• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are interracial couples acceptable?[ W: 330]

How do you feel about interracial couples

  • It's wrong to date and have children with other races

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • It depends on the race

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Interracial couples and children are completely acceptable to me

    Votes: 106 93.8%
  • I have mixed feelings

    Votes: 5 4.4%

  • Total voters
    113
Why do you hate diversity so much that you want to erase it from the world?

Genetic diversity? You cannot reduce genetic diversity by marrying into larger and more varied gene pools. You are referring only to a visual, from what I read....that all skin colors will start to look the same?

The gene pool will still continue to diversify, the gene for melanin tends to be very dominant but all the other genes are still present and recombining...for more and more diversity...not less.
 
I'm fine with inter-racial couples. I just don't understand how they had to change the definition of traditional marriage in order to force their unions in our face. Call their relationships whatever you like, just don't call it marriage.... ;-)

At first I thought you were kidding, but it appears from your subsequent posts that you are serious. Since that's the case, let me first of all say this, I don't want you shoving your definition of traditional marriage in my face.

Next of all, why do you support this so called "traditional marriage" definition in the first place? Seven score and thirteen years ago, these words were spoken by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

Is this the cornerstone on which your traditions rest?

Do you hold to the tradition that black people are not equal to white people, and that the natural condition of black people is to be subordinate to the superior white race?
 
There's nothing that you could do to me to transform me into a liberal. People become what their natures lead them to be.

Do different races have different natures?
 
Enoch Powell's legacy:

Here's the problem for your argument. If you inflict AIDS on yourself, then you have to suffer through taking a nasty drug cocktail for the rest of your life and watch your body degrade over time. There is no point in blaming the physician who diagnosed you with AIDS nor the sex counselor who warned you that you shouldn't purposefully inflict AIDS on yourself. The nasty drug cocktail WOULD NOT be needed AT ALL if you hadn't purposely infected yourself with HIV.
 
Here's the problem for your argument. If you inflict AIDS on yourself, then you have to suffer through taking a nasty drug cocktail for the rest of your life and watch your body degrade over time. There is no point in blaming the physician who diagnosed you with AIDS nor the sex counselor who warned you that you shouldn't purposefully inflict AIDS on yourself. The nasty drug cocktail WOULD NOT be needed AT ALL if you hadn't purposely infected yourself with HIV.

So in your opinion interracial marriage is analogous to AIDS? And are you the wise physician and sex counselor?
 
At first I thought you were kidding, but it appears from your subsequent posts that you are serious. Since that's the case, let me first of all say this, I don't want you shoving your definition of traditional marriage in my face.

Next of all, why do you support this so called "traditional marriage" definition in the first place? Seven score and thirteen years ago, these words were spoken by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens:


Is this the cornerstone on which your traditions rest?

Do you hold to the tradition that black people are not equal to white people, and that the natural condition of black people is to be subordinate to the superior white race?

I was kidding in my original post. I have no issues with inter-racial marriage. Subsequently I was pointing out that there are many who are anti marriage equality for same sex couples that cannot see their hypocrisy by claiming that "Traditional Marriage" included inter-racial couples.
 
Do different races have different natures?

Um, yes, why wouldn't they? The big 5 personality traits are all significantly heritable so the very process which brought about racial groups, reproductively isolated breeding groups, will also bring about personality differences between the groups. You'd have to be a Liberal Creationist to reject evolution. This is really elementary stuff, in fact if you open your eyes and observe the world around you you can actually see it playing out.

personalityblackindian_zpsff92959d.png
 
I was kidding in my original post. I have no issues with inter-racial marriage. Subsequently I was pointing out that there are many who are anti marriage equality for same sex couples that cannot see their hypocrisy by claiming that "Traditional Marriage" included inter-racial couples.

I am very, very sorry. Please accept my sincere apologies. That's what I thought you meant originally. I became confused in subsequent posts.
 
Bill Nye that statistics guy! WOW!
 
More likely it was people who drew a dividing line between individual liberty and community interest at a different point than you.

In a free society, people will not "pair up" based on "community interest." They do so for strictly personal reasons.....not out of concern for 'the betterment of society.' And in a free society, you cannot induce people to do otherwise IMO.
 
