Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Traditionally, marriage was allowed only between a man and a woman of the same race and religion. Over time, archaic traditions have been replaced by what is called--aptly I think--progressive modifications. In the USA, for instance, activist judges nationally ruled down long-standing prohibitions of interracial marriage in 1967. Hard to think my living grandmother has spent most of her life in a country where it is illegal to marry someone of a different race. These changes don't come agreeably; even today most Republicans in many USA states still want interracial marriage to be illegal.

In the modern political climate, I think this raises interesting philosophical questions because so many of the arguments made for or against legalizing interracial marriage apply just the same to homosexual marriage; yet sometimes one is legalized and not the other. (Reminds me a little of how black people were given the right to vote in the USA before women--are there that many people opposed to racism but supportive of sexism?)

I think the die-hard traditionalist approach that wants both interracial and homosexual marriage to be illegal is by far more philosophically arguable than some odd claim that either homosexual marriage or interracial marriage shall be legal but not the other. To illustrate, let's come up with two hypothetical couples:

• Couple A: Two 25-year-old lesbians who want to get married to each other.
• Couple B: An 80-year-old black woman and a 25-year-old white man who want to marry each other.

One of the following 3 options must be the case:

1. Both couples can get married, i.e. legalize both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
2. Neither couple can get married, i.e. prohibit both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
3. One can get married, but the other cannot, i.e. legalize one but not the other.

Option 3 seems to me to be irrational nonsense that simply cannot be philosophically justified because I do not see one valid argument to legalize one but not the other. Needless to say, do we all agree that we want lesbian marriage to share the same legal status as elderly, interracial marriage, or is there anyone who disagrees? If there is anyone who disagrees, then what is your reason for denying one couple marriage but not the other? Remember, to be valid, it has to be a reason that only applies to one couple. For instance, you couldn't reasonably say "I don't want to let couple B get married because they cannot have children" because neither couple can have children. So, if you disagree that these couples shall share the same legal access to marriage, please name the relevant difference between Couple A and Couple B that warrants prohibiting one and not the other.

[Morningstart]

The fundamental question that needs to addressed before exploring the morality of marriage is the definition of marriage. Delineating what marriage is allows us to determine which types of relationships constitute marriage. In turn, this will allow us to decide whether a marriage between:

-more than two parties, -people aged less than 16, -people of different races -people of different religions -people of different ages -people of the same gender -widowed or divorced parties or -people who had children outside wedlock

(to mention a few) fit the definition of marriage.

The definition of marriage will vary between individuals and cultures just as it has varied over time.

In my opinion, marriage is essentially a union that establishes obligations between parties involved. This definition can be applied in different contexts. Thus, the race, sexuality, religion, age or number of parties involved are not necessary conditions for this definition of marriage to apply. However, this does not prohibit countries from prohibiting certain types of unions which might pose a risk to the rights or health of particular groups of society, for example children. If the union between adults of the same gender or different races is one between consenting adults and has no third-party effects, I see no reason why it should be prohibited.

[Misty]

However, this does not prohibit countries from prohibiting certain types of unions which might pose a risk to the rights or health of particular groups of society, for example children. If the union between adults of the same gender or different races is one between consenting adults and has no third-party effects, I see no reason why it should be prohibited.

Morningstart,

If "and has no third-party effects" (such as children) then not even same race heterosexual marriages would be granted as there are many children affected by bad parenting.

Misty


Scott, #1 is the only rational choice. Misty

[Morningstart]

Morningstart,

(such as children) then not even same race heterosexual marriages would be granted as there are many children affected by bad parenting.

Misty

Would you say, then, that parenting forms part of the definition of marriage or the marriage agreement?

The laws that govern homosexual couples' rights to parent children, are separate from gay rights to adoption or other forms of parenting. To exemplify:

1. With the exception of Portugal

(Google: portugal daily view, Gay rights: Law makers defeat adoption bill for couples- Since I'm new, I can't post URLs)

...all countries that allow same sex marriage allow LGBT adoption.

(Google: huffingtonpost: Gay marriage, adoption around the world).

2. In most countries where same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption are legal, LGBT adoption became legal after marriage equality.

3. Brazil and the UK do not allow same-sex marriage but allow LGBT adoption. Other countries, eg Finland allow step-child adoption but not same sex marriage.

