Steep Rise In Interracial Marriages Among Newlyweds 50 Years After They Became Legal - Sensationalist Headlines

My ex's family who were chinese werent that happy to know I was dating their daughter since I'm a Malay and from a muslim family. Lots of legal and cultural problems to hurdle if we actually wanted to get married

[QUOTE=orcywoo6;52282713]I can't say I've ever had any issues with being in an interracial relationship so far as a white english guy with an english raised Filipino gf, my family literally don't bat an eye and its just normal, never even mentioning it and people on the street/in general always seem to smile at us and generally say nice things when we are together. I was worried about coming across those people that would have an issue but there literally isn't any. The only person who I secretly think isn't too happy about it is her Father because he's quite traditional but he's never outright said anything. Its nice, but from my experience I'm not surprised to see this news, people just seem accepting in general nowadays, in my case at least.[/QUOTE] The situation gets reversed somewhat with the gender, though. Speaking from experience, my gf's in order have been Indian, then White (French) and then again white (American). As the brown dude, I got a colossal amount of shit, to the point where it did put strain on the relationship too. The hilarious part was that going in, the both of us thought it would be the [I]cultural[/I] stuff that would be a problem, but no, it was the not-so-subtle staring and weird looks and awkward questions. Had the situation been flipped, i.e. you been the Filipino and she been white, you'd notice it a lot more. As weird as it is, the common perception is that ethnic minorities in particular (setting aside cultural issues aside) view dating a white guy as a step up and somewhat tolerable. Not that there isn't any push back (depending on the perceived level of relationship you have and culture, there are also concerns about pre-marital sex (i.e. virtue tied to virginity) which typically weighs more on the girl than it does on the guy. Sad as it is, if you're a black dude and your partner is ethnic minority/white, you're gonna have an uphill battle getting her parents to accept you. At least, that's been the case for most of my friends circle (I know a few girls who've married black dudes and their parents straight up disowned them and now I'm the in-between :unimpressed:) To the point, one of the most annoying things I found personally when dating someone who was white was the reaction from most brown folks were like "Noice..." in a very sleazy sorta way (the going assumption being white women put out more than girls of one's own ethnicity).

[QUOTE=chocolatedrop;52281394]My wife is black... but I'm divorcing her because of the abuse and cheating. :disappoint: Time to look for a new African queen to treat me right! :dance:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;52282258]i hope in a thousand years we have cool genetic engineering and people will just be whatever color they want.[/QUOTE] I hope I can choose blue so I can pretend to be an asari

[QUOTE=27X;52282676]Argyria can do that for you right now. [img]http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/abc_blue_man_thg_130925_33x16_1600.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] He wants to be without air, not look like a smurf...

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52281993]I want to be surprised at the fact that it was illegal at one point, but considering our nation's history I'm naive to think like that. We're going to be more of a majority-minority, our demographic will be around the mid 40s percentage so we'll still be the largest group but we just won't make up half the country anymore. A result of many factors such as, ironically, globalization outsourcing jobs while costs of living go up causing white people to not get married and have less kids while minorities typically have more kids for some reason or another. Other factors like the topic of the thread, interracial marriage and social cultural changes in our country breaking down taboos and walls for people to get together. But at the same time we got rising racial tensions with nationalists and stunts like that Washington State college with students trying to a force a day of absence for white students and faculty, and the whole "its fun to hate white people" stereotype from the fringe left going on so I can only wonder what will happen from here.[/QUOTE] Since 'race' doesn't even exist, I'm all for the eventual disappearance of distinct phenotypes. As our species grows more connected and cultures grow closer, it's an inevitability. Past that point I'm sure we'll find some other stupid reason to discriminate against each other.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52285023]Since 'race' doesn't even exist, I'm all for the eventual disappearance of distinct phenotypes. As our species grows more connected and cultures grow closer, it's an inevitability. Past that point I'm sure we'll find some other stupid reason to discriminate against each other.[/QUOTE] Dont be sure. With the direction of technology going, we could see new species. With genetic engineering, cybernetic s and such

