Louisiana JP Refuses Interracial Marriage License

[ideasrule]

There was a serious economic impact to Kansas a few years ago when the schoolboard decided to re-write science and allow the teaching of ID. Several very large employers that had decided to build and create jobs here backed out, specifically citing the fact that they did not feel that they would be able to recruit top notch employees due to the impression that Kansas was so backwards academically.

Interesting. That's the sort of economic pressure we need more of: if you don't stay sane (or at least refrain from publicly showing off your insanity), you don't get the jobs.

 

[ideasrule]

His justification was that 'the child is likely to suffer later'.

I wonder how far to take this statement, what constitutes suffering? How much suffering is ok? Should:

People who are ginger.
People who are poor.
People who are ugly.
People who are thick.
People who short sighted.
People who are predisposed to genetic conditions.

Now not be allowed to get married or have children.

That's like saying people shouldn't drink water because drinking 14 L causes water intoxication. The fact that anything is harmful when taken to extremes doesn't prove that this judge should not have denied the marriage. It certainly doesn't prove the judge was racist, even if he was stupid or flat-out wrong.

To answer your questions, I certainly believe people who have serious genetic conditions should not have children. Would you want your kids to have cystic fibrosis or harlequin ichthyosis, for example? You probably wouldn't mind color blindless, but how about severe autism or Duchenne muscular dystrophy? People yet to be born will nevertheless become "real" one day, and I think their right to not suffer from cystic fibrosis trumps whatever reasons their parents have for having unprotected sex.

I already addressed poverty: I simply do not believe parents too poor to support children should be allowed to give birth. As for the others, being ugly/ginger is borderline, and I wouldn't recommend people who are thick or short sighted to have children. My philosophy is that if you can't take care of the children, you shouldn't have them.

 

[xxChrisxx]

It certainly doesn't prove the judge was racist, even if he was stupid or flat-out wrong.

I already addressed poverty: I simply do not believe parents too poor to support children should be allowed to give birth. As for the others, being ugly/ginger is borderline, and I wouldn't recommend people who are thick or short sighted to have children. My philosophy is that if you can't take care of the children, you shouldn't have them.

Glad you agree the JoP was an idiot.

I've already conceded that a genetic condition was a bad example above.

I agree that people shouldn't have childern if they con't support their needs. However what level of wealth constitues poor? If they can meet the childs basic needs, but not treat them often. Is this the minimum requirement? The child will be teased for not having the best things, is this grounds to deny a birth?

However your comments on ugly/short sighted/ginger/ low intelligence parents are all crap and actually really irritate me for some reason.

If a child is to be born into a loving family who can support their needs, what the hell I say. Thats all that matters.

 

[Alfi]

Since this thread is already side tracked, I'll ask.
On the idea of, if you got it don't spread it.
Am I correct in thinking that, in just a few generations, type 1 diabetics could be eliminated or at least the number of people with it could be seriously reduced?

 

[xxChrisxx]

No it coudn't be eliminated (totally), as its not directly genetically related (hereditary). Ie if you've got it, its not 100% certain that your child would have it. However stopping people with it from breeding would reduce the likelyhood of occurence.

You can be genetically predisposed to some autoimmunity, increasing the likelyhood of the onset of type 1 diabetes, but almost all people are genetically predisposed to something detrimental. If you rigidly implemented 'if you've got it don't spread it' the vast majority of the population of the planet shoudnt reproduce.


This has now totally exhausted my knowledge of anything biologically related.

 

[Sorry!]

I'm just wondering. Why exactly are we comparing a person of mixed race to a person who has a genetic disease?

They are completely different. And I'm feeling slightly offended...
It's like what some people are trying to say is:
Do you want your child to be born blind? No? Then we should prevent it and while we're at it let's prevent interracial marriages to prevent mixed-babies from potentially being conceived. (which marriage has NOTHING to do with anyways IMO)

 

[Monique]

I'm just wondering. Why exactly are we comparing a person of mixed race to a person who has a genetic disease?




They are completely different. And I'm feeling slightly offended...

Both would have a poor outcome in life, the comparison is ridiculous. The ethics of pre-implantation diagnosis are very strict, exactly to prevent people from selecting and out-casting certain conditions. That some people here don't see a problem and feel the need to protect such an individual in mind-boggling.

 

[Galteeth]

Both would have a poor outcome in life, the comparison is ridiculous. The ethics of pre-implantation diagnosis are very strict, exactly to prevent people from selecting and out-casting certain conditions. That some people here don't see a problem and feel the need to protect such an individual in mind-boggling.