4. Not everyone who marries, homosexual or heterosexual has children. Therefore, marriage does not necessarily lead to parentage

5. Not every heterosexual or homosexual parent is married or is within a legally recognised union. Therefore marriage is not a prerequisite for parentage

[Cogniphile]

I voted #1 too.

It may not be so much a case of my having a positive argument in favor, but more that those arguments against which I've come across all failed to justify themselves with respect to some logical criticism or other. And, well, in the absence of a compelling reason...

[DPMartin]

Your selection says I want, I want, I want. What I want is not the issue, as it has been said here already, this society needs a agreed legislated definition of marriage. That a court’s interpretation cannot supercede.

[Spiral Out]

Couple A: Two 25-year-old lesbians who want to get married to each other.
Couple B: An 80-year-old black woman and a 25-year-old white man who want to marry each other.

This makes me wonder. Are there any intended psychological effects for these particular combinations?

[Newme]

3 - Interracial marriage is logical and beneficial from a societal standpoint (which legal actions are intended for) - since children can come from them - athough rarely in elderly couples, it still happens. Lesbian Marriage makes no sense, and in fact, legally encourages homosexual fetishes that prove to have negative consequences statistically (even with those in comitted relationships) according to the US CDC.

The premise is illogical.

How can you compare RACE (which is unchanging) with homosexual fetishes (which are changable - even if just the expression of them)?

Marriage is primarily for the legal protection of children - which can come from any man/woman - including elderly. But children can NEVER come from a Lesbian couple. Obviously, not all heterosexual couples have children, but ALL children come from hetereosexual couples. So responsible lawmakers realize this and ensure the safety of children by providing legally recognized marriage for heterosexual couples. Others have rights of common law marriage or cohabitation agreements - or similar contracts they can have written up and signed legally.

[DPMartin]

Marriage is primarily for the legal protection of children - which can come from any man/woman - including elderly. But children can NEVER come from a Lesbian couple. Obviously, not all heterosexual couples have children, but ALL children come from hetereosexual couples. So responsible lawmakers realize this and ensure the safety of children by providing legally recognized marriage for heterosexual couples. Others have rights of common law marriage or cohabitation agreements - or similar contracts they can have written up and signed legally.

It could be said that a family is a family, which need not be recognize legally by a society to be a family unit (such as legal guardian in a minor’s case), but if a couple wants their union to be recognized legally with all the social and legal benefits and acceptance, then an open marriage contract is required that the society recognizes, and respects.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Thanks everyone for your replies. It seems almost all of us are in agreement. Please excuse that I will focus the rest of my reply on the as of yet single opposition.

Newme,

3 - Interracial marriage is logical and beneficial from a societal standpoint (which legal actions are intended for) - since children can come from them - athough rarely in elderly couples, it still happens.

It is patently false to claim that it is possible for couple B to conceive children. No 80-year-old women has ever given birth to a child. It doesn't happen rarely because it doesn't happen at all.

Lesbian Marriage makes no sense, and in fact, legally encourages homosexual fetishes that prove to have negative consequences statistically (even with those in comitted relationships) according to the US CDC.

What homosexual fetish does lesbian marriage and/or sex cause or encourage? Please provide specific sources for these alleged facts. If you are referring to STDs, remember that while gays have more STDs than straights, oppressed races as in black people have even more STDs. Thus, in the current world, a white woman would statistically be safer swapping a random blood sample from a lesbian than from a heterosexual black woman.

The premise is illogical.

What premise?

How can you compare RACE (which is unchanging) with homosexual fetishes (which are changable - even if just the expression of them)?

I'm comparing race to gender. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I suppose you could thus also say by extension I am comparing racial fetishes (e.g. someone who chooses and/or prefers to have sex with people of a certain race) with gender fetishes (e.g. someone who chooses to have sex with people of a certain gender), which compares interraciality (different race) to homosexuality (same gender).

Marriage is primarily for the legal protection of children - which can come from any man/woman - including elderly. But children can NEVER come from a Lesbian couple. Obviously, not all heterosexual couples have children, but ALL children come from hetereosexual couples.

This seems to be clearly off-topic to me. I am not talking about all heterosexual couples. No lesbian couples can have children, correct. No 80-year-old interracial couples can have children. Thus, the point of children is irrelevant.