[QUOTE=archangel125;52285023]Since 'race' doesn't even exist, I'm all for the eventual disappearance of distinct phenotypes. As our species grows more connected and cultures grow closer, it's an inevitability. Past that point I'm sure we'll find some other stupid reason to discriminate against each other.[/QUOTE] it isn't inevitable, and i don't see what the benefit there is to eliminating distinct phenotypes [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52282248]In a thousand years 90% of humans are going to be olive colored anyway[/QUOTE] that's extremely unlikely

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52285182]it isn't inevitable, and i don't see what the benefit there is to eliminating distinct phenotypes that's extremely unlikely[/QUOTE] Sure there's benefit. More robust gene pool for the species as a whole. Besides, is there any particular benefit to preserving them?

[QUOTE=archangel125;52285203]Sure there's benefit. More robust gene pool for the species as a whole. Besides, is there any particular benefit to preserving them?[/QUOTE] it doesn't make a more robust gene pool at all - if anything it does the exact opposite. there's humans on every corner of the planet, many of which have subtle adaptations to various locations. arguing that mixing all of them and eliminating differences makes the gene pool more robust isn't so. it likely does the opposite plus you're basically arguing for eugenics

I don't get why is there so hard pressure for race-mixing. Some people may not like it simply. I myself will never do that.

[QUOTE=Knurr;52285248]I don't get why is there so hard pressure for race-mixing. Some people may not like it simply. I myself will never do that.[/QUOTE] your country is 96.9% white who the fuck you gonna race mix with anyway

