Ban Divorce & Interracial Marriage

"If things were going your way, if interracial marriage were illegal, I would not be here to accept this challenge." And yet because interracial marriage is legal there are lots of other people who aren't here. If interracial marriage was illegal different people would've gotten married and had different kids. These people would not be better or worse people than the people we have now. But regardless the past is the past. Nobody is saying we should go back in time and replace people. We must consider the welfare of future generations. "1A. People who are already married." I said interracial marriage should be banned, not that couples already married should have to get divorced. In fact I think that for those already married it should be illegal for them to get divorced(along with it being illegal for everyone else to get divorced). Proposition 8 in California banned same-sex marriage, but it did not dissolve the marriages already conducted. 2A. Con says if interracial marriage was illegal biracial children would be looked down upon, but then how do people know their parents are of different races and not both biracial themselves? Furthermore, banning interracial marriage would decrease the number of children born biracial. Biracial children are often the targets of teasing and bullying, and often victims of hate crimes. 3A. Con contends that if interracial marriage is illegal biracial children will have to marry other biracial children. That children are not (though they might be if we allow this marriage-redefinition slippery slope to continue) allowed to marry aside, historically the law did not do this. The laws banning interracial marriage in America had the 1 drop rule, which treated anyone with even a slight amount of non-white blood as "colored". Now, I'm not saying we should go back to this policy, but my point is that requiring people to be the same race does not have to be 100% precise in order for it to work. Rather than going on ancestry, appearance should be considered. The judge will look at the applicants. If their skin color and eye shape is close enough they can get married. "4A. Dating couples. There are plenty of people who are dating others of a different race. Many of these people are engaged to be married. These people would have to give up on their hopes of marriage and abandon their love. This of course is unethical and simply cruel." They would not have to abandon their love, just forgo marriage, similar to how gay people in most of the country right now still stay together even though they aren't allowed to marry. We could even have interracial civil unions. 5A. Con contends this will give the government too much power and instead the people should decide. I agree, let the people decide. But we are debating whether this policy should be put in place not whether it is feasible to do so immediately. This policy is ultimately for the good of society, so it should be in place, but getting it in place will take work convincing the public just like trying to get any other policy in place. 6A. "All people are equal". Yes, all people are equal. And banning interracial marriage doesn't change that. Then everyone will have an equal right to get married to someone of the same race. " therefore you cannot label and limit them by their race." We label people by other things they do not choose. A person's "sex" has legal significance and is even considered a factor in what positions a person is allowed in the military and in most of the country still what sex(the opposite) someone is allowed to marry. Furthermore the human rights of the children must be considered. Children born to interracial couples face more racism, bullying, and hate crimes. Their right to a secure ethnic identity should also be respected, because that has implications for self-esteem. Now on to the arguments about divorce- Someone who abuses their spouse and their children is mentally ill. It is not their fault. They are sick. Divorce is uncompassionate in this case, because it could lead to them winding up in a number of dire outcomes as the result of their chemical imbalance. By banning divorce we would force families to deal with these problems instead of running away from them. I am by no means saying a wife who is being beaten should just let her husband keep beating her, but instead of divorce she should get him help. In fact in today's environment it's understandable that people would want to get divorced. But there are policies we could put in place to make any demands for divorce unreasonable. We should pass a law requiring all domestic abusers to be treated at mental health facilities until they are well. In this case it would not only be immoral to get a divorce, but it would harm the healing process. A good wife who understands that her husband was ill and needs to get better would want to visit him once in a while (under supervision) and work with the mental health workers to get him well so they can finally live like a normal family. This can be applied to the rape example and the drug and alcohol example too. These behaviors are the manifestation of a sick mind that needs help. Even in cases like rape where the spouse should be in for life because of the low chance of rehabilitation and the greater consequences if they were erroneously released then the spouse should remain married and if they really care visit them from time to time in prison. When people get married they say "through sickness and in health". A person who does the things Con listed is sick. "I also ask that you provide me with up-to-date proof that interracial marriage leads to marrying your pets." It's obvious if you just look at history. King Henry VIII legalized divorce. Before that the institution of marriage was understood to exclude the possibility of divorce. Then hundreds of years later we legalized interracial marriage. Now, they've legalized same-sex marriage in some states. This is part of a historical trend to widen the definition of marriage. Why should we assume that after same-sex couples are allowed to marry that it is going to stop? The historical trend is against that. We see a much smaller gap between when people were fighting for interracial marriage to be legal and people fighting for gay marriage to be legal than the gap between King Henry VIII legalizing divorce and people fighting for and winning interracial marriage. The only way to save us is to turn the clock backwards by banning interracial marriage and banning divorce. I do not know if marrying your pets will be next, but based on history we know something will. Currently there are many people making arguments that incest and incest marriage should be legal. http://www.time.com... The slippery slope is slipping us towards legalizing and accepting incest marriage right now. The only way to stop this trend is to go back in the opposite direction and restore marriage to its traditional parameters, that is to say no divorce, same race, opposite sex, & no family members.