Intermarriage incentive program: let's breed out the races!

[DiveCon]

You're suggesting breeding out separate gene pools. That's genocide.

And giving financial incentives to poor young women to have babies with men of another color is prostitution, which is the same thing as rape, and to the end of genocide.

ah, i dont aagree with his premise, but you have what he said all twisted
he wasnt for forcing anyone to do anything
nor was he for paying woman to do anything
its a stupid idea, but not what you are claiming it to be

 

[RadiomanATL]

Think about this. For centuries, the Chinese absorbed minority races into their culture through interracial marriage. So, in the spirit of equality, why shouldn't the government offer something like tax credits for new interracial couples (and their children)? As the headline states, the long-term goal would be for nearly all the citizenry to have about the same genetic percentages of the different groups that live here today: in other words, no races.

Many parts of this country fought hard to legalize interracial marriages. Perhaps it's time to take that path to its ultimate conclusion.

Well, first off because the government should have zero influence into why or who you decide to marry. Secondly because myself and my children and grandchildren don't like the idea of footing the bill for the government to try and do so.

Any other questions?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Is that supposed to pass for a reasoned defense of your proposal?

Why should I spend time on a reasoned defense to a one-word ad homimem attack?

Just to help you out here, the post you are referring to (and which you previously quoted) is neither one word, nor an ad hominem attack.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Well, first off because the government should have zero influence into why or who you decide to marry. Secondly because myself and my children and grandchildren don't like the idea of footing the bill for the government to try and do so.

Any other questions?

Yeah. So I guess you're against all the various Bible belt states' having adopted those gay marriage bans?

Just to help you out here, the post you are referring to (and which you previously quoted) is neither one word, nor an ad hominem attack.

Well, since I elicited a more reasoned argument from my oppponent when I asked the question, your point has long since been moot.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yeah. So I guess you're against all the various Bible belt states' having adopted those gay marriage bans?

Damn skippy. It's none of the governments business. I say the government should get out of the business of "marriage" altogether and go strictly with the term "civil unions". Since it seems that the bible thumpers main objection is actual use of the word "marriage". That should shut them up. The church marries, the government just recognizes civil unions for the purposes of the tax code.

Not quite the answer you were expecting, was it?

Just to help you out here, the post you are referring to (and which you previously quoted) is neither one word, nor an ad hominem attack.

Well, since I elicited a more reasoned argument from my oppponent when I asked the question, your point has long since been moot.

Thats fine. But the point was not wrong.

 

[52ndStreet]

What you have just stated Miss, makes no sense. How do you preserve black culture ,by
mixing your Black or brown genes with someone form another race.?
You preserve black culture by marrying another Black or Beown person. Not by mixing your
genes with a non black person.! You are not making any sense Miss, your statment is illogical!! to say the least. And I do hang around a lot of educated blacks who by the way have the same opinions that I have about preserving the Black race, by marrying other Blacks only!!

You can still have sense of black culture without being black. like i said my mom is biracial but she still has a sense of black culture.

you have to have two black parents to keep to your black heritage.

what you are saying makes no sense.

so are you saying by marrying a person of a another race you are destroying black culture?

and i believe anyone who believes that you should only marry within your race isn't very educated at all.

What you are saying then is that we black people can still have a culture with a caucasian European culture partner, given the fact of slavery, and the racism we as a people are still
subjected to. Well there black people that still prefer to have two black parents,and would view your suggestion as destructive to the Black race by its very inclusion of someone
from the enslaver European race. deabate your premise with any Educated Black , they
will not agree with what you are suggesting.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Yeah. So I guess you're against all the various Bible belt states' having adopted those gay marriage bans?

Damn skippy. It's none of the governments business. I say the government should get out of the business of "marriage" altogether and go strictly with the term "civil unions". Since it seems that the bible thumpers main objection is actual use of the word "marriage". That should shut them up. The church marries, the government just recognizes civil unions for the purposes of the tax code.

Not quite the answer you were expecting, was it?

You mean a poorly thought through one? You didn't disappoint.

You said in so many words that you don't want to foot the bill for the government to be involved in marriage: so how is it any better to have them involved in "civil unions?" Administering the tax code still costs money.

 

[nia588]

What you have just stated Miss, makes no sense. How do you preserve black culture ,by
mixing your Black or brown genes with someone form another race.?
You preserve black culture by marrying another Black or Beown person. Not by mixing your
genes with a non black person.! You are not making any sense Miss, your statment is illogical!! to say the least. And I do hang around a lot of educated blacks who by the way have the same opinions that I have about preserving the Black race, by marrying other Blacks only!!

You can still have sense of black culture without being black. like i said my mom is biracial but she still has a sense of black culture.

you have to have two black parents to keep to your black heritage.

what you are saying makes no sense.

so are you saying by marrying a person of a another race you are destroying black culture?

and i believe anyone who believes that you should only marry within your race isn't very educated at all.

