• 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!

Racial discrimination is morally wrong in any context - including dating and sex

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
19,801
Reaction score
8,716
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Anti-discrimination laws regarding race exist for a simple reason: to guarantee equal opportunity and protect people from the humiliation of being rejected for something they didn’t choose and can’t change.

That principle doesn’t magically vanish when it comes to dating and sex. Racial discrimination in dating and sex is just as morally wrong as in housing or employment, because it rests on the same toxic idea: that a person’s worth is defined by their race.

Whether you say, "I won’t hire a black person" or "I won’t rent to an asian family" or "I won’t date a latino" you're doing the same thing - reducing someone’s humanity to skin color. That’s the moral failure.

These racial dating preferences often draw directly from typical racist stereotypes, which are often the same shit you'll see in labor and real estate markets.

If racism in employment and housing is wrong because it denies opportunity and harms dignity, then racism in dating is wrong for the exact same reasons. Prejudice doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s dressed up as personal preference. In fact that's how you violate anti-discrimination laws - by showing a personal preference for race.
 
Let me address a common objection:

"But I can’t help who I’m attracted to" - fine, then neither can a landlord or employer. If you don't accept 'personal preference' as a defense for racial discrimination in housing or hiring, then you shouldn't accept it in dating either.
 
Discrimination in housing may be illegal but we still talk about black and white neighborhoods as though they were the most natural thing in the world.

And the reason for DEI is because even though discrimination in hiring is illegal, most of upper management is still white.

As a black student once succinctly said to me "all we got upis the law."

I understand her point.
 
You aren't entitled to sex from anyone. You don't have to like or agree with their decision, but no means no.
 
Date who you want to. However love and economics don’t translate cleanly.
 
Yeah d e i is making demands for something that they're just isn't enough of instead of actually trying to change the demographics
j brown's body said:
As a black student once succinctly said to me "all we got upis the law."

I understand her point.
Click to expand...
I didn't understand upis I assume that's an error I can't figure out what you meant.
 
This is an entirely false equivalent. Period. Full stop.
 
CLAX1911 said:
But why are you entitled to anything else from someone else?
Click to expand...
Because society is willing to tolerate a lot more interference in the workplace than in who someone chooses to have sex with. (Similar to why we have a long list of labor regulations but a very short list of relationship regulations.) One is mostly on individuals to figure out for themselves; the other is more transactional and therefore subject to more economic regulations.

If someone is being racist in their relationships, that's on them. If someone is being racist in the workplace, that's on society.
 
What the hell are you talking about? Do you have a point somewhere in the nonsense?
 
Gatsby said:
Because society is willing to tolerate a lot more interference in the workplace than in who someone chooses to have sex with.
Click to expand...
So the lines are arbitrary
What's a workplace other than a relationship are you not free to associate.. that was in the First amendment.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So the lines are arbitrary

What's a workplace other than a relationship are you not free to associate.. that was in the First amendment.
Click to expand...
Society itself is arbitrary social construct, so of course the lines are. The same is true for money, culture, wealth, borders, economics, businesses, etc. nothing natural governs any of this beyond psychological and physical drives.
 
Last edited:
Gatsby said:
One is mostly on individuals to figure out for themselves; the other is more transactional and therefore subject to more economic regulations.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if you think romantic relationships aren't transactional, then you've never been in one.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So the lines are arbitrary
Click to expand...
Yes? So are speed limits, ages of consent, and tax laws. "Arbitrary" doesn't mean "unimportant."
CLAX1911 said:
What's a workplace other than a relationship are you not free to associate.. that was in the First amendment.
Click to expand...
Not all relationships are regulated the same, nor should they be.
 
Gatsby said:
Yes? So are speed limits, ages of consent, and tax laws. "Arbitrary" doesn't mean "unimportant."
Click to expand...
Speed limits maybe arbitrary. Age of consent maybe it is within a year or two.

But arbitrarily saying who you can in can't associate with depending on what activity you're doing is way more arbitrary
Gatsby said:
Not all relationships are regulated the same, nor should they be.
Click to expand...
Why should they be regulated?
 
Gatsby said:
Not all relationships are regulated the same, nor should they be.
Click to expand...

What criteria are you using to decide which of our personal relationships should be regulated by some dirtbag politician?
 
CLAX1911 said:
He doesn't seem to be able to nail it down.
Click to expand...
You’re never going to nail it down because society itself isn’t logical and people largely are not rational actors. It’s all negotiation between groups that have social power who often want what they want for identity reasons.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Society itself is arbitrary social construct,
Click to expand...
So sorry to use a structure by it's very nature it's not arbitrary.
Slartibartfast said:
so of course the lines are.
Click to expand...
Well after that stupid thing you said in the first part of this post I don't expect you to make any more sense
Slartibartfast said:
The same is true for money, culture, wealth, borders, economics, businesses, etc.
Click to expand...
That's not though.
Slartibartfast said:
nothing natural governs any of this beyond psychological and physical drives.
Click to expand...
So you don't think there's a moral component to law?
 
(earthly) Morality is just a social emotional drive that has been shaped by evolutionary pressure, which is why it’s so imprecise. Even that is arbitrary and is a survival function.

That imprecision in the human mind and behavior is why SCOTUS couldn’t figure out what porn was for example.
 
Are you one of those pick up artists ?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Why should they be regulated?
Click to expand...
Are you asking specifically why we should have civil rights laws in the workplace, or are you asking more generally why we should have any labor regulations whatsoever?

To answer the first part of that: Because the United States had an ugly history, within living memory of some people, of economically and systematically disadvantaging some groups based on their race or perceived race. And civil rights laws are a relatively non-intrusive way to prevent that from happening going forward.

aociswundumho said:
What criteria are you using to decide which of our personal relationships should be regulated by some dirtbag politician?
Click to expand...
Because most people consider it a lot more intrusive for the government to demand that Chad and Tyrone each get equal time to plow you, than for the government to demand that you don't write workplace job advertisements saying "Irish need not apply." If you disagree, you are welcome to run for Congress or President on a platform of "You must have sex with all races an equal amount of time," and make your case to the voters for that law.
 

The same is true about sex. If you refuse to date a man, it's simply misandry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…