I am very, very sorry. Please accept my sincere apologies. That's what I thought you meant originally. I became confused in subsequent posts.

No problem. I often post in satirical terms. ;-)
 
So in your opinion interracial marriage is analogous to AIDS? And are you the wise physician and sex counselor?

No, what the liberals in the UK did was they PURPOSELY imposed multicultualism on the UK. The US has had a historical white and black population and so has had to deal with the problems which arise from this fact throughout its history. The UK, and Canada for that matter too, didn't have that history. They were essentially white nations (Canada had a small native population) and then liberals got it into their head to start transforming the society into a multicultural one. The people were up in arms about this - they didn't want it, hence the huge approval numbers for Powell after he made his speech. Then the Labour Party had to introduce the Race Relations Act which seriously gutted freedoms of speech and association and again people were upset with their loss of freedom. All of this is the drug cocktail that is needed to deal with the infection. The infection was self-inflicted. None of those nasty restrictions of freedom would have been necessary if Labour hadn't purposely gone against the will of the people.

So to complain about the medicine misses the point, the medicine wouldn't be necessary if you didn't have the illness that you inflicted upon yourself.
 
On the plus side, over 91% voted the right way...which is encouraging.

Absolutely correct, that is virtually universal acceptance, yet people like you continue to scream your heads off about how unfair the United States is to you.

In light of these overwhelming acceptance numbers, it's difficult to fathom what it is you want now that you don't already have.

Just look at the sputtering rage and hatred on this thread alone, yet, as you say, you have 91% acceptance!
 
Last edited:
Um, yes, why wouldn't they? The big 5 personality traits are all significantly heritable so the very process which brought about racial groups, reproductively isolated breeding groups, will also bring about personality differences between the groups. You'd have to be a Liberal Creationist to reject evolution. This is really elementary stuff, in fact if you open your eyes and observe the world around you you can actually see it playing out.

personalityblackindian_zpsff92959d.png

Source please.
 
Source please.

Here you go.

You might also find this useful:

Personality can be thought of as a set of characteristics that influence people's thoughts, feelings and behavior across a variety of settings. Variation in personality is predictive of many outcomes in life, including mental health. Here we report on a meta-analysis of genome-wide association (GWA) data for personality in 10 discovery samples (17,375 adults) and five in silico replication samples (3294 adults). All participants were of European ancestry. Personality scores for Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were based on the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. . . . Results showed genome-wide significance for Openness to Experience near the RASA1 gene on 5q14.3 (rs1477268 and rs2032794, P=2.8 × 10(-8) and 3.1 × 10(-8)) and for Conscientiousness in the brain-expressed KATNAL2 gene on 18q21.1 (rs2576037, P=4.9 × 10(-8)). We further conducted a gene-based test that confirmed the association of KATNAL2 to Conscientiousness. In silico replication did not, however, show significant associations of the top SNPs with Openness and Conscientiousness, although the direction of effect of the KATNAL2 SNP on Conscientiousness was consistent in all replication samples. Larger scale GWA studies and alternative approaches are required for confirmation of KATNAL2 as a novel gene affecting Conscientiousness.​
 
Last edited:
Absolutely correct, that is virtually universal acceptance, yet people like you continue to scream your heads off about how unfair the United States is to you.

In light of these overwhelming acceptance numbers, it's difficult to fathom what it is you want now that you don't already have.

Just look at the sputtering rage and hatred on this thread alone, yet, as you say, you have 91% acceptance!

LOL...what on Earth are you blabbering about?

Where exactly did I 'scream' my head off about 'how unfair the United States is to 'me' (on racial issues)?



And what is this 'rage' you are speaking of?

I feel no rage to anyone on here...why the heck would I?

Faceless nobodies on a 'chat' forum are hardly likely to cause me 'rage'.

The only rage I sense is from you.
 
Where exactly did I 'scream' my head off about 'how unfair the United States is to 'me' (on racial issues)?
And what is this 'rage' you are speaking of?
I feel no rage to anyone on here...why the heck would I?
Faceless nobodies on a 'chat' forum are hardly likely to cause me 'rage'.

Sorry, I just assumed you had the wherewithal to have read the thread and know what was being discussed prior to posting.
 
