Should interracial marriages be promoted?

Post Reply New Topic

Minority.

An interesting perspective from Mr. Sotomayor

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ktjgu7IYuU[/youtube]

^Stopped after about 4 minutes. I'm one of the 'white women' that this guy is holding essentially blameless for any racism ever, but it's a profoundly racist and sexist diatribe, at least up to that point.

He's addressing Black women who like White men, but who will complain about Black men who like White women.

Okay, he is a bit over-the-top. You can't blame all White men for having abused Black people for centuries. Many of us sacrificed our lives to free his ancestors, and at least made an attempt to civilize Southern Whites. But, it certainly was White men rather than White women who did the bulk of the abusing.

Civilize Southern Whites?

I don't doubt at all that white women would have joined in if they had had any power at all.

I think the only kind of marriage that should be promoted by the U.S. government is one man and woman for life, regardless of their skin color.

so no gay marriage, and no divorce?

Absolutely not on the first, and divorce should never be trumpeted as an inherently good thing. If there's infidelity or abuse involved, fine...but I think most people need to take their commitments far more seriously. Marriage is clearly "until death do us part", not "until someone better comes along".

if you permit gay marriage, then divorce rates will decrease because you will see fewer people entering marriages with people of the incompatible gender just to avoid being lonely. Here in Ireland, we also have a very conservative culture where the 'traditionalist view' of marriage is very much trumpeted. It causes all sorts of social taboos which mean people are dishonest with themselves and it does nothing other than make them miserable inside. I know a divorced gay guy who conceived three children before he could muster the courage to admit he was unhappy and just isn't attracted to women. Its more destructive to all concerned parties to encourage people to enter a doomed marriage which carries on years rather than allow people to live under the correct auspice from day one.

That, and gay people have as much right to be paired in the eyes of the state as heterosexuals do, with all of the associated tax breaks and legal protections that comes with it.

Is there any non-religion-based reason that gay marriage should be forbidden? Why not let people marry whom they love?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 6099613917

That's an argument for prohibiting childbearing out of heterosexual marriage, against adoption, against heterosexual divorce, against IVF and other reproductive assistance, and against single parents remarrying, not just an argument against gay marriage. In short, it's a pretty extreme viewpoint even towards heterosexuals.

As someone who was adopted by one non-biological parent (my dad), and who had (and who has) a wonderful relationship with him, I disagree on a fundamental level with the premise of the article.

Well go publish against Sommerville and get tenure. I would not agree with those criticisms but you did ask if there was any non-religion based arguments... There is one.

^point taken. That argument was pretty thoroughly demolished at the California Supreme Court and at the SCOTUS, though.

For those interested: New York's new White mayor has a Black wife.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-mayor-black ... 44789.html

Their son has the hugest afro I've seen in a few decades. The daughter is really cute.