The Wall Street Journal Wonders: Should We Let Blacks Marry Whites?

The Ex-Text has some wording that may seem objectionable but they are being facetious so don't get too upset.

This is a real headline on the Wall Street Journal's web site, right now: "Should Black Women Marry Outside the Race? We Want Your Opinions Via Webcam." Good question! What say you, America? Should the races intermingle their precious blood, or should they endeavor to keep their stock pure and unadulterated? There are interesting viewpoints on both sides—some say it's barbaric to bring racial considerations to bear on questions of love, while others say it's barbaric for members of the white race to defile their seed in the womb of the mud people. Who's right? Come debate it on the web site of the Wall Street Journal, the web's home for vibrant debate on matters of crucial importance.

I'm pretty embarrassed that this is even a question anymore. If you love someone you should never have to give an excuse or even think about how others would view your marriage. The heart wants what the heart wants and who gives a crap if it wants someone with darker or lighter skin?! Race is the LAST thing a person should be concerned about when getting married in my opinion. Worry about being compatible, about being able to compromise, about bedroom antics about pretty much everything BUT race. The color of a persons skin does not make them who they are.

It was pointed out by member Schuyler that I jumped the gun on this one. Gawker was doing it's normal thing in it's quest for page views. The issue is not on marrying outside the race per se. Navigate to the actual article. That was my bad and thanks for pointing it out!
Actual WSJ article

Link

Should this be an issue? NO!

Does not disclosing your mixed ancestry or not knowing your mixed ancestry make it hard to pinpoint diseases that are very much genetically inheritable? Sometimes.

Do people use legitimate concerns to make non-issues into issues, like the example above? Absolutely.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Does not disclosing your mixed ancestry or not knowing your mixed ancestry make it hard to pinpoint diseases that are very much genetically inheritable? Sometimes.

One of my biology teachers long ago was marred to an Asian woman and had a few children. I remember being pretty surprised to learn that mixed race children are more susceptible to a handful of diseases. For some reason I thought it would be the opposite.

i agree it should NOT be an issue but we need to comprimize, black cant marry whites and vice versa if we can sterilize the racists...thats fair right?

Careful here. You are misrepresenting WSJ. That quote of yours is from Gawker, not WSJ. You can use your link to get to Gawker, then to WSJ, where you find out the issue is somewhat different than you suggest. Fair is fair and if you want to condemn the WSJ for their blog post, by all means do so, but let's not pretend WSJ said anything about mud people. They didn't; gawker did.

Here's a link directly to the WSJ story

reply to post by schuyler


Completely admit to not reading the WSJ and after reading it just now I suppose it does pose an interesting question. I'll edit my post in a bit, gotta go for a run before it dumps rain!

reply to post by Domo1


what are we in the 1960 or something? the WSJ needs to stick with the markets for news

I guess black people don't need love, we're fine. Just fine. And I just got off GLP where I was called the n-word scum. Wow, what a way to make me feel human............i'm not winning today...

Love knows no bounds and it shouldent.

Second point is I believe in love , peace and everyone should be treated equally.

Logically I do agree with it for the simple reason of bone marrow dieseases its makes it harder to find suitable doners, I believe in keeping the stock pure but not racially as in for raciest reasons but more keeping the factors that keep us white, white and black, black.

Althrough in saying that , hybrids sometimes remove bad mutations and cut the risk of genetic traits. Look at dogs, mix breads are usually healthier than pure breads.

This topic is a can of worms to be sure, but I through i would put my $0.02 in

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by CynicalDrivel

 

Does not disclosing your mixed ancestry or not knowing your mixed ancestry make it hard to pinpoint diseases that are very much genetically inheritable? Sometimes.

One of my biology teachers long ago was marred to an Asian woman and had a few children. I remember being pretty surprised to learn that mixed race children are more susceptible to a handful of diseases. For some reason I thought it would be the opposite.

It works the same way it does as breeding across breeds of other creatures, to some degree. You cross breed to breed out dangerous traits, but there's something about a lack of viability between the same kinds of creatures that have bred too far apart. So far we're at least not making mules of humans.

While this is more focused on "problems with Evolution" it still deals with legitimate issues of breeding horses, "wild horses" and donkeys together:

Here

Originally posted by peanutman27
i agree it should NOT be an issue but we need to comprimize, black cant marry whites and vice versa if we can sterilize the racists...thats fair right?

