Nearly Half of MS Republicans Believe Interracial Marriage Should be Illegal

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I couldn't imagine myself marrying a woman outside of my own race. I have nothing against them at all, but the cultural differences that are very likely to be present will make it difficult for me to really connect with them. Some races more than others.

Wasdie

It's actually quite a common thing where people would not be comfortable marrying outside of their race.

Not saying it doesn't happen, im just saying the truth. I would rather understand my own thoughts than trying to live to some "perfect" human that is dreamed up in an online fantasy.

I'm using race as kind of a vessile for culture. I would have a very hard time marrying somebody from the south or who was raised in a major city on the coasts. I can't see myself connecting with that culture.

This is why I was surprised by your previous statement.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

:lol:

My lord, how can people really believe this much in the mostly superficial dichotomy between republicans and democrats?

Rhazakna

Not that hard to understand.

Just like republicans are more in favor of a free market; freedom from businesses being interfered with by the state. Republians are generally more in favor of market freedom than Democrats.

Wow, I can't even believe that would be a question they would ask. I had no idea anyone was out there trying to get that outlawed. To me, it's more natural to be attracted to someone of another race than your own, because that creates variation in a population. However, I have first-hand experience wen I say the south is still a bit racist. I'm from Texas (which isn't really as bad as the rest of the south), but for 4 years I lived in a small liberal Colorado town where the only black person was my adopted sister. So there was obviously no racial tension there. So when I recently moved to Georgia, I was appauled when a black girl asked me at my school if my parentslet me date girls that aren't white. I couldn't believe a city that's like 40% white, 40% black, and 20% latino, could still be racist...mind boggling. I really want to get out of the south...

[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Wow, and people wonder why same-sex marriage is so hard to pass in this country.James161324

This, its dumb they can't marry in the first place, last time i check all americians are guranteed equal rights.

Banning gay marriage isn't restricting gay rights anymore than it is straight rights, it's just that gays are more affected by it.

I personally believe that same sex marriage IS a right, but not everyone agrees.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="jaydough"] In case you're not joking, democrats are more socially liberal than republicans. Being socially liberal is about individual freedom.

Not that hard to understand.

jaydough

Just like republicans are more in favor of a free market; freedom from businesses being interfered with by the state. Republians are generally more in favor of market freedom than Democrats.

Wonder what the registered democrats in the state of mississippi think of interracial marriage.

sonicare

And as a person who has not been, or knows anything about mississippi, I can plainly tell that it is awful.

I've been chatting with republicans all day and thus not surprised in the least. They seem to think I will score political points if I get them to say that demand creates jobs.

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Wow, and people wonder why same-sex marriage is so hard to pass in this country.jaydough

This, its dumb they can't marry in the first place, last time i check all americians are guranteed equal rights.

Banning gay marriage isn't restricting gay rights anymore than it is straight rights, it's just that gays are more affected by it.

I personally believe that same sex marriage IS a right, but not everyone agrees.

Banning gay marriage, is suppressing a right that every other citizen has. The right to marry who ever they wish. So if you think same sex marrige shouldn't exist, should there be no inter-racial marrige.

So you define individual freedom by negative rights? Many people would argue that economic and social freedoms shouldn't be separated. The TC thinks all sorts positive state-granted rights fall under "individual freedom". See, it's subjective. Freedom, individual freedom, collective freedom, all subjective.Rhazakna

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="jaydough"] As I said, freedom is subjective. Are you talking about negative rights or positive rights? Or some sort of balance? If there's a balance, which take precedence in what areas? The concept of freedom is far more complex than " democrats are more socially liberal than republicans. Being socially liberal is about individual freedom."jaydough

Just like republicans are more in favor of a free market; freedom from businesses being interfered with by the state. Republians are generally more in favor of market freedom than Democrats.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]

This, its dumb they can't marry in the first place, last time i check all americians are guranteed equal rights.

James161324

Banning gay marriage isn't restricting gay rights anymore than it is straight rights, it's just that gays are more affected by it.

I personally believe that same sex marriage IS a right, but not everyone agrees.

Banning gay marriage, is suppressing a right that every other citizen has. The right to marry who ever they wish. So if you think same sex marrige shouldn't exist, should there be no inter-racial marrige.