What you are saying then is that we black people can still have a culture with a caucasian European culture partner, given the fact of slavery, and the racism we as a people are still
subjected to. Well there black people that still prefer to have two black parents,and would view your suggestion as destructive to the Black race by its very inclusion of someone
from the enslaver European race. deabate your premise with any Educated Black , they
will not agree with what you are suggesting.

but the thing is that Caucasian partner didn't enslave anybody. it was their ancestors. and not all white people back then owned slaves. there were many whites back then who didn't agree with slavery. and as from racism, there is racism from both sides. there are racist white people out there but there are just as many racist black people out there.
secondly the only enslavement blacks face today is by their own doing. there are so many opportunities out there for blacks. it's just that many blacks (in particularly young black men) do not take advantage of them.

I am a black woman and proud to be one. By me or anyone marrying a white man or a Hispanic man or an Asian man is not being destructive to the black race. What is destructive is such ignorant ideologies which says that one must marry inside their own race to keep black culture going.

why even bring up slavery. slavery is over. this the problem with too many black people. they keep on dwelling on slavery. or using as an excuse on why they can't do well in life. when none of them were not even slaves themselves.

slavery is over my brother. stop using it as an excuse or a way to slander whites.

 

[52ndStreet]

You can still have sense of black culture without being black. like i said my mom is biracial but she still has a sense of black culture.

you have to have two black parents to keep to your black heritage.

what you are saying makes no sense.

so are you saying by marrying a person of a another race you are destroying black culture?

and i believe anyone who believes that you should only marry within your race isn't very educated at all.

What you are saying then is that we black people can still have a culture with a caucasian European culture partner, given the fact of slavery, and the racism we as a people are still
subjected to. Well there black people that still prefer to have two black parents,and would view your suggestion as destructive to the Black race by its very inclusion of someone
from the enslaver European race. deabate your premise with any Educated Black , they
will not agree with what you are suggesting.

but the thing is that Caucasian partner didn't enslave anybody. it was their ancestors. and not all white people back then owned slaves. there were many whites back then who didn't agree with slavery. and as from racism, there is racism from both sides. there are racist white people out there but there are just as many racist black people out there.
secondly the only enslavement blacks face today is by their own doing. there are so many opportunities out there for blacks. it's just that many blacks (in particularly young black men) do not take advantage of them.

I am a black woman and proud to be one. By me or anyone marrying a white man or a Hispanic man or an Asian man is not being destructive to the black race. What is destructive is such ignorant ideologies which says that one must marry inside their own race to keep black culture going.

why even bring up slavery. slavery is over. this the problem with too many black people. they keep on dwelling on slavery. or using as an excuse on why they can't do well in life. when none of them were not even slaves themselves.

slavery is over my brother. stop using it as an excuse or a way to slander whites.

Slavery may be over, but the slave master system is still place, where White CEO's
Get Million dollar bonuses, in harsh economic times and Blacks and hispanics and other minorites make up a
higer percentage of the nations unemployment satistics, and are the first ones fired.
What you and a lot of other modern societal brainwashed Black women fail to see,
is how the White male power system, can fool you , and seduce you into his bedroom,
and making you feel that everything is o.k., and how you should abandon your race , and
have a beige baby,or that your own men are not good enough for you. You do not want to see the truth out there, or refuse to accept the facts, with a sugar coated madison ave
attitude, that we are all the same , and race doesn't matter any more.Well miss ,Race matters, weather you want to belive it or not. One day in the Future will realize that I am
right. America may be headed for some more LA type Riots then you will be caught out there on the wrong side of town sister, you and many like you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah. So I guess you're against all the various Bible belt states' having adopted those gay marriage bans?

Damn skippy. It's none of the governments business. I say the government should get out of the business of "marriage" altogether and go strictly with the term "civil unions". Since it seems that the bible thumpers main objection is actual use of the word "marriage". That should shut them up. The church marries, the government just recognizes civil unions for the purposes of the tax code.

Not quite the answer you were expecting, was it?

Just to help you out here, the post you are referring to (and which you previously quoted) is neither one word, nor an ad hominem attack.

Well, since I elicited a more reasoned argument from my oppponent when I asked the question, your point has long since been moot.

Thats fine. But the point was not wrong.

Civil union would be fine. The problem and the fear of the so-called bible thumpers is the government would then declare it a violation of human rights to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Which is a violation of everything our constitution stands for...namely, that the state cannot dictate religion.

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah. So I guess you're against all the various Bible belt states' having adopted those gay marriage bans?

Damn skippy. It's none of the governments business. I say the government should get out of the business of "marriage" altogether and go strictly with the term "civil unions". Since it seems that the bible thumpers main objection is actual use of the word "marriage". That should shut them up. The church marries, the government just recognizes civil unions for the purposes of the tax code.