Sorry, I just assumed you had the wherewithal to have read the thread and know what was being discussed prior to posting.

:rolleyes:

It's nothing to do with other posts...you referred to me.

I will say again, where exactly did I say anything about America being unfair on this?

Your answer will be - nowhere; because I didn't/don't.

Next time you lump people in with others - make sure you have the remotest clue what you or talking about.


And what does this statement of yours mean?

'In light of these overwhelming acceptance numbers, it's difficult to fathom what it is you want now that you don't already have.'

Where exactly did I say that I wanted ANYTHING that I don't already have?

Or are you just trolling?


My guess is the latter.
 
No, what the liberals in the UK did was they PURPOSELY imposed multicultualism on the UK. The US has had a historical white and black population and so has had to deal with the problems which arise from this fact throughout its history. The UK, and Canada for that matter too, didn't have that history. They were essentially white nations (Canada had a small native population) and then liberals got it into their head to start transforming the society into a multicultural one. The people were up in arms about this - they didn't want it, hence the huge approval numbers for Powell after he made his speech. Then the Labour Party had to introduce the Race Relations Act which seriously gutted freedoms of speech and association and again people were upset with their loss of freedom. All of this is the drug cocktail that is needed to deal with the infection. The infection was self-inflicted. None of those nasty restrictions of freedom would have been necessary if Labour hadn't purposely gone against the will of the people.

So to complain about the medicine misses the point, the medicine wouldn't be necessary if you didn't have the illness that you inflicted upon yourself.

I disagree strongly with your assertion that multiculturalism is an infection. Rather, the problem is the underlying arrogance, uncontrolled lust, anger, and greed. European imperialism is largely responsible for the transplantation of people from various parts of the world into foreign lands. When they do so, they bring their cultures. Since the powers that be are not going to undo what has been done, e.g. compensate for stolen resources, we have no choice but to learn how to live together and appreciate and cherish one another.

If you want to say, that's a disease, I would put forward that the disease is your own malice.
 
I disagree strongly with your assertion that multiculturalism is an infection. Rather, the problem is the underlying arrogance, uncontrolled lust, anger, and greed. European imperialism is largely responsible for the transplantation of people from various parts of the world into foreign lands. When they do so, they bring their cultures. Since the powers that be are not going to undo what has been done, e.g. compensate for stolen resources, we have no choice but to learn how to live together and appreciate and cherish one another.

If you want to say, that's a disease, I would put forward that the disease is your own malice.


I believe his notion of "forced multiculturalism" is the 1964 Civil Rights Act, those laws that effectively eliminated Jim Crow racial segregation and discrimination in the American South. He especially opposes laws that prevent businesses serving the public from discriminating. Those were also the type of laws opposed by Enoch Powell in his famous "River of Blood" speech when he claimed such laws would inevitably lead to violence. Whether that was a promise, threat or prophecy is a matter of opinion. Although England suffers from the existence of nationalist bigots and some racist violence, the streets aren't really filled with blood and from what I saw in my last visit, the diverse people of England generally get along just fine, just as we usually do in the USA.
 
You might also find this useful:

Personality can be thought of as a set of characteristics that influence people's thoughts, feelings and behavior across a variety of settings. Variation in personality is predictive of many outcomes in life, including mental health. Here we report on a meta-analysis of genome-wide association (GWA) data for personality in 10 discovery samples (17,375 adults) and five in silico replication samples (3294 adults). All participants were of European ancestry. Personality scores for Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were based on the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. . . . Results showed genome-wide significance for Openness to Experience near the RASA1 gene on 5q14.3 (rs1477268 and rs2032794, P=2.8 × 10(-8) and 3.1 × 10(-8)) and for Conscientiousness in the brain-expressed KATNAL2 gene on 18q21.1 (rs2576037, P=4.9 × 10(-8)). We further conducted a gene-based test that confirmed the association of KATNAL2 to Conscientiousness. In silico replication did not, however, show significant associations of the top SNPs with Openness and Conscientiousness, although the direction of effect of the KATNAL2 SNP on Conscientiousness was consistent in all replication samples. Larger scale GWA studies and alternative approaches are required for confirmation of KATNAL2 as a novel gene affecting Conscientiousness.​

Again, this is likely another instance of throwing up some research without understanding or careful inspection.

