best for their future dog families. Seriously, you accuse me before of giant leaps then make statements like this. Where is the scientific evidence behind any of this nonsense? Let me give you some scientific evidence behind animal breeding. It is beneficial for humans (not animals) to selectively breed animals/organisms because they end up getting more "product" out of it. Its bad for animals because they become vulnerable to diseases and genetic disorders. Why? Because selective breeding results in recessive genes being inherited from both parents making diseases breed-specific. Breeds also become acclimatised to a very specific niche. If you limit the gene pool of a species then you increase the likelihood of extinction. Other examples include selective breeding of cows who now have trouble giving birth unassisted. Another one that comes to mind is hamsters and their high risk of tumor development.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

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.

Let me see if I can have a "legitimate discussion". The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.

I'll repeat this in case you forgot. Another definition of Racism, which you have accepted, is as follows:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character

Johnny Sitar wrote:

there you go. I did quote the correct person. I never said you were swearing at me, the point was you were getting all hot under the collar (IMO-if you say you were not, then fine), I just wanted to keep this discussion on the straight and narrow, that was all.

Now you are going to act like you took offense to me calling the guy a racist piece of shit. What is he your relations or something? Give me a break. If you think I'm all "hot under the collar" because I used the words "racist piece of shit" then you have serious misjudgment of emotions. If I remember correctly random swearing is not banned on this board so quit trying to act like a swear word would never come out of your mouth.

KDH12 · October 2009

lastly anyone that thinks.....

mixed children are at a psychological disadvantage..... are ignorant

or anyone who thinks.....

that different races marrying is similar to dogs breeding..... is ignorant

JaneNY · October 2009

NoK wrote:

The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.

And its so bogus. My girls are SMART. My 10th grader is in 11th grade math, science,french. She also sings, is in speech and debate, just took the psats, and is already sending away for college brochures. That girl will be out of this little town like a shot as soon as she's able. My older girl is in Digital Arts at a tech university, and is a wonderful artist. Disadvantage? I don't think so. I'd like to think my husband and I brought the best from each of our cultures to our children. (He's from Indian subcontinent and we both value and have modeled the importance of education) The children are only disadvantaged if they get poor parenting and that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

KDH12 wrote:

lastly anyone that thinks.....

mixed children are at a psychological disadvantage..... are ignorant

or anyone who thinks.....

that different races marrying is similar to dogs breeding..... is ignorant

ok, none of you obviously read my follow-up post where I admitted the limitations of that analogy. But many of you like to omit what doesn't suit your collective need to be angry with someone who won't follow your opinion, which you can't help but present as fact. Gimme a break.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

NoK wrote:

Now you are going to act like you took offense to me calling the guy a racist piece of shit. What is he your relations or something? Give me a break. If you think I'm all "hot under the collar" because I used the words "racist piece of shit" then you have serious misjudgment of emotions. If I remember correctly random swearing is not banned on this board so quit trying to act like a swear word would never come out of your mouth.

I never took offense to you calling him a racist piece of shit. I said, HELLO, in my opinion, you were getting hot under the collar. What you failed to read, YET AGAIN, was that if you weren't, then FINE. Jesus, why the rampage??

Yes, I swear. No, it doesn't hurt my feelings. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. Jesus, is that better? Get the fuck over it. Move on.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

JaneNY wrote:

NoK wrote:

The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.

And its so bogus. My girls are SMART. My 10th grader is in 11th grade math, science,french. She also sings, is in speech and debate, just took the psats, and is already sending away for college brochures. That girl will be out of this little town like a shot as soon as she's able. My older girl is in Digital Arts at a tech university, and is a wonderful artist. Disadvantage? I don't think so. I'd like to think my husband and I brought the best from each of our cultures to our children. (He's from Indian subcontinent and we both value and have modeled the importance of education) The children are only disadvantaged if they get poor parenting and that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

my GAAAAWWWWWWWWWD. I don't recall him saying anything about them being disadvantaged mentally (again, if I'm wrong, and you show me, I'll admit it). He said simply that they were going to be disadvantaged socially, and in a way of being able to identify with their roots. If you want to argue actual points in the article, then go ahead, but you people need to stop making shit up.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · October 2009

NoK wrote:

The main argument the guy has put forward is that kids from a mixed culture will have a disadvantage growing up. Let us forget for a second that there is no evidence behind these claims and take his claim from a purely scientific point of view. He is suggesting that same race marriages produce more viable (less disadvantaged) offspring than mixed marriages which in itself implies that this guy believes there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between each race. Racist.

WRONG. You have completely turned around the point of what the man said. Jesus, quit making shit up. Maybe you should go back and study a little harder and report back when you have actually read the article.

Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisiana

Comments

Categories