• 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
I just thought I would ask. It seems some people here are not comfortable with interracial couples, and I was curious how common the attitude is..

Sure, as long as they bring their own towels like everyone else.
 
By the way, I raised two of my own children and two step children, you are wrong on many levels.

There are many topics being discussed on this board and I don't participate in the majority of those topics because I can't speak intelligently on the subject matter. When I do participate and when I do make statements, I do so because I know what I'm talking about:

This most severe category of child maltreatment exhibits Cinderella effects of the greatest magnitude: in several countries, stepparents beat very young children to death at per capita rates that are more than 100 times higher than the corresponding rates for genetic parents.

The most thorough analyses are for Canada, where data in a national archive of all homicides known to police indicate that children under 5 years of age were beaten to death by their putative genetic fathers at a rate of 2.6 deaths per million child-years at risk (residing with their fathers) in 1974-1990, while the corresponding rate for stepfathers was over 120 times greater at 321.6 deaths per million child-years at risk (Daly & Wilson 2001).​
 
I am so impressed. You are trying to use step children statistics when trying to tell me about mixed race children. You not only not know what you are talking about, you dont even know what you are saying.
 
I am so impressed. You are trying to use step children statistics when trying to tell me about mixed race children.

Do you think that race is disconnected from the concepts of genetics and families? A race is really an extension of an extended family that has inbred over time. This means that the kinship you feel to your child is diluted as we move away from the family, step by step. Most people feel some greater level of kinship to their cousin than to a total stranger. And so on. Do I need to repeat what I've already written?
 
Please dont. At one point we were all of one family, oh wait, we still are.
 
Please dont. At one point we were all of one family, oh wait, we still are.

And yet here you are, on a computer using a paid internet connection to discuss issues with me while your sons and daughters in Africa are being starved to death. Why don't you sell your house and car and save those children?

If my daughters were starving, I'd sell every damn possession I own to put food in their bellies. My every waking moment would be filled with torment as I saw their suffering.

Why aren't you helping your family?
 

I am not seeking to destroy anything at all. It's the direction that we will move toward by nature. People are attracted by differences, not sameness, which is one of the reasons we see an increase in interracial mixes nowadays. Not only are they more socially acceptable and accessible- they are also natural.

It makes no difference to me that you want to hang on tooth and nail to whatever makes you more comfortable, but when it comes to love and attraction, people don't base it on good genetic pairing. It's a much more spontaneous act than that.
 

Yes, Enoch, what you seem to be missing is choice.

No matter what you want (and you seem to be holding onto racial divisions like it was a religion, n.b. religion also on the way out), people will do what they want.

Unless you favour dictatorship, which wouldn't be an huge surprise, tbh.
 
Perhaps you are right on this one point. I suppose I could be a better man.
 
I'm open. I've never dated a black woman, but I've been with Asian and Latina women. If a woman has what I want, skin color doesn't blip on my radar.

But you mind mixed race couples?

Don't even answer, it's too confusing to follow.
 
I am not seeking to destroy anything at all. It's the direction that we will move toward by nature. People are attracted by differences, not sameness, which is one of the reasons we see an increase in interracial mixes nowadays.

Stating things which are not true, doesn't make them true. This sure doesn't look like people are naturally inclined to favor differences:

 
ROFL...yeah, it's just whites. That must get a good laugh at the Panther rally.

Blacks, Asians, Latinos...they're not at all like that. It's whites. Good one, "G".

First of all not all whites are a part of the KKK. Matter of fact most are not. Contrary to the notion that you have put forward, I would speculate that most whites don't have a problem with mixed race children. Now perhaps you and the type of white people you hang out with have a problem with it, but if that's so, again it begs the question why wouldn't you accept mixed race children at the dinner table?
 
I have dated blacks, Asians, whites and Hispanics.

Wound up marrying a Mexican gal.

Not a problem with it at all.
 
If any American politician won 80% of the vote, it would be considered a landslide, the second coming, a mandate.

20% doesn't qualify as "lots" in my book.

I think 20 percent is "lots." What if 20 percent of the bridges you drove across collapsed? Wouldn't that be a lot?
 
I grew up in an area that even in the 70's had an overt Klan presence, I remember when people I knew would get all worked up about a black person being in our town and talk about violence when they seen a black guy and white girl. I think I graduated before the first black kid entered our school system. After all this time it is kinda shocking to talk to a racial purist. I guess I had hoped...
 
Stating things which are not true, doesn't make them true. This sure doesn't look like people are naturally inclined to favor differences:


LMAO....strangely that image seems to be linked to Stormfront? This is desperate stuff.
 
It is absolutely creepy.
LMAO....strangely that image seems to be linked to Stormfront? This is desperate stuff.
 
Stating things which are not true, doesn't make them true. This sure doesn't look like people are naturally inclined to favor differences:


Where did those numbers come from?

One thing I don't understand about them. What does "N" stand for? Is it the number of people? So in the white women category there is an item called "States a Preference." Does "N = 717" mean that there were 717 white women that stated that they had a preference? If so what does the "N = 519" under "AMONG THOSE WITH A PREFERENCE" mean? Why is there a difference in the two numbers. Does it mean that the remaining 198 of those that had a preference didn't state what the preference was. If 72.6 percent of the women had a preference that means that they asked 988 women. That means that 469 of the white women either don't have a preference or didn't state what the preference was. That means that 47 percent of the white women that they asked either didn't have a preference or it's not known what there preference was.

Going further, to be more accurate, if 64.3 percent of the 519 that had a preference preferred whites only, that would mean 334 of the 988 women that they asked preferred white only. So that means that 33.8 percent of the women that they asked preferred whites only.

Therefore what your statistics seem to indicate, if they are accurate, is that 33.8 percent of white women prefer whites only.
 
Thing is that people who don't know a damn thing about statistics start throwing up numbers. Then you start to ask them serious questions about what they have put forward and they can't answer. Then they want you to believe it without question. It's just as bad as talking to a religious fanatic.
 
Lots of fundamentalist Christians still think this way, even though most of them know better than to open their mouths on it.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Nor do you have a poll to back up your worthless claims.
 
Therefore what your statistics seem to indicate, if they are accurate, is that 33.8 percent of white women prefer whites only.

Your analysis is sound. What this study tells us is really quite restricted - of those people who WILL state a preference, this is how matters fall out. What these study participants have done is known as "Expressed Preferences" but we know from research and even from how we all live life that there is often quite a big difference between what we say and what we do and this disparity between what is said and what is done is largest when the issue is sensitive or there is a "politically correct" position.

For instance, a woman might well say "I would date a black man and I would judge his suitability on his personality and not on race." Over the course of many introductions to black men she never manages to find one who meets her suitability criteria while meeting many white men who she does date. What's going on? We don't even have to assume that she's lying about her position, she might well believe it because she wants to think of herself as that kind of person. Her actions though tell a different story.

Issues like this can be looked at from a number of different levels. I'm surprised that so many people in that survey actually did reveal preferences and state exclusions because those are very politically incorrect positions to declare.

This OK Cupid data takes us one step up the ladder - now we're looking at actions. These aren't dates between people, just women responding to men, but already we're seeing differences starting to emerge:

 

Are you talking about me?
 
This bland


Gordon Bennett!!!

Who is that?

She looks amazing.


EDIT - MAN...the internet is SO cool.

I just highlighted her pic, Google searched for it and came up with a name.

It's Jasmine Sanders, btw.
 
Last edited:
As sad as I find these race polls...they always are good for a laugh as many real dunderdales (read - racist people) show themselves, whether they realize it or not.
 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…