Your point might be relevant if we were asking why a fertile interracial couple can get married but not a lesbian couple, since lesbian couples are inherently infertile. But we are not. Thus your point is irrelevant to the question of why 80-year-old interracial couples who are inherently infertile could get married but not lesbians. Therefore, your argument is a strawman argument.

***

Newme, I appreciate your elaborations, but can you please clearly also name in short what is different about couple B (interracial couples with an 80-year-old woman) as opposed to couple A (young lesbians) that means one can get married and not the other? What is it? What is the different between couple B and couple A? Remember, both are members of inherently infertile couple-groups (80 year olds and homosexuals), so fertility is not a difference between the two. And both are members of high-risk STD groups, so that is not a difference.

[Gee]

Newme wrote: "Marriage is primarily for the legal protection of children - which can come from any man/woman - including elderly. But children can NEVER come from a Lesbian couple. Obviously, not all heterosexual couples have children, but ALL children come from heterosexual couples."

This seems to be clearly off-topic to me. I am not talking about all heterosexual couples. No lesbian couples can have children, correct. No 80-year-old interracial couples can have children. Thus, the point of children is irrelevant.

Your point might be relevant if we were asking why a fertile interracial couple can get married but not a lesbian couple, since lesbian couples are inherently infertile. But we are not. Thus your point is irrelevant to the question of why 80-year-old interracial couples who are inherently infertile could get married but not lesbians. Therefore, your argument is a strawman argument.

I do not agree and think that Newme's point is valid, although not complete. Marriage is for the legal protection of children because it denotes ownership of children. Marriage is about legal ownership, or who belongs to whom. To restrict from this thread a valid definition of marriage, and what it is supposed to accomplish, would corrupt the integrity of the thread. The point is valid. Elderly people can also have children; those children being the issue of their issue, or the issue of their issue's issue. Homosexual people can also have children from previous experience. And obviously, all races can produce children. Children are not only relevant, they are a point of serious conflict in this matter.

When I retired, it was from working in law, and the one thing that I can tell you about law is that it is difficult to write a good one. Laws are supposed to help people to live in a civil manner with each other by regulating what is acceptable and what is not. The problem is that situations can vary so significantly that the law can not be flexible enough and yet morally valid in all situations. Example: I know a woman, who is homosexual. She has known this about herself since her teens, but married anyway, had two daughters, went to college and became independent, then dumped her husband. She now lives with her girl friend and two daughters. Her ex-husband is not happy about this. If she married her girl friend, would that give the girl friend rights regarding the children? If the ex died, would the girl friend have the right to adopt the children because she is a step-momma? Legally, this is possible with marriage. Dad would not like this.

In the case of the 80 year old black woman, let's say that she has adopted her great grandchildren--and let's make her rich. As her husband, the 25 year old would have the right to also adopt the children. So let's say that he did, and then the rich grandma died. He now has possession of two black kids and lots of money. If he tried to instill values by making them do chores, how many people would assume that he is using them as black slaves while keeping what should be their money? Lots. Both of the above scenarios could easily lead to a murder plot and crime. Law is not supposed to encourage crime.

Originally marriage was supposed to denote ownership of women and children. Many people don't like the fact that it is about ownership of women, but consider: A child belongs to the woman, indisputably, because it comes from her body, but how does the man prove ownership of the child? The only way was to prove ownership of the woman. Hence, marriage caused ownership of the woman and therefore the child. Although the man had the right to deny a child that he did not believe was his, if there was no denial, then the child is his. The law still works this way today in most States, if not all. I remember a case in the news where the mother died, and a man who had an adulterous affair with the woman claimed the six year old child. He even had DNA testing done to prove the child was his. The husband refused to relinquish the child stating that he loved the child and had lived as the child's father for six years. The Courts upheld the husband's claim--DNA testing be-damned.

So marriage is about legal ties and rights to another person, so I think:

1. The elderly should be able to marry as they choose, as they have certainly earned the right by making it to elderly.

2. Racial intermarriage is going to be difficult as long as people see one race as being above another, because they are not going to like the idea of someone from an inferior race "owning" someone from a superior race. I know this is insane thinking, but it is also a real problem. But I don't see any valid reason for the law to restrict it.