As I said, I am against a ban on gay marriage.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]So you define individual freedom by negative rights? Many people would argue that economic and social freedoms shouldn't be separated. The TC thinks all sorts positive state-granted rights fall under "individual freedom". See, it's subjective. Freedom, individual freedom, collective freedom, all subjective.jaydough

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] We're not talking about freedom in general, we're talking about individual freedom; individual rights not being oppressed by the state. In that case, democrats are generally more in favor of it than republicans.

Just like republicans are more in favor of a free market; freedom from businesses being interfered with by the state. Republians are generally more in favor of market freedom than Democrats.

Rhazakna

What does, is the republicans' advocation of deregulation of the private sector, vs. the democrats' advocation of increased regulation of the private sector.

ie: Republicans favor free trade, Democrats favor fair trade, irrespective of their fiscal policy.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="jaydough"] So you define individual freedom by negative rights? Many people would argue that economic and social freedoms shouldn't be separated. The TC thinks all sorts positive state-granted rights fall under "individual freedom". See, it's subjective. Freedom, individual freedom, collective freedom, all subjective.jaydough

What does, is the republicans' advocation of deregulation of the private sector, vs. the democrats' advocation of increased regulation of the private sector.

ie: Republicans favor free trade, Democrats favor fair trade, irrespective of their fiscal policy.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]So you define individual freedom by negative rights? Many people would argue that economic and social freedoms shouldn't be separated. The TC thinks all sorts positive state-granted rights fall under "individual freedom". See, it's subjective. Freedom, individual freedom, collective freedom, all subjective.Rhazakna

Republicans talk a big game about deregulation, but any controls they remove don't free up the economy. Real deregulation would be to get rid of corporate subsidy (which republicans love), get rid of barriers to entry (republicans hate it when massive corporations have to compete), abolishing corporate personhood and all sorts of other things reps will never do. The actual economic policies of the two parties don't differ too much. The architect of Reaganomics was a Clinton supporter. BOth parties are a mix of supply-side and Keynesian economics. Also free trade agreements have nothing to do with the free market.Rhazakna

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"] Playing devil's advocate here. It's completely about equal rights, it's about whether or not same sex marriage is a right.

Banning gay marriage isn't restricting gay rights anymore than it is straight rights, it's just that gays are more affected by it.

I personally believe that same sex marriage IS a right, but not everyone agrees.

jaydough

Banning gay marriage, is suppressing a right that every other citizen has. The right to marry who ever they wish. So if you think same sex marrige shouldn't exist, should there be no inter-racial marrige.

As I said, I am against a ban on gay marriage.

But should the views of a sexuality be suppressed, Even though it stripped for all, it is targete at to discriminate toward homosexually.

It would be for say you can't praticeislam in the USA, well it may be a supressed for all, its is target at a group of people.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]

Banning gay marriage, is suppressing a right that every other citizen has. The right to marry who ever they wish. So if you think same sex marrige shouldn't exist, should there be no inter-racial marrige.

James161324

As I said, I am against a ban on gay marriage.

But should the views of a sexuality be suppressed, Even though it stripped for all, it is targete at to discriminate toward homosexually.

It would be for say you can't praticeislam in the USA, well it may be a supressed for all, its is target at a group of people.

This is a good point. I conceed.jaydough

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"] Suppressing everyone's rights equally. Both groups still have equal rights (both can marry hetrosexually, neither can marry homosexually) but both are also having their rights stripped away.

As I said, I am against a ban on gay marriage.

jaydough

But should the views of a sexuality be suppressed, Even though it stripped for all, it is targete at to discriminate toward homosexually.

It would be for say you can't praticeislam in the USA, well it may be a supressed for all, its is target at a group of people.

Nice debate sir

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"] Suppressing everyone's rights equally. Both groups still have equal rights (both can marry hetrosexually, neither can marry homosexually) but both are also having their rights stripped away.

As I said, I am against a ban on gay marriage.

jaydough

But should the views of a sexuality be suppressed, Even though it stripped for all, it is targete at to discriminate toward homosexually.