I assume "pre-implantation" refers to artificial insemination? What are the general ethical arguments against genetic screening (not related to races)?

 

[JasonRox]

I do not understand the logic.

What logic is there to understand?

 

[mgb_phys]

I do not understand the logic.

Mixed marriages (ie between a man and a women) often lead to babies - which are a terrible source of both noise and chemical pollution.
There is also the very real risk in America that they will grow up to become either politicians or lawyers.

Although banning these 'odd-sex' marriages won't entirely prevent babies it is a good start.

 

[Sorry!]

As well how are people claiming that this action was not racist... whether he meant to be racist or not he still was.

Unless of course people of mixed-race now are 'raceless' people who can not be discriminated against.

 

[Monique]

I assume "pre-implantation" refers to artificial insemination? What are the general ethical arguments against genetic screening (not related to races)?

No, pre-implantation would mean in vitro fertilization, followed by diagnosis and then implantation. You can select for things that are not a medical necessity, opening the way for designer babies. It means that you can decide what kind of individuals are going to be born. An example is that a family had a sick child with an inherited blood disease that needed a bone-marrow transplant. Both parents could not be donors, so they had to wait for a suitable donor to come along.

They wanted to have another baby and decided for pre-implantation diagnostics, out of the blue the parents asked whether the doctor could also match the immunity-genes of the unborn baby with their sick child (so that it could be a donor). Of course the doctor was dumb founded and had to deliberate the ethics of the request.

This is what happened: "I was very worried about it,” he says. “We had meetings. We published in a serious bioethics journal.” Hughes is not the kind of person who finds it easy to say no, and it’s not hard to imagine him taking pains to avoid the impatient parents. One day the husband tracked him down at his lab unannounced. “I'll never forget what he told me,” says Hughes. “He says, ‘While you’re running around the world sitting at mahogany tables debating the bioethics of this, our daughter is dying.'” (Newsweek International June 30/ July 7 issue).

Finally it was decided to select both against the mutation that caused the genetic disease and for the genes that would match with the sick child's immune system and a healthy baby was born. The youngest child could be a bone marrow donor and the older child was cured. In a sense you are creating a baby with the purpose to act as a donor, interventions such as this should not be taken lightly.

 

[mgb_phys]

As well how are people claiming that this action was not racist.

Depends on your definition of racist.
If racist = taking into account race when making the decision then yes it is racist (in the same way that affirmative action would be)
However, if racist = treating somebody detrimentally because of their race then he could argue that this isn't racist since he treated the black and white partners equally. (see the virginia vs love discussion with evo)

What he has done is make himself, his town, his state and country (or at least the southern half of it) look like a bunch of backwards morons to the rest of the world.

 

[Sorry!]

Depends on your definition of racist.
If racist = taking into account race when making the decision then yes it is racist (in the same way that affirmative action would be)
However, if racist = treating somebody detrimentally because of their race then he could argue that this isn't racist since he treated the black and white partners equally. (see the virginia vs love discussion with evo)

What he has done is make himself, his town, his state and country (or at least the southern half of it) look like a bunch of backwards morons to the rest of the world.

So you don't think that he's treating mix-raced people detrimentally based on their race? I'm not talking about the people he refused to marry I'm talking about the reason he stated.

 

[mgb_phys]

So you don't think that he's treating mix-raced people detrimentally based on their race?

But there was no 'mixed race' person involved (except in the sense that everyone is mixed race)
I don't think potential future children have a lot of legal standing.

I'm not talking about the people he refused to marry I'm talking about the reason he stated.

Yes the guy is obviously a mouth breathing moronic product of several generations of somewhat un-biblical sex between close family relatives, but he is from Louisiana! (or am I being racist ?)

 

[Sorry!]

But there was no 'mixed race' person involved (except in the sense that everyone is mixed race)
I don't think potential future children have a lot of legal standing.

I'm not talking about the legal standing of what he said (we already know it was illegal) or about the action that occured. I'm talking about the rational behind the action. That being that they should not get married because they will have children who will be mixed and he was worried about how society would accept them. This is clearly against mixed people.Racism can't be determined by actions, it must be determined by the reasoning behind the actions.

If I say that black people are not allowed to enter my house because I am afraid they'll steal things am I being racist? No black people are involved yet... is it only racism when it involves me stopping a black person from attempting to enter my house?

++ Is being from Louisiana considered a race?

 

[Galteeth]

I'm not talking about the legal standing of what he said (we already know it was illegal) or about the action that occured. I'm talking about the rational behind the action. That being that they should not get married because they will have children who will be mixed and he was worried about how society would accept them. This is clearly against mixed people.