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52285232]it doesn't make a more robust gene pool at all - if anything it does the exact opposite. there's humans on every corner of the planet, many of which have subtle adaptations to various locations. arguing that mixing all of them and eliminating differences makes the gene pool more robust isn't so. it likely does the opposite plus [B]you're basically arguing for eugenics[/B][/QUOTE] Er.. you feeling alright, Sobotnik? I simply pointed out that as the species mixes and becomes more culturally homogenous, people from different ethnic backgrounds will breed and produce offspring who are mixed, until at some distant future point, almost everyone on the planet will be of 'mixed' ancestry. I'm not advocating for selective breeding, I'm pointing out that major phenotypes that have historically lived in (relative) genetic isolation for millennia are going to thoroughly mix before long. We stand at the beginning of this process, at a time of great social change. Where such a strange idea came into your head is entirely beyond me. Also, you don't appear to understand genetics at even a basic level, if you're really arguing that mixing phenotypes will be anything but beneficial. Our species is populous enough now that we've got a huge pool of genetic diversity to draw from already across a single phenotype, but there have been findings that certain phenotypes are slightly more susceptible to certain diseases, or with slight tendencies towards certain physical boons, and this is entirely because of the genetic isolation I mentioned earlier. A mixing of the entire species, then, will ultimately prove beneficial. We no longer need environment-specific adaptations. Many people alive today travel to different parts of the world several times within their lifetimes. We don't live in grass huts, we don't travel long distances on foot, we don't have to struggle against a harsh wilderness. The future looks like travel around the world is going to be made even easier before long, and communication already is. The evolution of humanity as a species lies in our ability to put our prejudices based on artificial and nonsensical differences aside, and move forward with common purpose.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52285299]I simply pointed out that as the species mixes and becomes more culturally homogenous, people from different ethnic backgrounds will breed and produce offspring who are mixed, until at some distant future point, almost everyone on the planet will be of 'mixed' ancestry. I'm not advocating for selective breeding, I'm pointing out that major phenotypes that have historically lived in genetic isolation for millennia are going to thoroughly mix before long. We stand at the beginning of this process, at a time of great social change. Where such a strange idea came into your head is entirely beyond me.[/quote] based upon what exactly? even a trend towards cultural homogeneity isn't a thing (if anything we are moving apart). even the social and economic system supporting globalisation is very fragile [quote]Also, you don't appear to understand genetics at even a basic level. Our species is populous enough now that we've got a huge pool of genetic diversity to draw from already across a single phenotype, but there have been findings that certain [b]phenotypes are slightly more susceptible to certain diseases, or with slight tendencies towards certain physical boons, and this is entirely because of the genetic isolation I mentioned earlier. A mixing of the entire species, then, will ultimately prove beneficial.[/b][/quote] this simply does not follow at all [quote]We no longer need environment-specific adaptations. Many people alive today travel to different parts of the world several times within their lifetimes. We don't live in grass huts, we don't travel long distances on foot, we don't have to struggle against a harsh wilderness. The future looks like travel around the world is going to be made even easier before long, and communication already is. The evolution of humanity as a species lies in our ability to put our prejudices based on artificial and nonsensical differences aside, and move forward with common purpose.[/QUOTE] i think you are genuinely deeply confused about genetics, and probably ought to pick up a textbook about quantitative population genetics or something.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52285182]it isn't inevitable, and i don't see what the benefit there is to eliminating distinct phenotypes that's extremely unlikely[/QUOTE] It doesn't really matter if specific phenotypes in humans go "extinct" or if they state, they're mostly aesthetic anyway.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52285338]based upon what exactly? even a trend towards cultural homogeneity isn't a thing (if anything we are moving apart). even the social and economic system supporting globalisation is very fragile[/quote] There have not been culturally homogenous civilizations of nearly the size and population we see today at any point in our species' history. One could call the US, the UK, Europe, Australia, Canada and Scandinavia very culturally similar because of their history and their principles. One could call China and India culturally similar because of theirs. While the advent of the internet has resulted, in some cases, in greater polarization, it has on the whole facilitated the sharing of ideas and ideologies, and there is something of a global community today where in the past there was none. [quote]this simply does not follow at all[/quote] Let's take the those of African descent vs. those of European descent. Those of African descent came from a phenotype of humans that remained for tens of thousands of years in Africa, which has a variation in climate from tropical to desert climes - typically very hot and dry, or hot and humid. Because there was very little mixing between Africans and Europeans, they each developed some distinct characteristics. Africans (And indeed any phenotype that developed in tropical climes) have a more robust immune system than Europeans do, a pretty strong resistance to heat and sunburn, and because of the manner in which they lived and hunted before they settled in cities and developed advanced agricultural techniques, Africans in particular tend to have a tendency toward more efficient respiratory systems than Europeans - prey had to be chased a long way across the savanna, and hunters could run for days, often exhausting them before closing in for the kill. Good hunters tended to get a good pick of mates, and so such genes had a better chance of being passed on. Europeans, on the other hand, lived in more temperate climes where food and other resources were easier to find, and developed better adaptations to cold weather. These circumstances allowed them to form larger civilizations and develop metalcraft much faster, which was why they - the Greeks, the Sassanian Empire, the Romans, and eventually England, France, Portugal, Spain, Hungary, and others, were able to become colonial powers. Also India, China, Egypt, and other civilizations in more temperate regions developed faster - the availability of resources supported much quicker population growth. The eventual mixing of these two phenotypes leads to people who share in the genetic 'experience' gained by both phenotypes in their separate development. And since beneficial traits seem to be passed on more frequently than harmful ones, it seems logical to conclude that it's beneficial for the species as a whole. [quote]i think you are genuinely deeply confused about genetics, and probably ought to pick up a textbook about quantitative population genetics or something.[/QUOTE] That's not much of an answer. What aspect of quantitative population genetics am I missing? You argued that mixing phenotypes would harm the overall genetic diversity of the human species, but still haven't explained how. If the human genome project itself has concluded that there exists more variation in genes between individuals in a single phenotype than there does across phenotypes, how does that make any sense?