3. Homosexual marriage is still a nightmare. There is evidence that exposing children to a homosexual relationship can influence their own sexuality. I don't know if the information is valid, but most people believe it. On the other hand, people have been denied the right to attend their mate's funeral, denied access to their mate in a critical care unit, and denied the right to be on their mate's insurance policy. So a legal tie is necessary and important. So I think that I will take the coward's way out and advocate civil unions for homosexual people. It would give them the legal ties that they need without causing too much moral conflict and Family Law implications.

Please consider that years ago, homosexuals used to adopt their mates for the purpose of inheritance. It became such a problem that legal adoption specifically prohibits adoption for these reasons. Yes. This is still on the law books today.

Gee

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There is evidence that exposing children to a homosexual relationship can influence their own sexuality.

What evidence? I assume you mean that being raised by gay parents makes one more likely to be gay. Does being raised by interracial parents make one more likely to end up in an interracial sexual relationship or interracial marriage?

Do you want couple B to only be allowed to get a civil union too? If not, why would you want to restrict couple A to civil unions but let couple B get married? What is the difference between couple A and B that makes one a marriage and the other a civil union? And what do you want the legal difference between a civil union and a marriage to be? If the difference is only ceremonial and/or in regards to what shall be considered sacred, wouldn't that be a violation of the separation of Church and State?

[Supine]

Traditionally, marriage was allowed only between a man and a woman of the same race and religion.

That's not entirely true, Scott.

In Catholicism since time immemorial Catholic women and men have married non-Catholics. It's discouraged due to the conception of the education of the children in large part. But plenty of Catholic women have been married to pagans and non-Catholics. My mother is Catholic but my father is not.

In Islam a man can wed several women (up to 5 I think) and non-Muslim women, but Muslim women can only marry Muslim men and only one man.

So, you might be getting your impression from that.

The United States had a bit of a different story. Many Catholics of the United States adopted the mainstream views of the United States. They still do. Just listen to some Republican Catholics comments about guns. They go directly against not just the Pope's and Holy Sees view in Italy but the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference which is basically the Catholic Congress of the United States. In a certain way.

Pretty much conservative and liberal Catholics only pick what they want to follow. They deny it and come up with some excuse as to why they are more Catholic than the Pope (though, they usually don't explicitly state that, but that's the underlying logic).

So, most white Catholics adopted the racist attitudes (many still do) of the mainstream U.S. culture of whatever era they were in. Which means some tried to argue black people were not human etc.

But mainly I think "miscegenation" was taboo--or at least marriage was if extra-marital affairs were not--among mostly white, Catholic controlled territories of the colonized worlds. During the early 20th Century when Eugenics was the craze Brazil (long belittled by diplomats from the U.S. and Europe for so many blacks and mixed-races around the aristocratic court) did the opposite of the United States which promoted racial segregation and no miscegenation so as not to dilute "white blood" and create an inferior mongrel nation. Brazil promoted miscegenation for racist reasons in the reverse: to spread "white blood' throughout the population to improve the racial stock of the nation in subsequent generations.

It might be said here that Brazil has different--more complex too--racial constructs than the United States. There are many categories between white and black. And one can hold two or more classifications. For example, I've been told by a Brazilian that I would be officially classified as pardo (brown) by the state, regarded as mulatto, but called moreno because no one would want to offend me. The term "mulatto" carries insulting connotations in Brazil that means untrust worthy for males and basically suggests a woman is a whore.

"White" in Brazil is phenotype broad like "black" is in the United States. Like "black" in the U.S. includes (me), people like Halle Berry to Wesley Snipes.

This person would be white in Brazil. Not black.

(Obama's former pastor Rev. Wright)



This person would be morena in Brazil. Not mulatta nor black.

(Mariah Carey)



These persons would be mulatta in Brazil.

(Halle Berry and Tyra Banks)

*


You'll see a Catholic Priest was murdered in the U.S. South by the KKK for marrying a white woman to a Puerto Rican man.

But the Catholic Church has always maintained that homosexuality is contrary to the proper moral order of human sexuality and immoral. That marriage can only be between man and woman. That marriage is not "dating" nor sentimental romance or temporary emotional states some call love (and divorce when said emotions and sentiments fade). That marriage is about a monogamous commitment of sex opened to and for the primary cause of a dual nature of creating offspring and educating said children. Furthermore, between two baptized people the marriage is said to be sacramental (outward, visible signs that reveal a greater inward, invisible truth). A marriage can only exist with the conjugal act. And a marriage is not form by state, paper contracts, nor by a priest. A marriage is greater than swearing, oath, and is a covenant made by man and woman with God. The priest and community only act as agents of official recognition.

