An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[b&wpac4]

I just want people to live the life they choose as long as they do not directly harm other people. Any argument that suggest it hurts society fails, in my opinion, because we are not actively banning things that cause society harm. I think fast food restaurants are pretty horrible when abused, so is Coca-cola and ice cream. We don't have lots of bans on those things, and people keep getting bigger and bigger.

 

[riw]

I've never seen anything to suggest that any half competent evolutionary biologist believes this. Possibly some people who don't understand evolution have based their racism on such a claim, but it is hardly the fault of the theory of evolution if people who misunderstand it go on to misuse it, is it?

Read "From Darwin to Hitler.' There are plenty of quotes to prove this in there. Or even spend some time reading up on the American Eugenics movement. There are a number of good books in this area.

Huh? I never said anything of the sort that all the horrible ideas in the world originated in Christianity... I merely contend that Christianity is not a virginal lily white institution that has never done wrong... and it strikes me as hypocritical when Christians sanctimoniously condemn others for doing things that Christianity as a whole or sub groups of Christians have done themselves, either as bad or worse.

Two points:

1. Human institutions have done lots of horrible things in the name of almost every belief system. The key isn't to look at what the institutions do, but the fundamentals of the belief system. Darwinian evolution provides a strong foundation for racism. Biblical Christianity does not.

2. That Christians aren't perfect (or are hypocrites) proves the point of Christianity. If Christians weren't hypocrites, we'd have something to worry about in terms of the truthfulness of Christianity.



Russ

 

[LightHorseman]

Wouldn't that require you to demonstrate both that the lack of marriage is at the heart of whatever gay's problems you believe have to do with marriage, and that no harm will come to changing the fundamental meaning of an institution very nearly unchanged through most cultures for all of recorded history?

Yes, I am aware there are a handful of exceptions to the latter assertion, but not many, and certainly none that are politically relevant now.

I already know what you believe. I have no idea why. After having read dozens of your posts, it is utterly unclear to me why.

Because homosexuals tell us they want to get married, and that they are negatively effected by not being allowed to marry who they want. What more evidence do you need?

Specifically, in the case of one of my housemates... she is in a long term relationship with a fellow soldier. If they were heterosexual, the Army would recognise this as a de facto relationship at least, and treat them accordingly. The case in point is that if the Army recognised them as a couple, their postings would have either been to the same location, or somewhere within reasonable distance, as is standard protocol for heterosexual couples. However, in the last round of postings, they were posted to opposite ends of the country. I'm sure you can see how this is a negative experience, and one that would not have occured if they were granted equality with heterosexuals.

As for proving no harm will come to marriage by changing it... I don't believe it is my place to prove a negative. You and people like you make the positive assertion that marriage will be harmed by homosexual marriage, it is up to you to support the claim. However, that said, as evidence for my position, I can only offer that I love my partner and we live together and raise our family together, and we do our best to do our best. I don't believe that recognising the validity of homosexual unions will alter my partner and my relationship in the least iota. Why should it?

Finally, you assert that marriage has remained unchanged through most of time... an claim I will tentatively agree with, but I must point out that what we consider marriage today, even the heterosexually exclusive form thereof, is ALSO quite different to how marriage has been percieved through most of history. Through most of history, marriage has been a form of political and material contract, also intended to secure suitable bloodlines between "appropriate" people. This form of marriage was almost exclusively aranged by people other than the couple in question. Now people (mostly) marry for love, between two people who consent to the arrangement themselves. So claiming that changing marriage as we know it will somehow damage the institution, when marriage has already undergone such a major paradigm shift in recent history, seems baseless and alarmist to me.

 

[Shane Roach]

Slippery slope was claimed. It was nonsense when it was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples, and nothing has changed.

Citation please.

A generation ago banning interracial marriage was seen as having valid reasons,
The very same reasons given as to why banning interracial marriage was valid are repeated today by those trying to justify anti-gay discrimination.

Still no citation.

