• 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!

Miscegenation

calamity said:
I can't respond to this because I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

I'm asking what you think about how sexual partners become family, not the other way around. Miscegenation generates biological family members through breeding. Should we select sexual partners only for the purpose of breeding, or are we at liberty to breed among races without starting a family? In other words, a single parent who practices polygamous miscegenation could act as a link between two different racial groups. Does that link imply a social construct, or is it simply biological, like sex?
 
Celebrity said:
I'm asking what you think about how sexual partners become family, not the other way around. Miscegenation generates biological family members through breeding. Should we select sexual partners only for the purpose of breeding, or are we at liberty to breed among races without starting a family? In other words, a single parent who practices polygamous miscegenation could act as a link between two different racial groups. Does that link imply a social construct, or is it simply biological, like sex?
Click to expand...

I'm fine with people having sex without breeding. I'm not fine with people having kids without marrying however. I don't care what race the people are at all.
 
I take it you're opposed to orgies where miscegenation takes place, then. Or else, do you support polygamous relations?
 
Celebrity said:
I'm asking what you think about how sexual partners become family, not the other way around. Miscegenation generates biological family members through breeding. Should we select sexual partners only for the purpose of breeding
Click to expand...
No


are we at liberty to breed among races without starting a family?
Click to expand...
Yes


In other words, a single parent who practices polygamous miscegenation could act as a link between two different racial groups. Does that link imply a social construct, or is it simply biological, like sex?
Click to expand...
It implies nothing.

The biology now is pretty straightforward; the phenotypes we associate with "race" have very little to do with genetics, and the genetic variations are so small that using them as a basis to differentiate any sort of rights is absurd.

Race is a social construct because... it's a social construct. It's not based in biology, it's based in the history of separating humans into groups to achieve political ends, mostly the exploitation and oppression of one or more groups by another.

Thus: An adult woman has the right to have children with as many men as she wants, of any "race" that she wants. That choice has absolutely nothing to do with biology or race, and it neither proves nor disproves any facts about biology or race.
 
Celebrity said:
I take it you're opposed to orgies where miscegenation takes place, then. Or else, do you support polygamous relations?
Click to expand...
Polygamy and miscegenation are completely separate issues.

If consenting adults want to have an orgy, that's their business. And that has nothing to do with race.
 
​
 
Visbek said:
No



Yes



It implies nothing.

The biology now is pretty straightforward; the phenotypes we associate with "race" have very little to do with genetics, and the genetic variations are so small that using them as a basis to differentiate any sort of rights is absurd.

Race is a social construct because... it's a social construct. It's not based in biology, it's based in the history of separating humans into groups to achieve political ends, mostly the exploitation and oppression of one or more groups by another.

Thus: An adult woman has the right to have children with as many men as she wants, of any "race" that she wants. That choice has absolutely nothing to do with biology or race, and it neither proves nor disproves any facts about biology or race.
Click to expand...

I agree that we are talking about a social issue when we are talking about inherent race. It's a social issue with biological implications where miscegenation is concerned. How do we pass race to future generations? Ali pointed out the concept of racial identity, which I think holds true today. People are self conscious about their heritage and want to share their culture socially, not biologically. That's an example of how we are at liberty to invite into our families who we so choose, and not necessarily on the basis of biology.

Race and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_People's_Time
 
Celebrity said:
I agree that we are talking about a social issue when we are talking about inherent race.
Click to expand...
To be clear, there is no such thing as "inherent race," because our categories of "race" are ultimately based off of irrational categories like skin color or eye shape or nation of birth.


It's a social issue with biological implications where miscegenation is concerned. How do we pass race to future generations?
Click to expand...
The same way we have for several generations, via various educational and social mechanisms.


Ali pointed out the concept of racial identity, which I think holds true today. People are self conscious about their heritage and want to share their culture socially, not biologically. That's an example of how we are at liberty to invite into our families who we so choose, and not necessarily on the basis of biology.
Click to expand...
So what?

What does any of this have to do with justifying so-called anti-miscegenation laws?

And yes, it should be obvious that at this time, human beings extend their family unit via marriage.
 
Visbek said:
To be clear, there is no such thing as "inherent race," because our categories of "race" are ultimately based off of irrational categories like skin color or eye shape or nation of birth.
Click to expand...
So far as voluntary self-identification is concerned, that's not true.


Visbek said:
The same way we have for several generations, via various educational and social mechanisms.
Click to expand...
These should be voluntary and more often than not, self-identifying.

Visbek said:
So what?

What does any of this have to do with justifying so-called anti-miscegenation laws?

And yes, it should be obvious that at this time, human beings extend their family unit via marriage.
Click to expand...
Marriage is voluntary, so long as anti miscegenation laws do not exist. Miscegenation can exist outside of marriage, since it specifically deals with breeding. I think family should be extended by human beings voluntarily, in either case.
 