It would be for say you can't praticeislam in the USA, well it may be a supressed for all, its is target at a group of people.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="jaydough"] He was NOT saying that at all. He was defining nationalized healthcare, a minimum wage, unions with state power, and wage laws as individual freedoms. None of these things are negative rights. In fact the only thing he listed that can be said to unequivocally be a negative right is freedom from religion. All the rest were either clearly positive rights or things that could be construed as such. jaydough

Democrats generally support:

Marriage equality (and equal rights for lgbt citizens in general)

Freedom of religious expression (particularly for Muslims)

Equal pay for women in the workforce

Union rights

Are you saying Republicans generally support these too?

Theokhoth

This is how he responded to my skepticism toward his claim about democrats and individual freedom. He was clearly saying that these policies were indicative of democrats supporting individual freedoms. He was not talking about negative rights, most of what he listed in both posts are positive rights.

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"] Suppressing everyone's rights equally. Both groups still have equal rights (both can marry hetrosexually, neither can marry homosexually) but both are also having their rights stripped away.

As I said, I am against a ban on gay marriage.

jaydough

But should the views of a sexuality be suppressed, Even though it stripped for all, it is targete at to discriminate toward homosexually.

It would be for say you can't praticeislam in the USA, well it may be a supressed for all, its is target at a group of people.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Republicans talk a big game about deregulation, but any controls they remove don't free up the economy. Real deregulation would be to get rid of corporate subsidy (which republicans love), get rid of barriers to entry (republicans hate it when massive corporations have to compete), abolishing corporate personhood and all sorts of other things reps will never do. The actual economic policies of the two parties don't differ too much. The architect of Reaganomics was a Clinton supporter. BOth parties are a mix of supply-side and Keynesian economics. Also free trade agreements have nothing to do with the free market.jaydough

This is how he responded to my skepticism toward his claim about democrats and individual freedom. He was clearly saying that these policies were indicative of democrats supporting individual freedoms. He was not talking about negative rights, most of what he listed in both posts are positive rights.

Rhazakna

• Theo is wrong in his justification, but not wrong in the post quoted
• The concept of individual rights is subjective, but only to a certain extent.
  • In general, yeah, it's s*** like the right to marry whoever, or to vote for whatever and whathaveyou
• It's OP, not TC.

There we go. Correct what you will.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Republicans talk a big game about deregulation, but any controls they remove don't free up the economy. Real deregulation would be to get rid of corporate subsidy (which republicans love), get rid of barriers to entry (republicans hate it when massive corporations have to compete), abolishing corporate personhood and all sorts of other things reps will never do. The actual economic policies of the two parties don't differ too much. The architect of Reaganomics was a Clinton supporter. BOth parties are a mix of supply-side and Keynesian economics. Also free trade agreements have nothing to do with the free market.Rhazakna

Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!

Hmm, I would have thought that the percent would be higher 'nearly half'. Like another poster implied, I think we should have just let them secede while we had the chance.

Lol, Just lets u see what conservatives want to conserve.

I had a post here that said that we should look on the flipside and that the silver lining was that at the very least a little over half of the "hardcore" republicans disagree with making interracial marriage illegal.

....

And then I scrolled down to find that only 40% agrees in the legality of interracial marriage and 14% were not sure. Consider me dissapointed. The 14% unsure number actually surprises me for some reason.

Not surprising

I think it should be mandatory. I think the world would be a better place if all the races mixed and everyone was a bit brown.

Why is the USA, or even where I live now... Why are the people so obsessed with banning things/people?

Why is the USA, or even where I live now... Why are the people so obsessed with banning things/people?

KungfuKitten

I am thinking this might be part of some new-age movement to distance ourselves from those silly, outdated values our founding fathers had like "freedom"...

But!.!.!. Asians are attractive! (Or can be) More so than caucasians.

68% of them are 46 and older......

Wow, they surveyed a WHOLE 400 people?

Wow, they surveyed a WHOLE 400 people?

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Wow, they surveyed a WHOLE 400 people?

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Wow, they surveyed a WHOLE 400 people?

HoolaHoopMan

edit: wait this is only for mississippi, even still 400 samplefor 3,000,000 population.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Wow, they surveyed a WHOLE 400 people?

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Wow, they surveyed a WHOLE 400 people?

HoolaHoopMan

And that is why I don't vote for Republicans who run based on "social conservatism"

How hard is it to stay out of other peoples lives? :|