Racism can't be determined by actions, it must be determined by the reasoning behind the actions.

If I say that black people are not allowed to enter my house because I am afraid they'll steal things am I being racist? No black people are involved yet... is it only racism when it involves me stopping a black person from attempting to enter my house?

++ Is being from Louisiana considered a race?

All of this would have been avoided if the government would just get out of marriage and allow people to freely contract with each other in any way they want.

 

[xxChrisxx]

All of this would have been avoided if the government would just get out of marriage and allow people to freely contract with each other in any way they want.

That would allow same sex marriages, and the christians would have kittens at that.

+1 to the post below too.

 

[Sorry!]

All of this would have been avoided if the government would just get out of marriage and allow people to freely contract with each other in any way they want.

It's true but marriage still has to be legal... and documented...

 

[mgb_phys]

It's true but marriage still has to be legal... and documented...

Only if you have this theory that inheritance, property, tax and hospital visiting rights should be correlated with where you put your penis.

and the christians would have kittens at that.

I think any marriage that results in having kittens is also probably banned.

 

[mheslep]

All of this would have been avoided if the government would just get out of marriage and allow people to freely contract with each other in any way they want.

That would allow same sex marriages, and the christians would **** bricks at that.

Some would, other's wouldn't, but this misses the point. Marriage to my reading is traditionally an artefact of the of the world's religions, or perhaps more widely the world's various societies. If government gets 'out of marriage' as Galteeth and I suggest, then the problem largely goes away from government/legal standpoint.

There would be some religious leaders that might object (though I think not so many). To them I say reread Matthew:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Of course Jesus passes on the deal. Given the same opportunity today, some on the right would say, oh yes, societal norms are out of control and we can fix that if we ran all those kingdoms. Likewise some of the left would say, oh yes, think of all the wealth redistribution we could institute if we ran all those kingdoms. Where do we sign?

 

[mheslep]

It's true but marriage still has to be legal... and documented...

Disagree. A 'partnership' has to be legal and documented, mainly for tax reasons as I see it. Marriage connotes much more than tax liabilities, but that's no interest of the government.

 

[Sorry!]

Disagree. A 'partnership' has to be legal and documented, mainly for tax reasons as I see it. Marriage connotes much more than tax liabilities, but that's no interest of the government.

This is true.

 

[JasonRox]

Disagree. A 'partnership' has to be legal and documented, mainly for tax reasons as I see it. Marriage connotes much more than tax liabilities, but that's no interest of the government.

I disagree. Depends what you mean by partnership. If I live with a girl, and consider that a partnership by sharing income to buy groceries and that's it. I don't see how we are obligated to legally document that partnership.

 

[jobyts]

What logic is there to understand?

What's the argument we have that supports homosexual marriage and that does not hold true for polygamy?

 

[mheslep]

I disagree. Depends what you mean by partnership. If I live with a girl, and consider that a partnership by sharing income to buy groceries and that's it. I don't see how we are obligated to legally document that partnership.

Sorry I badly misspoke there; I should have said if a couple desires to have the government recognize the partnership/relationship/collaboration (for some governmental reason such as taxes) then it has to be legal, documented ...

 

[turbo]

That would allow same sex marriages, and the christians would have kittens at that.

+1 to the post below too.

Many Christians are having kittens in Maine right now. They claim to want separation of church and state, but want to force their beliefs on the secular populace and forbid same-sex marriages. The legislature voted that into law last summer and the governor signed it. Then the Catholic archdiocese teamed up with fundamentalist groups to collect signatures for a "people's veto". That measure is on our ballot in a couple of weeks.

 

[mheslep]

Many Christians are having kittens in Maine right now. They claim to want separation of church and state, but want to force their beliefs on the secular populace and forbid same-sex marriages. The legislature voted that into law last summer and the governor signed it. Then the Catholic archdiocese teamed up with fundamentalist groups to collect signatures for a "people's veto". That measure is on our ballot in a couple of weeks.

The archdiocese aside, how do you know 'they' are Christians? Maybe 'they' are some lumberjacks out in the woods that have never seen the inside of a church.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I like how this thread has been so swiftly and subtley derailed.

 

[mheslep]

What's the argument we have that supports homosexual marriage and that does not hold true for polygamy?

From the government's view, I suggest replacing 'marriage' as legal concept altogether. We let marriage remain in the domain of the church or other similar societal institutions, and they could (and should) continue to rigorously speak out about the boundaries of marriage. The government could reasonably call an attempt to label 25 'female partners' a single tax unit as bogus if it chose, but should otherwise but out. I think it is mistake to have the government as the final arbiter of what is or is not a 'family'.