This is my understanding (if my understanding is flawed in some way) of the Catholic conception of marriage.

http://www.fathercoyle.org/index.htm

On August 11, 1921, Father Coyle was shot and fatally wounded as he sat in the swing on his rectory front porch by an enraged minister whose daughter’s marriage to a dark-skinned Puerto Rican Father Coyle had presided over less than two hours before he was shot. He died forty minutes later in the operating room at St. Vincent’s Hospital. His funeral was one of the largest ever held in the history of Birmingham. The shooter, who was also a Klansman, was found not guilty in a trial held two months later. The trial was a travesty of justice.

-- Updated February 22nd, 2013, 10:35 pm to add the following --

It is patently false to claim that it is possible for couple B to conceive children. No 80-year-old women has ever given birth to a child. It doesn't happen rarely because it doesn't happen at all.

You are correct, Scott. And I doubt the Catholic Church would ever marry an 80 year old woman to a 25 year old man.

But this is a thread more about civil marriages. My own feeling is that secular nations claiming separation of church and state should have never gotten into the business of marriage (i.e., civil marriages).

But Newme is right that secular nation-states thought it wise to retain the ancient institutions of marriage--not so people can clap over those publicly declaring, even if temporarily, that they are in love with the person next to them--but because the family was considered the basic unit of society. They wanted to promote the stability of the family structure in society. And by family they meant those producing offspring.

Secular society has increasingly diminished marriage. I mean this for heterosexuals too. One of the biggest mockeries are those shot-gun wedding chapels in Las Vegas. The U.S. courts have helped disgrace the institution of marriage. As more generations go by more reduction of what marriage is lobbied by citizen groups. I'm waiting for when marriage--and the state bureaucracy funded through tax dollars--is extended to teenagers at high school football games after meeting each other only 7 days prior. All it tkes to persuade the public is come out with touching stories and repeat the words "Isn't it all about love?"

Love is sticking with your wife as she dies of cancer. Love is not Kim Kardashian getting divorced a few or several days after "marriage."

Feminist have also been pretty successful for lobbying for certain things that ought scare any man into thinking about marrying a woman. Or at least give it wise consideration. She'll divorce you over dissatisfaction and take half your money. She'll take your kid in the process.

To be honest with you... I don't have much regard for the contemporary culture and institution of marriage. My lesbian friend was in some civil union or something with one of her many girlfriends and that ended quick when the other one got pregnant by some dude and had his kid. Then I have a male relative (heterosexual) that has been married and divorced several times. The last wedding I didn't attend. I responded politely to the invite that I would not come but wished them both the best. And I meant my well wishes. But I just did not feel like putting on a front like this was some new flowering love for all of life that I needed to communally celebrate.

Excepted the social benefit of social prestige, every other benefit gay couples can obtain through written wills and making their partner the legal authority over medical decisions if they are unable to. I'm not married. Have no girlfriend or lover and I can even do that. I don't know how many times the VA Hospital has asked me if I want to assign some relative or friend as the legal decision maker over my medical care if I go into a coma or something.

This whole modern notion tax dollars, courts, political bureaucracy needs to be expanded into the personal sexual lives of people, and clap and whistle every time two grown juvenile people make googly eyes at each other is ridiculous. Why do I need to clap because you're providing oral sex to someone or claim to love someone odds are you'll be in court divorcing years later? I don't.

Sorry if 99% of what I said was nothing particularly philosophical.

Really, I don't care if Mormon people or Wiccans marry several spouses. Lesbians can marry each other. Hey, I don't care if 1 lesbian has 7 lesbian spouses. But I'm telling you know... if the state ever extends it's reach into puppy love over the internet and marries people online that have never met (think that Norte Dame football player fooled online in internet romance), or starts marrying people to their pets, I'm totally disregarding the whole civil marriage thing entirely. I don't care how much social pressure would be placed on me to clap and go "Aww... "

[Gee]

What evidence? I assume you mean that being raised by gay parents makes one more likely to be gay. Does being raised by interracial parents make one more likely to end up in an interracial sexual relationship or interracial marriage?

