Interracial relationships/marriage are moral.

Thanks Pro.I. RebuttalsPlease note the BoP is on Pro for this debate, he needs to demonstrate that interracial marriages are moral. So far he have given literally just two sentences to support his conclusion:"There is nothing immoral about interracial relationships/marriage as it causes no harm. People have the right to marry/have a relationship with whoever they want."Which I must say, are fantastically weak arguments in the face of it. First interracial marriages cause no harm, which is a premise he has not supported whatsoever. I would like to apply Hitchen's Razor to this argument, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I can make a similar argument by just asserting that interracial marriage does cause harm, I in fact went a step further and supported this in my first round.Moreover it assumes that all things that do not cause harm are not immoral, please see the formulation of this argument:P1) ??P2) Interracial Marriage causes no harmC) Interracial marriage is not immoralFor this argument to work we need to fill in the missing major premise. For which the most obvious is:P1) All things that cause no harm are not immoralP2) Interracial Marriage causes no harmC) Interracial marriage is not immoralThis premise is not stated and is assumed, and again we have no reason to believe this. Indeed there are many moral philosophies which divorce themselves from harm, such as utilitarianism which sees actions that maximize utility instead of well-being, or theological systems which also divorce themselves from harm.Pro's second argument/bare assertion/sentence is that we have a right to marry who we want. Again I challenge this assertion, first it assumes our rights are automatically moral, which is flatly false. We have a right to free speech but that doesn't make my ability to curse the next person (as per my rights) is moral.Please note that even if Pro tears down all my arguments against marriage (which he hasn't), he actually needs to present his own case to win this debate.II. Counter RebuttalsIIA. MarriagePlease note the first portion of my opponent's rebuttal to my "marriage is immoral argument"."Marriage does not promote possessiveness of one's partner and jealousy by itself."Which is a bare assertion but then he undermines his own position in the very next sentence!"Most relationships in are not open relationships. Many people in a relationship that are not married do not want their partner to cheat on them."This is EXACTLY my point! Why do people not want their partners to 'cheat' on them? What rational reason is there for this? Please note that the word 'cheat' is a loaded concept, and is really just another way of stating 'have non-platonic relations with someone else'. Indeed by allowing your partner to have relations with other people you grant them freedom, and hence do not claim possessiveness over their sexual and emotional faculties. Marriage is the institution of this very thing, by making it substantially more difficult, socially unacceptable and punishing to indeed pursue relations with other people. It institutes possessiveness!In a relationship would be acceptible to stop your partner from going to a cinema they like, or to any other source of entertainment? Clearly not, indeed marriage is almost exclusively an instrument for controlling your partner's sexual & romantic commitments.If cheating causes distress to many, then it clearly is important to see why cheating indeed causes distress, I would argue that it all boils down to preconceived possessiveness motions. My opponent argued that marriage could be cheaper, and some marriages end well and that stress can be dealt with. But that in no way undermines the measurable negative effects that Pro attempts to cover up, stating the damage cause is not too large doesn't mean that the damage isn't there, it clearly is. And it's completely unnecessary damage, and very much arguably immoral.IIB. Human EvolutionPro is right that the human race will still evolve with the mixing of the human gene pool. The argument was however that by keeping segregated populations of humans, then they will eventually speciated and hence form separate species. Each of these species will have significant biological and anatomical variations, much like how Homo sapiens are different to the Neanderthals. Which means that if any one of these species suddenly finds themselves in a challenging/unfavourable environment, then it is likely we will still have a separate species left to propagate the Homo- gene line.Remember the Neanderthals actually went extinct, and were comparably intelligent to Homo sapiens today, albeit with several differences. If the Neanderthals and the ancestor of Homo sapiens did not differentiate, then it is very possible that the common ancestor would have died out due to the changing conditions (the last ice age being a significant factor).[2]So while it is true there is (significant) genetic variation in humans, these genes will soon become mixed and the significant variations will reduce if we allow interracial sex/marriages.Therefore for the benefit of the homo- gene line, interracial marriages should be prohibited, and are immoral/selfish.Note that Pro misconstrues what inbreeding means, which usually refers to incestual sexual relations. There is usually enough genetic variation within races for this not to be a problem, and is mostly because of a high chance of pathogenic genes being "doubly alleled".III. Conclusion:Back to Pro! I strongly encourage him to make his own arguments in the next round, because as it stands his existing arguments are virtually non-existent.IV. References1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...2. http://www.sciencedaily.com...