So, did the fact that some people chose to misrepresent religion and logic to justify bans on interracial marriage make that ban moral or valid or just?

It would depend, would it not, on whether or not this is a factual assertion. Citation please.

Been there, done that. The challenge was presented to provide a logical reason why anti-gay discrimination is “valid” that was not used (or is not currently used) to justify racism, anti-Semitism and or bans on interracial marriage. No one was able to present such a reason

Your telling me that since in your opinion some group lost an argument on the interwebz, the issue is settled? I'd like to hear your argument with citations please.

Incorrect on two counts.
First gays/lesbians have unique culture and (unless you can provide legitimate evidence otherwise) is a physical trait in that it is apparently inborn, just like skin color

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."


It is almost assuredly not inborn. "Most people" are not gay or bisexual, so the last sentence is, in my opinion, a typical performance of the kowtow towards liberal sensibilities. In any event, your assertions are unsupported and in the latter case directly refuted by the APA. Certainly the Bible states that there is no temptation so unique that a person cannot resist it. I do not know what other proofs you require.

Second, racism is about how non-whites act, not any skin color. Racists cite the word of God detailing that blacks are to be the social inferiors of whites and as such racists are upset when people of color try to claim equality. Racists have no issues with blacks who “know their place”

Again, no citations.

Just like infertile heterosexual couples. So explain again why infertile heterosexuals should not be discriminated against.

Infertility is outside the norm, and only within the last hundred years of the thousands of years long history of marriage was it in any way knowable whether or not someone who was currently without child never would be able to bear children.

 

[b&wpac4]

Two points:

1. Human institutions have done lots of horrible things in the name of almost every belief system. The key isn't to look at what the institutions do, but the fundamentals of the belief system. Darwinian evolution provides a strong foundation for racism. Biblical Christianity does not.

2. That Christians aren't perfect (or are hypocrites) proves the point of Christianity. If Christians weren't hypocrites, we'd have something to worry about in terms of the truthfulness of Christianity.



Russ

Isn't that true of most belief systems?

 

[LightHorseman]

Read "From Darwin to Hitler.' There are plenty of quotes to prove this in there. Or even spend some time reading up on the American Eugenics movement. There are a number of good books in this area.

I was under the impression that eugenics was about weeding out unfavourable charecteristics, I was unaware that race had ever been considered such. But even so, I say again, any half competent biologist can tell you that evolutionary theory, and biology in general, do not lend any support to a condemnation of inter racial marriage. Anyone claiming otherwise has misunderstood fundamental precepts of biology. This is a weakness on the part of the person with the misunderstanding, not a weakness on the part of biology.

1. Human institutions have done lots of horrible things in the name of almost every belief system. The key isn't to look at what the institutions do, but the fundamentals of the belief system. Darwinian evolution provides a strong foundation for racism. Biblical Christianity does not.

That is your value judgement, but there are many who believe the reverse is true. Personally, I strongly believe that neither the theory of evolution nor Christianity promote racism. Unfortunately, there have always been racists who will look for some source of justification for thier prejudice, who will not hesitate to inappropriately use either the Bible, or evolution, or both to justify their position. Again, in such cases, this is a weakness on the part of the misappropriator, not the Bible or evolution.

2. That Christians aren't perfect (or are hypocrites) proves the point of Christianity. If Christians weren't hypocrites, we'd have something to worry about in terms of the truthfulness of Christianity.

Indeed. However, any one sincerely dedicated to following Christ should be open to having their hypocracy pointed out to them, and be grateful for the correction, rather than falling into the trap of getting defensive and hding behind logical fallacies, magicval thinking, and bluster to avoid correction at all costs.

 

[Braunwyn]

Saving and investing are, in fact, closely related. Saving and going into debt are two different things. Your argument was that the US Government should promote same sex marriage because those who are married save more.

Married individuals tend to save more, earn more, etc. That seems to be a fact, not my argument. My arguement, if anything, has to do with benefits and I might not feel as passionately about the issue if homosexual couples couldn't be discriminated against IRT to benefits (aka, keeping a portion of their earned income that is taken by the gov).