Just a bit of searching on the subject of genome wide association reveals that although in some cases it has yielded some insight with regards to disease, in the area of human behavior it has proven itself to be unreliable with many false positives generated. This is some of what experts have to say about it

Population-based behavioral genetics has demonstrated that genotype and behavior can be
expected to covary. Although the epigenetic developmental pathways linking gene products
to complex behavior will in general be almost unimaginably complex, modern molecular
genetics has made it possible to detect small covariations between alleles and behavior that
span the complexity of the causal network..... Such associations are real and potentially
interesting, but they remain correlations— and small ones— not evidence of substantial
causal pathways between individual alleles and complex behavior or evidence of genes for
extroversion or intelligence or evidence that future scientific efforts will be most produc-
tively applied at a genetic level of analysis.
If the history of empirical psychology has taught
researchers anything, it is that correlations between causally distant variables cannot be
counted on to lead to coherent etiological models.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Turkheimer GWAS EWAS Final.pdf

In others words, when it comes to human behavior such as extroversion, the correlations between genotype and behavior are small and are not evidence of a causal link between the two.

Here's what another expert had to say

One of the hopes and promises of the Human Genome Sequencing Project was that it would revolutionize the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of most human disorders. It would do this by uncovering the supposed “genetic bases” of human behavior. With a few exceptions, however, the search for common gene variants -“polymorphisms” – associated with common diseases has borne little fruit. And when such associations have been found the polymorphisms seem to have little predictive value and do little to advance our understanding of the causes of disease. In a 2012 study, for example, researchers found that incorporating genetic information did not improve doctors’ ability to predict disease risk for breast cancer, Type 2 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis.

And to date, not a single polymorphism has been reliably associated with any psychiatric disorders nor any aspect of human behavior within the “normal” range (e.g., differences in “intelligence”).

Still Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find the

So it appears even in the area of disease where some limited progress was made with associating gene variation with disease, it yielded very little of practical value. And furthermore in the area of human behavior, there have been no reliable associations made.

So again, you have to be careful about what you put forward in terms of research and statistics. If you don't know what you are looking at, you will confuse not only others but yourself as well.
 
Again, this is likely another instance of throwing up some research without understanding or careful inspection.

Just a bit of searching on the subject of genome wide association.

You're funny. I love how you have to search a topic and then feel qualified to render judgment by pointing to some researchers who critique the work of other researchers. You're completely oblivious to the undercurrents in play here. And quoting Turkheimer, that was priceless.

Here's an old movie for you that someone finally put on the internet. I show this movie regularly and it seems to always bother some of the viewers. The work is by the late Prof. Dan Freedman and while his work on the behavior of dog breeds had no problem getting published, when he turned his attention to humans he met with a lot of resistance form numerous journals until the editor of Nature broke a peer review deadlock and finally published his work. It's kind of hard to argue that 30 hour old babies have been enculturated to behave as they have.

 
This may have been the idea behind the "cultural melting pot" of USA. How did it work till now?
Well, we haven't achieved that, so what is your real point? And even if we had, there are many countries out there that have remained basically racially homogeneous...so there remains great variety; the world is still, currently, wonderfully heterogeneous.
 
You're funny. I love how you have to search a topic and then feel qualified to render judgment by pointing to some researchers who critique the work of other researchers. You're completely oblivious to the undercurrents in play here. And quoting Turkheimer, that was priceless.

Here again, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Do you have the slightest idea how statistical significance applies to genome wide association? Have you even bothered to try to understand what statistical significance is? When those researchers say that they found genome wide significance at a particular gene, all that means is that they have found a measure of correlation between a gene variation and a certain type of behavior. It doesn't mean that the variation is the cause of the behavior. For instance, someone could conduct some research and find that there is a correlation between people who buy cigarette lighters and lung cancer. Although that is interesting to know, it does not mean that buying cigarette lighters causes lung cancer.

If people are going to throw up statistics, they should have some idea of what the statistics are actually saying. Otherwise you start to look like this guy:



You can get away with that kind of stuff until people start to really understand what you are doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom