Ban Divorce & Interracial Marriage

I have provided sources. Read the articles I have posted in the hyperlinks in my arguments in the above posts. I will add more though. Biracial people face racism from both sides. Here's an example of a biracial girl facing racism from black people: . http://www.seeingblack.com... The article identifies other biracial people struggling with racism and even mentions that Obama himself struggled with racism from both sides for being biracial. Biracial people are frequently victims of race-motivated crime. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Multiracial people are the victim in 6.1% of the cases third only to blacks (69.2%) and whites (18.3%), but multiracial Americans make up only 2.3% of the population. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Also it has been identified by researchers that biracial children have problems identifying who they are in our society. Nobody should have to endure this worst of all pains, the pain of not having a secure identity, a secure understanding of the self. . http://www.cehd.umn.edu... At least when non-mixed race minorities face discrimination they have a large community to back them up. Multiracial people just get hated on from the other side too. Not being white, black, asian, or any single race they have no group to appeal to. Con states "As a biracial child myself, I rarely am subject to racism. I am six foot four inches, so I never really face bullying. " This is telling. Con's height advantage shielded Con from having to deal with much racism. But that is not the circumstances of must biracial people, and it is the good of the whole that must be considered in setting public policy. CON says not affecting those already married contradicts the original resolution. The original resolution is to "Ban Divorce & Interracial Marriage". A person who is already married is not committing an act of "marriage" they had committed it in the past, and would only be breaking the law if at the time they married their marriage was illegal. Since I never said the ban would be retroactive it would not apply to marriages already performed. It would be just like when Prop 8 was passed, that didn't annul previous marriages. . http://www.lifesitenews.com... But the resolution would ban the act of divorce, which protects biracial children already here. Interracial couples, particularly black man/white woman couples are more likely to divorce. . http://isteve.blogspot.com... Divorce hurts children. Banning divorce would provide stability to children including biracial children. Statistics don't lie. . http://www.heritage.org... Children of divorced parents are more likely to suffer abuse, do poor in school, go into poverty, and lose their faith. Con brings up examples of divorce because of child abuse, drug problems, and neglect of finances. These are real problems, but this study shows these problems increase after divorce so banning divorce will reduce these problems in society as a whole. When this happens in a marriage they can put the offender in jail where he can no longer hurt his spouse. As to neglecting finances, new laws could be passed against family financial neglect. Con states "It is extremely racists to tell a mixed couple they do not have the same marriage rights as the white couple. " Con misses the fact that they do have the same marriage rights, the right to marry someone of their own race just like gay people have equal rights because they are allowed, like straight people to marry someone of the opposite sex. "Let me ask you this, there are more black criminals in the world than whites. Because of this, it would be ultimately for the good of society to kill every black man woman and child in the world. So, should we kill every black person since it would help society? " Your assertion here is wrong. Killing all black people would involve more crime(murder) than is committed by black people so no this would not be good for society. Con says nothing separates opposite-race people besides their skin but this is wrong. They are separated by a different history and culture that because of human nature leads to racism and a chaotic homelife. Con states that not all women would just want the guy to get help. But that's the problem. That IS what they should want. The poor guy can't help that he has faulty wiring. His abuse must be stopped, but she should be compassionate enough to want to do all she can to get him well again, so they can have a normal family. Con says that many women don't have this kind of money. If this is a significant problem then people will just vote for laws so the government pays for it and the problem is solved. You say that a "good wife" would visit her husband in the mental hospital once a week to start the healing process. You must realize that not every wife is a "good wife" as you would say. Con states "Since he [King Henry VIII] could not get divorced and marry another woman, he simply had his wives killed. " King Henry VIII started a whole new church, the Church of England to allow himself to get divorced. He had his wives executed for adultery and incest. It is often claimed that he did it because they wouldn't bare him a son, but with his new church he was head of he could've just gotten a divorce. Most likely the reason he executed his wives was because they were actually guilty. Not that this was just, but back then the death penalty was used far more often than today. Con wants proof that interracial marriage leads to marrying your pets. This shows a poor reading of my argument that having divorce and interracial marriage legal has over the years lead to the breakdown of traditional marriage. To put it simply, any change to the definition of marriage invites more changes, it makes the institution's definition and its purpose(to promote sexual morality and family stability) less clear. Divorce changed the definition of marriage. Interracial Marriage changed it again. Now people want to change it to allow men to marry men and women to marry women. It's a clear slippery slope, and there is no logical reason to think it's about to stop after same-sex marriage is legal. What's next? We don't know. I pointed out there are already people debating that as long as it involves "consenting adults" incest and incest marriage should be legal. Then there was that woman who married herself I liked to in the first post. This seems innocuous, but in fact this cheapens marriage by reducing it only to an expression of love(in this case self-love). If self-marriage were ever institutionalized our society would crumble. The other example, the woman marrying a dolphin thankfully was not official either, but shows what could come to pass. At the worst we have organizations like NAMBLA arguing that pedophilia is OK, but that kind of relationship is so immoral it's likely we'll see incest marriage, bestiality marriage, and self-marriage legalized before we ever get to the point. However, if we don't stop this slippery slope now and reverse course back to traditional marriage it could happen at some point in the future. This is ultimately the crux of why we must ban divorce and interracial marriage. If we don't then we will continue down this slippery slope of marriage redefinitioning, throwing our entire society into a moral abyss like the one of the late Roman Empire, sending us into a new Dark Age or bringing on God's wrath as happened with Sodom and Gomorra. We must defend marriage to defend society. Vote to return marriage back to what it originally meant and was meant for.