IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

Please don't try to convice me that you taught yourself all the arguments against racial mixing, so that you would be better armed to deal with the racists.

No, it was more so that I could be better armed to deal with judgemental pricks like you, who didn't understand the first thing about what you were talking about.
 
Dixie said:
LMAO@ Prissy & Perv!

I will still present an argument against your idiotic and wrongheaded judgmental views. And no, I didn't vote against removing language, I voted against an increase in my property taxes. You just tried to make the asinine argument that I was being a racist, but I schooled you on it, and now you can't get over it.
Click to expand...

Holy Cow! I never accussed you, nor did I remember, that YOU voted to keep a law, prohibiting inter-racial marriage!!!!!

Thanks for sharing!


Let's look at the Alabama resolution to repeal a ban on inter-racial marriage.

Keep in mind that DIXIE voted to KEEP a ban on inter-racial marriage:


Alabama repeals century-old ban on interracial marriages -- Dixie Votes to Keep the ban

November 8, 2000

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- Alabama voters on Tuesday repealed the state's century-old ban against interracial marriage, an unenforceable but embarrassing throwback to the state's segregationist past.

The vote was running 59 percent to 41 percent, with 58 percent of the voted counted.

The vote removed the dubious distinction of Alabama being the only state in the country with such a relic from the segregated South remaining in its constitution.

Alabama became the last state with such language in its organic law in 1998 when South Carolina voters approved a measure to remove similar wording from their state's constitution. In South Carolina, about 62 percent of voters favored lifting the ban.

Major Cox of Bullock County said he was impressed that Alabama voters officially made his 20-year marriage to Margaret Meier legal. Cox is black and his wife is white.

"I think we are well on the way to removing some of the stigma placed on Alabama. I think we may get to the point where we don't have to classify ourselves. I don't wake up in the morning thinking 'oh my God I'm married to a white person'," Cox said.

Meier said she had been worried Alabama voters might decide in the privacy of the polling booth to keep the ban.

"This is wonderful. I think it says a lot about the people of this state and the future of this state," Meier said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that such bans are unenforceable, but some Alabamians felt the language in the 1901 Constitution needed to be removed to demonstrate the state's stand now. Gov. Don Siegelman had said failure to remove the ban would hurt the state's efforts to recruit business.

There are at least 1,600 mixed-race couples in Alabama.

The two most vocal supporters for Amendment Two came from opposite sides of the political spectrum -- Democratic state Rep. Alvin Holmes, who is black, and Republican Attorney General Bill Pryor, who is white.

Holmes pushed the bill setting up Tuesday's vote through the Legislature.

Pryor said Tuesday night that he was "ecstatic" that Alabama voters decided to remove the interracial marriage ban.

"This sends a powerful message about our state. The people decided in the eyes of Constitution we are not black or brown or white. We are all Americans. We don't look at each other based on skin color," Pryor said.

Auburn University historian Wayne Flynt said he is optimistic that the interracial marriage vote shows Alabama may be ready to escape from its racist past.

"I'm delighted. With only 26 percent of the state black, this reflects a lot of white folks want to turn the page. I think this indicates race is receding as an issue in Alabama politics and that's good news," Flynt said.

In many rural, mostly white counties, the amendment either passed narrowly or was defeated. But in urban centers, such as Jefferson County, it passed overwhelmingly.

The only public opposition to lifting the ban came from a coalition of chapters of the Southern Party in Alabama. A leader of the Confederate heritage group, Michael Chappell of Montgomery, filed a lawsuit that unsuccessfully sought to remove Amendment Two from the ballot.

Chappell said the amendment was vaguely worded and was not needed since interracial couples can now marry in Alabama. At the same time, he added, "Interracial marriage is bad for our Southern culture."



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/
 
Superfreak said:
Jarod.... the difference between your list and abortion is that everything on your list you do to yourself. Abortion is something you do to another human being. There is a big difference.
Click to expand...

I understand from your perspective the difference... That still does not make it a logical axim that just because you think something should be legal, that you support or condone it.
 
Holy Cow! I never accussed you, nor did I remember, that YOU voted to keep a law, prohibiting inter-racial marriage!!!!!