[QUOTE=archangel125;52285438]There have not been culturally homogenous civilizations of nearly the size and population we see today at any point in our species' history. One could call the US, the UK, Europe, Australia, Canada and Scandinavia very culturally similar because of their history and their principles. One could call China and India culturally similar because of theirs.[/quote] having travelled to several of those places and having met and talked to people from them, you are very wrong. you treat them all as fungible and somehow very similar despite the fact that few of them would understand one another were it not for english. when you go on to say that india and china are culturally similar it's pretty obvious you don't have a clue about indian or chinese society at all (both of them eating rice doesn't count) they have a multitude of different languages, cuisines, traditions, religions, myths, histories, political systems, and economic systems which have stubbornly refused to go away. if anything, the languages of the anglo-american world are slowly diverging with time (some american dialects are very obviously on their way to becoming new languages). [quote]Europeans, on the other hand, lived in more temperate climes where food and other resources were easier to find, and developed better adaptations to cold weather. These circumstances allowed them to form larger civilizations[/quote] no it didn't. the first complex societies developed in egypt, the levant, and mesopotamia - both warm/hot places. most of europe was dominated by small tribal units and chiefdoms until the roman period [quote]and develop metalcraft much faster[/quote] the oldest ironworking site in the world is in central africa, the technology became widespread in africa before the middle ages [quote]the Greeks, the Sassanian Empire, the Romans, and eventually England, France, Portugal, Spain, Hungary, and others, were able to become colonial powers[/quote] this literally does not follow at all, you're very confused about history as well and very wrong [quote]The eventual mixing of these two phenotypes leads to people who share in the genetic 'experience' gained by both phenotypes in their separate development. And since beneficial traits seem to be passed on more frequently than harmful ones, it seems logical to conclude that it's beneficial for the species as a whole.[/quote] genetic traits have pros/cons to them. its not as simple a matter as bringing everyone together and assuming that it'll somehow make everyone healthier. sickle-cell anaemia brings benefits to heterozygotes living in tropical regions - but it's very stupid to argue that it would be a benefit for all humans to have it. this applies to a lot of traits which have advantages or disadvantages depending on where you live and your lifestyle, and they can't be generalised to the entire global population. nature will pretty much tell you to get fucked [quote]If the human genome project itself has concluded that there exists more variation in genes between individuals in a single phenotype than there does across phenotypes, how does that make any sense?[/QUOTE] that is true, but you're ignoring the asymmetric impact of the specific genes between phenotypes. there's less variation, but those fewer genes are of greater importance

[QUOTE=archangel125;52285299]I'm pointing out that major phenotypes that have historically lived in (relative) genetic isolation for millennia are going to thoroughly[/QUOTE] Millennia don't mean shit in terms of evolution [editline]29th May 2017[/editline] [url]https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-track-last-2-000-years-of-british-evolution-1.19917[/url] Like "maybe being slightly better at digesting milk"

being mixed-race i can't wait to see what cool and exciting mix my kids will be i could have a kid with a brown girl that ends up looking white, fun

My Gf is half-hispanic. Am I doing my part lads for the future? :v:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52285232]it doesn't make a more robust gene pool at all - if anything it does the exact opposite. there's humans on every corner of the planet, many of which have subtle adaptations to various locations. arguing that mixing all of them and eliminating differences makes the gene pool more robust isn't so. it likely does the opposite plus you're basically arguing for eugenics[/QUOTE] what's wrong with eugenics? [editline]29th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52287159]My Gf is half-hispanic. Am I doing my part lads for the future? :v:[/QUOTE] no, because you'll never have a kid with her. we all know this, even if you don't.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52287159]My Gf is half-hispanic. Am I doing my part lads for the future? :v:[/QUOTE] nah that kid's basically gonna be white

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;52287359]what's wrong with eugenics?[/QUOTE] we barely understand the human body and genetic science - genetic engineering itself has a massive potential to go wrong as well if its done on a wide scale to give an extreme example, we could promote the wide dissemination of a particular trait because it has immediately apparent and obvious benefits (like better breathing or higher intelligence) - only for it to show its horrible downsides decades later (turns out it also causes sterility or some other condition) but there are indirect things we can do I suppose (like banning cousin and other close relation marriages)

[QUOTE=Knurr;52285248]I don't get why is there so hard pressure for race-mixing. Some people may not like it simply. I myself will never do that.[/QUOTE] What pressure lmao? In America the pressure you face is to go with whomever you love. And then sometimes there'll be racists telling you to stick with your own race. People unironically demanding race-mixing are so rare they may as well be non-existent.