• 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

Gatsby said:
You are the one who keeps equating "arbitrary" to "pointless". Not me. Most, if not all, laws are arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Then why do you go into diatribe explaining how they aren't arbitrary.
Gatsby said:
I have no idea why you are obsessed with the law being "arbitrary."
Click to expand...
I just suggested it was and you agreed and proceeded to explain how it isn't arbitrary.
Gatsby said:
As though everyone who supports civil rights laws is going to change their mind if only you can show them that the law could have been some other way.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone that supports it thinks it's arbitrary. I think they believe there is a historical component where people were treated as second class citizens.

Did you such treatments were not actually because everybody was racist and didn't like black people? It's was legally required that businesses segregate. Jim Crow laws were laws. The civil rights movement was about suspending a law.
 
I would agree but also add romantic relationships aren’t just purely transactional now.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Then why do you go into diatribe explaining how they aren't arbitrary.

I just suggested it was and you agreed and proceeded to explain how it isn't arbitrary.
Click to expand...
At no point in this entire thread have I ever said that the law is not arbitrary. And in fact, I have stated that most if not all laws, including this one, are arbitrary. So I have no idea why you keep going down this rabbit hole. It's a dead end.

CLAX1911 said:
I don't think anyone that supports it thinks it's arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Well at least two people in this thread who support civil rights laws have stated flat-out that they are arbitrary, and that we are OK with that.
CLAX1911 said:
I think they believe there is a historical component where people were treated as second class citizens.
Click to expand...
Correct.
CLAX1911 said:
Did you such treatments were not actually because everybody was racist and didn't like black people? It's was legally required that businesses segregate. Jim Crow laws were laws. The civil rights movement was about suspending a law.
Click to expand...
I think segregation is bad, but ymmv.
 
This has got to be the lamest post you have ever come up with.
aociswundumho said:
What criteria are you using to decide which of our personal relationships should be regulated by some dirtbag politician?
Click to expand...
So you got no problem with child porn?

That makes sense, coming from someone who thinks doctors shouldn't have to go to medical school.

Tell you what:
Watch this video and tell me what you think of the white bitch.

 
Gatsby said:
At no point in this entire thread have I ever said that the law is not arbitrary.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm confused. You say it's arbitrary and then explain why it's not. It's a bit self contradictory
Gatsby said:
And in fact, I have stated that most if not all laws, including this one, are arbitrary.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with you. They aren't normally laws go through a long process of ratification to make sure they serve a purpose
Gatsby said:
So I have no idea why you keep going down this rabbit hole. It's a dead end.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with you.
Gatsby said:
Well at least two people in this thread who support civil rights laws have stated flat-out that they are arbitrary, and that we are OK with that.
Click to expand...
Then why would they exist? Why not laws about howling at the moon or shaving your left testicle?
Gatsby said:
Correct.

I think segregation is bad, but ymmv.
Click to expand...
you do understand convicted pedophiles are segregated from jobs involving children. That's bad?
 
You seem to be confused about what "arbitrary" means if you think it means "purposeless."
 

That obviously isn't what I was talking about.

All I'm saying is reciprocity is a key part of all relationships, including personal, professional, and work relationships.

BirdinHand said:
So what, exactly, is your complaint that in PERSONAL relationships, in 2025…people get the CHOICE as to whom they do/do not engage in romantic relationships with?
Click to expand...

I support freedom of association in every context, unlike you.

I also believe racial discrimination is morally wrong in every context, unlike you.
 
Gatsby said:
You seem to be confused about what "arbitrary" means if you think it means "purposeless."
Click to expand...
Yeah it's like I know what the word means

arbitrary
adjective
ar·bi·trary ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē -ˌtre-rē
Synonyms of arbitrary
1
a
: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will
 
aociswundumho said:
That obviously isn't what I was talking about
Click to expand...
No, of course not.

You want to deny the reality of history and all that has been overcome in order for people to have the CHOICE in their personal relationships that they have today.

In fact, in parts of the world - many people STILL do not have that choice.

You ignore that to complain that what? You don’t agree with their choices?
 
But you do not believe this thing you believe is morally wrong should be outlawed in any circumstances. SMH.
 
The general rule of thumb is that the government can infringe on individual rights only if there is a compelling reason to do so. The government does have a compelling reason to see to it that its citizens have access to necessities such as employment, housing, education, etc. That's what justifies infringing on the rights of an employer, a landlord, or an educator.
Dating based on race may be just as racist as hiring based on race. But there is no compelling reason (that I know of) for the government to involve itself in your dating choices even if they are discriminatory.
 
What about when it comes to diagnosing Sickle Cell Disease? Seems some discrimination is more acceptable than others, the same way we still have separate bathrooms for men and women, but not separate bathrooms for whites and blacks.
 
Randomutation said:
The general rule of thumb is that the government can infringe on individual rights only if there is a compelling reason to do so.
Click to expand...

That's too vague to be meaningful. You are referring to the whims of politicians.

 
Ah, I see your confusion now. You were conflating "seemingly at random" (i.e. the speed limit on this road is 45 when it could have just as easily been 35 or 55) with "purposeless" (i.e. speed limits serve no purpose). No wonder you were so confused. I'm glad the dictionary has helped you.
 
It's not seemingly random. You made a lot of posts explaining that
 
aociswundumho said:
That's too vague to be meaningful. You are referring to the whims of politicians.
Click to expand...
No, it is not "the whims of politicians". It's actually a restriction on political whims.
It's called strict scrutiny. And the burden of proof is on the government.
From Wikipedia:
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 
aociswundumho said:
That's correct. You not wanting to associate with me does not violate any of my natural, inherent, inalienable rights.
Click to expand...
It does if it keeps you from feeding your family or securing legal employment or pursuing life, liberty or happiness.

When no bank will let you open an account or give you a loan because of your race or other unavoidable physical characteristics, you might get the impression that your 'inalienable' rights are being violated.

When your child is sick and no doctor or hospital will treat them because you're the wrong race or a pharmacist won't fill a
prescription, you might have a different perspective on freedom of association.

If you want freedom of association, go join an all-white country club or the KKK. They share your sentiments.
 
No one has the right to a personal relationship. All are free to choose heir mates, in every sense, using what ever criteria they wish. I think your post is confused and misleading in that it gives a false equivalence to private and public matters.
 
Then would not gender discrimination also count in your argument. So are you arguing that if a homosexual wanted to have sex with a heterosexual then it would be discrimination for the hetero to say no based on their personal sexual inclination.
 
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…