• 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!

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

The welfare of the child as a compelling state interest.

I guess poor folks can't get married cause the welfare of the child would be jeopardized wouldn't it?

I guess Mexicans can't get married here either because the welfare of the child would be jeopardized as well. And the Chinese, the Jewish, the Blacks, etc etc.

This can only be said if you do not understand my point.
I am talking about the PARTICULAR hadships of the mulatto, not the COMMON harships faces by everyone. Discussing the COMMON harships means nothing.

Alright, what particular hardships do they face that are not found in other cultures?
 
Nope. On the contrary, do you deny that poor children face particular hardships, as opposed to wealthy children?

Obviously all poor adults should be denied the ability to be married and have children to save the children from facing such hardships.
 
I find it wildly ironic that someone who believes the "state" has no business in their health care decisions, yet is some what defending the notion that the "state" has the authority to approve marriage based on potential hardships of potential offspring.
 
I find it wildly ironic that someone who believes the "state" has no business in their health care decisions, yet is some what defending the notion that the "state" has the authority to approve marriage based on potential hardships of potential offspring.

That's exactly what I was referring to. He's being deliberately obtuse in order to prove some underlying point because he thinks he's somehow punking liberals or whoever else.
 
Alright, what particular hardships do they face that are not found in other cultures?
Why dont YOU tell ME.

You, yourtself said that you faces harships particular to your status as a mulatto, so you would know better than I.
 
I find it wildly ironic that someone who believes the "state" has no business in their health care decisions, yet is some what defending the notion that the "state" has the authority to approve marriage based on potential hardships of potential offspring.
The welfare of the child is a compelling state interest that superceeds any number of other rights -- under what argument is marriage a right excluded from its control?
 
Why dont YOU tell ME.

You, yourtself said that you faces harships particular to your status as a mulatto, so you would know better than I.

I faced hardships by not being mulatto growing up. I was one of three white boys in a school of 600 students.

Should my two white parents have been denied marriage because of my potential hardships?
 
I'm Chinese American you illiterate fool.
Given that you already said you where Chinese, it should be obvious that I am using the term 'mulatto' in its more generic 'mixed race' form, you ignorant schmutz.

So, again:
Why dont YOU tell ME.

You, yourtself said that you faces harships particular to your status as a mulatto, so you would know better than I.
 
Last edited:
I faced hardships by not being mulatto growing up. I was one of three white boys in a school of 600 students.

Should my two white parents have been denied marriage because of my potential hardships?
That depends:

The welfare of the child is a compelling state interest that superceeds any number of other rights -- under what argument is marriage a right excluded from its control?
 
I faced hardships by not being mulatto growing up. I was one of three white boys in a school of 600 students.

Should my two white parents have been denied marriage because of my potential hardships?

Did you have red hair? I would beaten you up if you were one of those evil carrot tops. Damn carrot tops. J/K
 
The welfare of the child is a compelling state interest that superceeds any number of other rights -- under what argument is marriage a right excluded from its control?

News flash....

You do not have to be married to have children. The fact that you are attempting to pigeon hole state authority into citizens lives is amazingly full of ****.
 
Given tha you already said you where CHinese, it should be obvious that I am using the term 'mulatto' in its more generic 'mixed race' form, you ignorant schmutz.

Both my parents are Chinese, I'm not mixed at all. You're ignorance is showing. I'm Chinese American because I was born in the US.

Not being mulatto myself, however, I still faced particular hardships that were specific to my own culture/ethnicity. Should my parents be denied their right to get married because of this?
 
News flash....
You do not have to be married to have children. The fact that you are attempting to pigeon hole state authority into citizens lives is amazingly full of ****.
News flash:
You didnt answer the question, and therefore you have not addressed my argument.
 
Both my parents are Chinese, I'm not mixed at all. You're ignorance is showing. I'm Chinese American because I was born in the US.
Well then -- you dont have any of the "partucular" hardships I'm discussing, as they are 'particular' to mixed-race children, and as such, your experiences dont illustrate anything.
 
Did you have red hair? I would beaten you up if you were one of those evil carrot tops. Damn carrot tops. J/K
Did you decide to not try to turn this into a discussion about the 2nd amendment, or were you going to get back to that?
 
Well then -- you dont have any of the "partucular" hardships I'm discussing, as they are 'particular' to mixed-race children, and as such, your experiences dont illustrate anything.

They illustrate that hardship isn't something that's restricted to any specific type of people. Clearly, marriage shouldn't be legal because there's a possibility for hardship for the children.
 
Well then -- you dont have any of the "partucular" hardships I'm discussing, as they are 'particular' to mixed-race children, and as such, your experiences dont illustrate anything.

YOU haven't discuss any "particular" hardships at all in the first place. Why don't you actually talk about these "particular" hardships?
 
YOU haven't discuss any "particular" hardships at all in the first place. Why don't you actually talk about these "particular" hardships?
I'm sorry -- do you NOT think that mixed race kids often face promlems and issues based on their being of mixed race - issues and problems that full-race kids don't?

Seems to me like this is common knowledge. Do I also need to show you that water freezes when it gets cold?
 
That depends:

The welfare of the child is a compelling state interest that superceeds any number of other rights -- under what argument is marriage a right excluded from its control?
The mere fact that having children isn't a right granted or controlled by the government.

The theoretical hardships children may or may not face has no stance on deciding who can and cannot marry.

Do you also believe the government should be able to enforce someone from moving to a specific location, taking a specific job, or spending X amount of time away from their children because of the hardships the child may or may not incur?
 
I don't even support same-race marriage on the basis of equality.

I simply do not care if you have a 'right'. If you shouldn't do it, you shouldn't do it. If you do it anyway and it becomes a problem, I would support removing your 'right' as you apparently can't use it appropriately anyway.


Well, good thing you ain't a Supreme Court Justice, Jer.

They do actually have to make constitutional decisions you know :lol: And since the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, your caring whether or not it's there isn't important.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Keep it civil, or I'll provide additional hardships.
 
News flash:
You didnt answer the question, and therefore you have not addressed my argument.

Your question has been addressed several times, by many posters. There are no children in this particular instance. Whether or not this couple will have children is irrelevant because it is centered on a "what if" premise.

A woman should not have a tumorous ovary removed because it could cause birth defects in her "potential offspring". Therefore she should die:roll:
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry -- do you NOT think that mixed race kids often face promlems and issues based on their being of mixed race - issues and problems that full-race kids don't?

I've said this already...WHO DOESN'T???
Everyone in their own respective culture face particular hardships only their culture will face.

What is your point?

Seems to me like this is common knowledge. Do I also need to show you that water freezes when it gets cold?

Yea it is common sense, ALL people from ALL cultures face particular hardships. I guess no one can get married then huh?
 
Back
Top Bottom