The first problem here is that the US Government does not encourage saving, but rather going into debt. The second problem here is you're assuming same sex "marriages," in a society as a whole, will have the same impacts as traditional marriage, and that there are no unintended consequences.

The only problem I'm seeing here is that you are wrongly assuming my position but maybe you're responding to someone else.

You're confusing career advancement with economic output. Among all the people I know who've worked at startups, I don't know a single one who has said they believed being married helped them to fit in better, or helped them work more hours, etc, etc. I know of many who left once they were married, because they had suddenly developed a life outside work, and could no longer keep up with the unmarried folks.

I have never worked for a start up so I don't know much abou it. I do work for a successful co though and most of my colleages are married. The atmosphere certainly doesn't lend to an idea of being able to keep up or not. But, I work with the best and brightest our nation has to offer, as far as scientists go. The bar starts at excellence and it's pretty common for our global heads to lecture on slowing down, not working harder. So, I have to disagree with your using a broad brush of married vs not married. Research scientists don't stop being scientists when 5pm roles around. OTOH, if people are engaged in work they aren't passionate about, maybe your ideas would come into play.

Two points:

1. A statistician is someone who puts their head in a hot oven, their feet in a bucket of ice water, and says: "On the average, I feel fine."

2. If you think statistics can throw light on a right, then you don't understand what a 'right' is. A right is something people are given no matter what the statistics say, or even in spite of the statistics.

You're essentially arguing that same sex marriage is a "good thing" not because it's a right, but because it's a societal good. And you're using statistics to back that argument up. For instance:

Did the survey actually include same sex couples, say, from other countries? Has anyone done such a survey in other countries? What has been the impact of same sex marriage in other places? Was it a net positive, or a net negative? How is it working out, say, in Holland? What's the net effect on marriages and childbirth?

The problem with all these statistics is the same as trying to centrally manage an economy. You can't even know what all to measure, much less how to interpret the results, so building policy on statistics is like arranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. It looks nice, but it leads to disaster.

I disagree. Granted, correlation does not always imply causation. I understand that. But if we see a trend, we should at the very least consider it and investigate. In the case of marriage, it's not terribly difficult to grasp why and how marriage provides financial security, emotional stability, and physical health. We can ignore trends all together, but that would be pretty silly.

Government should be built on solid reasoning, not on statistics.

A government that ignores trends? This would be a sure sign of a lack of reason and irresponsibility.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I'm sure everyone remembers the defunct bill that state lawmakers brought up in Connecticut to "regulate the Catholic Church under the state" not too long ago. The bill its essence tried to take away the authority from the Bishops to govern the Church and give it to the state to control. The bill didn't pass because public hearings where canceled.

Whats interesting is that the 2 lawmakers who proposed the bill, Andrew McDonald, and Mike Lawlor are (you guessed it) open homosexuals, and ardent activists and proponents of the gay movement. Does anyone just find this an easy coincidence? Or does it show the true colors of the gay community? Is the Church too much for they're consciences to bear that they must try to shut it down and give it to state control?

Bad move on their parts considering it shows to other christians the motives of the Gay agenda. It just shows how much they are a threat to religious freedom and unity.

http://catholicgop.blogspot.com/2009/03/chaput-warns-that-conn-bill-threatens.html

Excellent post. And isn't it interesting that the Bill specifically named the Catholic Church instead of just churches in general.

But you are right. The Left's reign of terror is just beginning since Obama's election. Barney Frank outright insulted a sitting Supreme Court Justice on the news, Antonin Scalia, calling him a "homophbe" (the stupidest word in the modern lexicon). I believe that is the first time thast a politician has attacked a justice like that.

Thats okay. They have their day, for now. But their antics will cause a backlash after a while because they just don't get that the majority of America is a little right of center politically and culturally.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Hence, you will agree with anything the US Supreme Court declares as law? Which means that if you lived in the time of the US Civil War, you would agree with the US Supreme Court that slaves were not people, because they said so. And now you believe that murdering children in the womb is perfectly acceptable, because the US Supreme Court says so.