Consider that "evidence" in this type of matter is not necessarily scientific evidence. The moral authorities, church leaders, unanimously agree that homosexual marriages are bad for families, children, and people in general. This is like having a Doctor or Professor give opinion, which is valid evidence--although not scientific at all, it is acceptable. And yes, children from interracial relationships would be more likely to end up in interracial relationships for two reasons. One, because they would not consciously avoid them, and two because any relationship is going to be interracial because they are interracial.

Do you want couple B to only be allowed to get a civil union too? If not, why would you want to restrict couple A to civil unions but let couple B get married? What is the difference between couple A and B that makes one a marriage and the other a civil union?

The big difference that I see is that slavery was abolished more than 100 years ago; but less than 50 years ago, the churches were still touting masturbation as a mortal sin. If touching yourself for simple pleasure could send you straight to hell, then imagine what touching someone else would do--especially doing it in an "unnatural" way. It was the 70's before the Catholic church finally relented and stated that sexual activity "between married people" for simple pleasure and comfort may be necessary for the relationship. This was only 40 years ago. I still remember people looking askance at cross-eyed people--cause they knew what those people had been up to--as masturbation caused one to become cross-eyed. (chuckle chuckle) So I think that people are not ready. It is going to take time.

And what do you want the legal difference between a civil union and a marriage to be?

This is a difficult question. Most people, who have not studied law, see the Federal government as being able to tell the States what to do. This is not the case. We live in the United States, not the Divided Federal. The States actually give some authority to the Federal government. Marriage laws, however, are regulated by the States, and they are not all identical, so a universal mandate by the Federal could have surprising effects in some States. Consider a "common law" State, where living together can cause a couple to be married. What if a couple of same-sex friends live together for a few years, one moves out, and the other goes to the Courts demanding alimony? Could it happen? Maybe.

Laws are built on foundations that are more than 1,000 years old, and every case that is decided can add to the law--Case Law. Marriage has become part of many different aspects of law over the years, so it has serious implications and repercussions, and not only in Family, Juvenile, and Probate law. Consider that in Criminal law, a person can not be coerced to testify against their spouse. How would that work with a civil union? I have no idea, but would suggest that it would take a much more brilliant mind than I possess to work out this puzzle. I suspect that these kinds of problem are why lawmakers came up with the idea of a civil union, to establish family and rights, without getting any legal drama.

If the difference is only ceremonial and/or in regards to what shall be considered sacred, wouldn't that be a violation of the separation of Church and State?

No. Secular law can not force a church to marry people or to conduct civil unions; and a church cannot dictate what the secular law defines as family any more than it can dictate adoption.

Scott; this is a very interesting thread that has brought some serious issues to light. I have a great deal of sympathy for same-sex couples, and their inability to declare themselves family, but I suspect that it is going to take time before this can be so.

Gee

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This whole modern notion tax dollars, courts, political bureaucracy needs to be expanded into the personal sexual lives of people, and clap and whistle every time two grown juvenile people make googly eyes at each other is ridiculous. Why do I need to clap because you're providing oral sex to someone or claim to love someone odds are you'll be in court divorcing years later? I don't.

I agree. The entire gay and interracial marriage debates can be sidestepped by taking government out of the equation. We can resolve the problem of discrimination by the government in regards to who it allows to marry by simply abolishing the legal practice of marriage. Of course, people would still be free to have religious ceremonies and call those ceremonies marriage. But it would not have special status as a legally enforceable contract.

***

What evidence? I assume you mean that being raised by gay parents makes one more likely to be gay. Does being raised by interracial parents make one more likely to end up in an interracial sexual relationship or interracial marriage?

The moral authorities, church leaders, unanimously agree that homosexual marriages are bad for families, children, and people in general. This is like having a Doctor or Professor give opinion, which is valid evidence--although not scientific at all, it is acceptable.

No, a doctor (i.e. someone who has a PhD in a certain field) or a Professor is an expert source in that given field that is scientific. Citing a church leader does not carry anything close to the same weight as citing an academic expert.

yes, children from interracial relationships would be more likely to end up in interracial relationships for two reasons. One, because they would not consciously avoid them[/quote Then, you have not provided an argument for banning elderly, lesbian marriage but not interracial marriage because the argument works the same for both. More specifically, your argument appears to be circular: 'Marriage of type X is bad because it leads to more marriages of type X'.