Celebrity said:
I take it you're opposed to orgies where miscegenation takes place, then. Or else, do you support polygamous relations?
Click to expand...

I don't support people making babies without knowing who the father is or intending to form a lasting relationship with them. I'm not keen on polyamorus relationships if kids are involved.
 
calamity said:
I don't support people making babies without knowing who the father is or intending to form a lasting relationship with them. I'm not keen on polyamorus relationships if kids are involved.
Click to expand...

Do you think that women should be forced to follow what men say? That doesn't seem to be the general consensus in this thread.
 
Celebrity said:
Do you think that women should be forced to follow what men say? That doesn't seem to be the general consensus in this thread.
Click to expand...

No. Women can do what they want. But, we should not have to pay for their poor decisions, except provide them with free abortions.
 
calamity said:
No. Women can do what they want. But, we should not have to pay for their poor decisions, except provide them with free abortions.
Click to expand...

I think this is in direct contrast to a wedding gift, which occurs at the end of an engagement. An engagement signifies a commitment to a culminating event (like the "birth" of a union), but we do not compel couples who practice miscegenation (or any other kind of couple, if such a couple could exist) to marry because they are engaged (having indicated that they will marry in the future). Some engagements end a in failure to wed. If I am not mistaken, wedding planning may come with a deposit, which may be returned depending on the cancellation policy.
 
calamity said:
I don't support people making babies without knowing who the father is or intending to form a lasting relationship with them. I'm not keen on polyamorus relationships if kids are involved.
Click to expand...

and what is a wonderful thing is you do not have to subscribe to those activities just as others no longer have to abide by your beliefs

one point with which we both likely agree is that no mother should conceive a child without being certain she has the means to support it
too many times, that bastard child becomes the basis of eligibility for government monies that would not otherwise become available ... thereby creating an incentive to bear children one is unable to afford to sustain by their own means
 
Celebrity said:
So far as voluntary self-identification is concerned, that's not true.
Click to expand...
Self-identification is not inherent. It's still a social construct, merely one imposed upon the self.


These should be voluntary and more often than not, self-identifying.
Click to expand...
That would be nice, but it doesn't work that way.

E.g. a black person may try to completely ignore race, and end up in an environment where other people constantly treat them differently based upon the color of their skin. Self-identification is not always sufficient to change society at large.


Marriage is voluntary, so long as anti miscegenation laws do not exist. Miscegenation can exist outside of marriage, since it specifically deals with breeding. I think family should be extended by human beings voluntarily, in either case.
Click to expand...
Uh huh

Let me put this another way. I haven't seen a single cogent argument that "miscegenation is wrong." The only ones I've ever read are blatantly racist. How much more information do you need to accept that having children with no regard for the socially generated categories of race at least neutral, if not positive?
 
Celebrity said:
I'm asking what you think about how sexual partners become family, not the other way around. Miscegenation generates biological family members through breeding. Should we select sexual partners only for the purpose of breeding, or are we at liberty to breed among races without starting a family? In other words, a single parent who practices polygamous miscegenation could act as a link between two different racial groups. Does that link imply a social construct, or is it simply biological, like sex?
Click to expand...

personally, I don't care what two equal consenting adults choose to do with themselves or each other

I emphasize "equal" because a sexual relationship between an offspring and a parent can never be equal regardless of age

I am still really not clear on the question so if I haven't answered to your satisfaction please feel free to question further

as for polygamy...their choice, I couldn't care less, it's no ones' business
 
_Sal said:
personally, I don't care what two equal consenting adults choose to do with themselves or each other

I emphasize "equal" because a sexual relationship between an offspring and a parent can never be equal regardless of age

I am still really not clear on the question so if I haven't answered to your satisfaction please feel free to question further

as for polygamy...their choice, I couldn't care less, it's no ones' business
Click to expand...

Ok. So just take out the "among races" part, the "between two different racial groups" part, then read the sentences.

Then imagine we are talking about miscegenation. I'm not really sure why I should question your misunderstanding, it's not something for me to question.
 
Celebrity said:
Ok. So just take out the "among races" part, the "between two different racial groups" part, then read the sentences.

Then imagine we are talking about miscegenation. I'm not really sure why I should question your misunderstanding, it's not something for me to question.
Click to expand...

no, no, I just meant if I misunderstood your post feel free to question further, that's all
 
Back then, America was nominally an independent country but it was still a part of the European colonial order, in which racial segregation was imposed to separate European settlers from native peoples who were meant to be subjugated. The fraternisation between the two racial groups was discouraged to keep European settlers royal to their mother countries. As they imposed colonial rule in the pre-war era, colonialists had to make a distinction between the rulers and the ruled and even the Japanese didn't mingle with the locals in their Asian colonies. As European and Asian colonies became independent in the 1950s, miscegenation laws were gradually abolished in the US in the 1960s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom