You are a bright person, mswas. Has it not occurred to you that the Chrsitian religion can be and has been and is being used to support or oppose just about anything from torturing and burning heretics to lynching uppity niggers, from opposing slavery to condemning it (although the pro-slavery people could wipe up the floor with the abolitionists if both are using biblical quotations to back their case) or to both support and oppose gay marriage? Do you have your bible ready? Would you like some quotes on both sides of just about any issue you care to name?
Interracial wedding cake! Chocolate and vanilla in the same dessert!
Specifically it would create a problem for those who think that interracial marriage is an immoral act. If this does not apply to you, of course you think there would be no harm, but if it does apply to you then there is actual harm being done, as has been pointed out by people time and again that state sponsored schools will be teaching acceptance of interracial marriage (sin).
Guess it depends on your Christian interpretation of the Bible.
See Acts 17:26 (God meant for the races to be separate): “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”
See Curse of Ham.
There is also the fact that allowing whites to marry blacks can lead down to lots of unpleasant things. If you allow that, what’s next? Adults marrying children? An equestrian marrying his horse? Men marrying women?
There’s no logical reason to stop with interracial marriage, if you go with the miscegenation proponents.
Interracial marriage does not in any way have anything to do with marriage as it is defined, and the definition argument never applied to it, even then.
Deny it all you like. But you do see the point.
Christian conversion works slowly to erode the tribalisms of the past, recently made Christians have always imposed their tribal beliefs on the conversion process, it’s only natural. 
Meaningless hyperbole. There is plenty of agreement across sect between Christians.
So you’re a biblical literalist eh? (Also slavery wasn’t based on racial lines until the modern era)
I do, I see that the definition argument was never brought up during the era of miscegenation laws. No one ever argued that a union between a white man and a black woman or a black woman and a white man wasn’t marriage, they just thought that the marriage was an abomination. The definition argument is just inapplicable to this topic.
Is the love that is shared between a man and a woman of similar races unique and special enough to deserve its own unique and special celebration?
If so, then I think that is the most convincing argument to protect marriage as a race based-only union.
So a negative consequence of allowing interracial marriage is… Same race couples who wish to celebrate the love that exists between a man and a woman of the same race will be robbed of the traditionally unique and special way of doing it.
It didn’t need to be. The “interracial sex is icky” argument was enough by itself, in that time and place, without having to invent ahistorical definitions.
Sure they did. To implement that position, interracial marriage simply wasn’t given any legal standing at all in many states, just like same-sex marriages in many states aren’t even now.
Deny it all you like. You do get the point.
Cite?
Do you ever actually address points that show the falsity of your statements, or simply dismiss their applicability? Ever?:dubious:
No, but many, many people who have called themselves Christians were and are.
The point, since it hasn’t gotten through, is to refute your claim to the blanket definition that “Christians” and “Christian morality” are opposed to same-sex marriage as a matter of “Christian” religious belief. You might explain that to the Episcopalians or the UCC people, for instance.
Marriage is traditionally used as a celebration of the love between two members of the same race?
:smack:
Nah, I am not going to give you a cite for the locally cultural accretions added to Christian ritual. That topic has been done to death, on this board even.
I only dismiss them when they aren’t applicable.
It’s an ongoing internal debate. Not as simple as your are attempting to make it.
As for the definition argument, I don’t think there is any point in going over it any further, ‘You get the point.’
Nor did I expect one.
Who wants to play “Spot the Fallacy”?, kids?
YOU have attempted to state it simply, not me. But I trust you won’t be telling us any more about “Christian morality”, anyway.
Yes, it does seem futile.
Both of you go to your rooms, right now. I mean it, young man! You’ve been acting like brats and turning every thread into a train wreck with your bickering. Don’t make me get out the strap!
Obviously, small businesses would be hurt by allowing interracial marriage. All of a sudden, they’d have someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that they had no responsibility for, who would now be getting claimed as a spouse that they would now have financial responsibility for. So, how would they pay for that? Who pays for that? Interracial marriage just cost them money!
Wait, this is 1966, right? Small businesses don’t hire black people!
Yeah, but they hire the white guys who date black girls*, so they’re still on the hook were interracial marriage to be legalized.
- as seen on Mad Men!
[David Duke]
I support interracial marriage. It makes it easier to identify the nigger-lovers among our women, and also simplifies the process of choosing which uppity black men to lynch first.
[/david duke]