Not quite the answer you were expecting, was it?

Well, since I elicited a more reasoned argument from my oppponent when I asked the question, your point has long since been moot.

Thats fine. But the point was not wrong.

Civil union would be fine. The problem and the fear of the so-called bible thumpers is the government would then declare it a violation of human rights to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Which is a violation of everything our constitution stands for...namely, that the state cannot dictate religion.

not with his plan(which has been my plan for years)
the government would be completely out of the marriage business
since it would be completely a religious experience and have no government bennefits or penalties

 

[alan1]

Think about this. For centuries, the Chinese absorbed minority races into their culture through interracial marriage. So, in the spirit of equality, why shouldn't the government offer something like tax credits for new interracial couples (and their children)? As the headline states, the long-term goal would be for nearly all the citizenry to have about the same genetic percentages of the different groups that live here today: in other words, no races.

Many parts of this country fought hard to legalize interracial marriages. Perhaps it's time to take that path to its ultimate conclusion.

This has got to be one of the most incredibly stupid ideas I have ever heard of.
The government has no business getting involved in marriage at all.
The government has no right to try and social engineer race.

You are far from centrist if you advocate either one of those, especially at the expense of somebody else. Let me remind you of something, the government cannot give money to anybody without first taking it from somebody else.
You are a hardcore leftist socialist, not a centrist at all.

 

[AllieBaba]

Damn skippy. It's none of the governments business. I say the government should get out of the business of "marriage" altogether and go strictly with the term "civil unions". Since it seems that the bible thumpers main objection is actual use of the word "marriage". That should shut them up. The church marries, the government just recognizes civil unions for the purposes of the tax code.

Not quite the answer you were expecting, was it?



Thats fine. But the point was not wrong.

Civil union would be fine. The problem and the fear of the so-called bible thumpers is the government would then declare it a violation of human rights to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Which is a violation of everything our constitution stands for...namely, that the state cannot dictate religion.

not with his plan(which has been my plan for years)
the government would be completely out of the marriage business
since it would be completely a religious experience and have no government bennefits or penalties

That would be great, but not likely to ever happen, without a major overhaul of record keeping. The main reason the gov't is involved in marriage now is in order to track the population, as in determine who is the offspring of whom etc.

 

[DiveCon]

Civil union would be fine. The problem and the fear of the so-called bible thumpers is the government would then declare it a violation of human rights to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Which is a violation of everything our constitution stands for...namely, that the state cannot dictate religion.

not with his plan(which has been my plan for years)
the government would be completely out of the marriage business
since it would be completely a religious experience and have no government bennefits or penalties

That would be great, but not likely to ever happen, without a major overhaul of record keeping. The main reason the gov't is involved in marriage now is in order to track the population, as in determine who is the offspring of whom etc.

that would be under civil unions

 

[Missourian]

The homosexual agendists would never go for it, just like they don't go for civil unions now. It's the title "married" they're after.

Is agendist a word? I don't think so, but it conveys my meaning so well.

 

[DiveCon]

The homosexual agendists would never go for it, just like they don't go for civil unions now. It's the title "married" they're after.

Is agendist a word? I don't think so, but it conveys my meaning so well.

there are churches that do gay weddings now
as well as non-christian religions

 

[AllieBaba]

Sure, and that's their choice. The minute the gov't starts dictating what they can and can't do is the moment we are no longer America.

 

[Anguille]

why shouldn't the government offer something like tax credits for new interracial couples (and their children)?

The government should not be giving anyone any more incentives to have children.

 

[William Joyce]

To make this interesting, make sure Jews are included in the "breed out" plan. Then wait to see if they participate.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yeah. So I guess you're against all the various Bible belt states' having adopted those gay marriage bans?

Damn skippy. It's none of the governments business. I say the government should get out of the business of "marriage" altogether and go strictly with the term "civil unions". Since it seems that the bible thumpers main objection is actual use of the word "marriage". That should shut them up. The church marries, the government just recognizes civil unions for the purposes of the tax code.

Not quite the answer you were expecting, was it?

You mean a poorly thought through one? You didn't disappoint.

You said in so many words that you don't want to foot the bill for the government to be involved in marriage: so how is it any better to have them involved in "civil unions?" Administering the tax code still costs money.

No, thats not what I said at all. Try again. I'll even repeat my position:

It's none of the governments business. I say the government should get out of the business of "marriage" altogether and go strictly with the term "civil unions". Since it seems that the bible thumpers main objection is actual use of the word "marriage". That should shut them up. The church marries, the government just recognizes civil unions for the purposes of the tax code.

My objection is not to any perceived cost (since that is at best negligible.). My objection is that I have no objection. Get "married" or "civil unionized". It's none of the damn governments business who you stick your willy in to, as long as they are of age.