I didn't vote for this, I have no idea what you are talking about. I did articulate a valid point on this issue once, but I never voted on this legislation.
 
Let me phrase this better... Do you think sex outside of marriage should be illegal... for example say a 45 year old divorced man meets a woman.. should it be illegal for them to have sex untill they get married?
 
I understand from your perspective the difference... That still does not make it a logical axim that just because you think something should be legal, that you support or condone it.

Here's the logical axiom, shit for brains... IF you think it should be legal, then you effectively endorse, support, and condone it! You can CLAIM otherwise, you can form all sorts of pinhead reasons and justifications for the inconsistency, but all it makes you is a hypocrite blind to your own hypocrisy.
 
Dixie said:
I understand from your perspective the difference... That still does not make it a logical axim that just because you think something should be legal, that you support or condone it.

Here's the logical axiom, shit for brains... IF you think it should be legal, then you effectively endorse, support, and condone it! You can CLAIM otherwise, you can form all sorts of pinhead reasons and justifications for the inconsistency, but all it makes you is a hypocrite blind to your own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I disagree, there are plenty of things I dont think are the governments business and I dont think they should regulate them... but I still dont support or condone those things.
 
Jarod said:
Let me phrase this better... Do you think sex outside of marriage should be illegal... for example say a 45 year old divorced man meets a woman.. should it be illegal for them to have sex untill they get married?
Click to expand...

.
 
Jarod said:
Let me phrase this better... Do you think sex outside of marriage should be illegal... for example say a 45 year old divorced man meets a woman.. should it be illegal for them to have sex untill they get married?
Click to expand...


It should not be illegal, and I support and condone it. Next???
 
Well you are consistant. Ill give you that.

Let me try one more...

Should teenagers be prosecuted for having sex with each other? Say 15 year olds?
 
Should teenagers be prosecuted for having sex with each other? Say 15 year olds?

You can't prosecute 15-year-olds as adults. I think juvenile detention might be an option here. I don't support or condone 15-year-olds having sex, and I would never vote to make it legal.
 
Dixie said:
Should teenagers be prosecuted for having sex with each other? Say 15 year olds?

You can't prosecute 15-year-olds as adults. I think juvenile detention might be an option here. I don't support or condone 15-year-olds having sex, and I would never vote to make it legal.
Click to expand...

I did not ask if you would vote to make it legal, I asked if they should be prosecuted.
 
"I understand from your perspective the difference... That still does not make it a logical axim that just because you think something should be legal, that you support or condone it."

I also understand what you are TRYING to say. But your analogy should be....

If you believe murder should be legal, but you don't personally support it....

or

If you believe rape should be legal, but you don't personally support it....

Because these are things DONE to ANOTHER person.

Comparing abortion to things you do to yourself is comparing apples to oranges.
 
Superfreak said:
"I understand from your perspective the difference... That still does not make it a logical axim that just because you think something should be legal, that you support or condone it."

I also understand what you are TRYING to say. But your analogy should be....

If you believe murder should be legal, but you don't personally support it....

or

If you believe rape should be legal, but you don't personally support it....

Because these are things DONE to ANOTHER person.

Comparing abortion to things you do to yourself is comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

The reason I dont think it should be illegal is because I belive there is enough debate as to if a fetus is a "person" to warrant allowing people to make there own decision about it. I also understand that the hardship on the pregnant woman can be great.
 
I thought you were a chirstian, and I thought christians did not belive in sex outside of marriage?

Some don't, some do. My views on the law do not pertain to my personal religious beliefs. I don't expect society to always make moral laws based on my personal religious beliefs, nor should they be forced to conform to my personal religious beliefs. In short, what I think society should and shouldn't make legal or illegal, has nothing to do with what I personally believe as a Christian. I know you are trying to trap me in an inconsistency here, but I am fairly consistent with my views across the board. I am a Christian, I do have certain moral ethics I am ordained to follow as a Christian, but these are things mandated to me personally, not things that I am to force upon others who might not share my beliefs. I know that is very hard for you to comprehend, being that is precisely what you seek to do at every turn, but honestly, my personal religious beliefs have little to do with what I support and condone, or think should be legal in our society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top