'm NOT for giving up my rights to restrict other's rights.

reply to post by Heartisblack

I guess black people don't need love, we're fine. Just fine. And I just got off GLP where I was called the n-word scum. Wow, what a way to make me feel human............i'm not winning today...

Man that makes me mad. Sorry you had to hear that BS. I would gladly go over there and give them a piece of my mind but I'm banned. I always like your posts and to hear that someone would judge you based on race alone makes me want to partake in some fisticuffs.

Well okay I am going to hold my nose and dive into what is sure to be an all-out flame fest but…

I think interracial marriages are wrong. Yes, by God I acknowledge that race exists! My point is not to regulate through law what any two people want to do, that is their business not mine. Government should not even interfere in gay marriage. So then why object at all? Why not shut up and just go with it? Well because I think interracial marriages cause problems, not only a higher potential for health problems which is statistically proven proven but for the sake of both races.

Why should we not want to preserve the uniqueness of white and blacks as two different cultures and/or races? This is not racism as I do not believe whites are better than blacks or any other races have the right biologically/ethically/morally to claim superiority over any other race. BUT each should be treated as different cultural entities. I am white, very proud to be so, no I do not and would never consider myself a ‘citizen of the earth’ nor do I subscribe to the idea of destroying thousands year old cultures and identities for some utopian vision of one world, one race, one culture.

White culture/identity needs to be preserved just as black culture/identity needs to be preserved. It is only fair and to view it otherwise is to support genocide against both peoples.

So like I said, it should not be up to the government to say who can or cannot get married they need to mind their own business, but we should as people and cultures accept our differences and work to preserve them so as to preserve our unique place in this world. No this is not some thinly veiled attempt at courting racist rhetoric or any attempt at hiding racism through philosophical arguments, it is my belief all peoples have the right to preservation and it should be encouraged.

reply to post by Domo1


You don't understand the so-called "black community" at all. Your heading says that the Wall Street Journal wonders if we should let "blacks" marry "whites", but the article says let "Black women marry outside their race". So the article mentioned "black women", but you saw "blacks" instead. But, unfortunately, you still wouldn't understand the difference.
The media has been pushing this idea that "black women" have low marriage rates because most "black men" are "unmarriageable". Unfortunately, they refuse mention that the reason has nothing to do with "black men", but has to do with "black women".
It's simple. Most "black women" just want a non-black guy. But instead of just coming out and saying that, they have run these "media specials" informing everyone that "black men" are "unmarriageable" and that they're going to see more black chicks with non-black guys.
And guess what? The "black man" doesn't care, and those non-black guys can have the black women all they want. Have fun. If we could swap, we'd take the offer, but unfortunately we'll have to settle. We'll just play the part of the "black man" to help the rest of you procreate. That's our job, and we don't mind it. On the real, we just want to live our lives in peace without all the hate, cuz we're fed up. Why in the world there's folks that would ever think that the "black man" would have even the slightest problem with the black women "marrying outside their race", they must know absolutely nothing about the "black community".

reply to post by Domo1


I care not if they interbreed....however NOBODY should get married it's an outdated, barbaric practice and just another form of servitude for women (and I am not some feminazi either) I just don't think that a piece of paper has any dang thing to do with love, and divorce is too expensive when the woman finally realizes she's a sucker and a slave and expected to be the "submissive" one. Oh and it can go crappy for men too, like those money grubbing gold digging b words out there, too.

i prefer dark meat........more spirit and it tastes better than white meat......

Originally posted by Misoir It is only fair and to view it otherwise is to support genocide against both peoples.

That's a bit extreme, or more accurately, an end thought. Extremely supporting interracial marriage could work the same as genocide towards the culture, but if all that ever happens is encouraging interracial relationships, this doesn't go to the length of killing to get the end results. So, if I had to choose between Genocide and forced integration via "breeding", I 'd choose the latter in a heartbeat. The thing is that no one is forcing this issue except for fringe elements, for or against it.

The thing is that culturally, we change. Whether we merge together or we stay apart, we won't culturally be 100% the same as our ancestors.

Now, the genetics part, even with more mixed kids being more "ill" there's a lot of other factors that makes this very shaky ground to come to a firm conclusion on. And on top of it, that's a can of worms.