Very sad.

And again, this is not an argument. This is a sidestep. Explain the logic behind your assertion that marriage is a right, explaining the foundation of that right in natural law, without referencing a court case.

Of course you are aware that the 13th 14th and 15th amendment to the constitution were not enacted at the time of the civil war…right?And of course you are aware of what rights these amendments guarantee…right?

It is also interesting that you bring up this minority as examples of how denying rights to a minority group is a bad thing while at the same time trying to justify the denial of rights to a minority group

 

[Shane Roach]

Because homosexuals tell us they want to get married, and that they are negatively effected by not being allowed to marry who they want. What more evidence do you need?

Specifically, in the case of one of my housemates... she is in a long term relationship with a fellow soldier. If they were heterosexual, the Army would recognise this as a de facto relationship at least, and treat them accordingly. The case in point is that if the Army recognised them as a couple, their postings would have either been to the same location, or somewhere within reasonable distance, as is standard protocol for heterosexual couples. However, in the last round of postings, they were posted to opposite ends of the country. I'm sure you can see how this is a negative experience, and one that would not have occured if they were granted equality with heterosexuals.

Why is changing the definition of marriage necessary? Simply address the issue on its own merits. I have heard similar stories about not being allowed to visit in hospitals etc. You'd get almost zero resistance to changing these issues as they arise.

As for proving no harm will come to marriage by changing it... I don't believe it is my place to prove a negative. You and people like you make the positive assertion that marriage will be harmed by homosexual marriage, it is up to you to support the claim. However, that said, as evidence for my position, I can only offer that I love my partner and we live together and raise our family together, and we do our best to do our best. I don't believe that recognising the validity of homosexual unions will alter my partner and my relationship in the least iota. Why should it?

First off, this is not "proving a negative" in the classic sense. You want a change. You should take some responsibility for the benefits of the change and not rely on rhetorical tricks to attempt a little political Judo. I have already ceded the point that the immediate effect would not result in the destruction of your marriage or anyone else's. I have asked what the benefits will be, and how you will go about ensuring there are no unintended consequences to our family law, which by most accounts is already a shambles.

Finally, you assert that marriage has remained unchanged through most of time... an claim I will tentatively agree with, but I must point out that what we consider marriage today, even the heterosexually exclusive form thereof, is ALSO quite different to how marriage has been percieved through most of history. Through most of history, marriage has been a form of political and material contract, also intended to secure suitable bloodlines between "appropriate" people. This form of marriage was almost exclusively aranged by people other than the couple in question. Now people (mostly) marry for love, between two people who consent to the arrangement themselves. So claiming that changing marriage as we know it will somehow damage the institution, when marriage has already undergone such a major paradigm shift in recent history, seems baseless and alarmist to me.

I'd like some citations for your assertion that the entire history of marriage and love has changed. The Bible itself relates how love was a big part of marriage even in its most ancient stories on the topic. I suspect there are literally thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands, of stories that refute your assertion here. But simply one that supports your assertion would be at least a start.

The fundamental purpose of marriage has been to protect the interests of the man, woman, and any offspring and to regulate and enforce the use of their resources for the benefit of society, to curtail abuses, and to provide for some sense of a steady, accepted course of action should the marriage eventually break down. This has not changed one iota, really, as far as I can tell.

Gays have no need of this sort of pre-determined relationship. Indeed, they do not fit the format seeing as the differences between men and women are precisely the sorts of things the marriage contract and surrounding law are supposed to account for.

 

[b&wpac4]

Excellent post. And isn't it interesting that the Bill specifically named the Catholic Church instead of just churches in general.

But you are right. The Left's reign of terror is just beginning since Obama's election. Barney Frank outright insulted a sitting Supreme Court Justice on the news, Antonin Scalia, calling him a "homophbe" (the stupidest word in the modern lexicon). I believe that is the first time thast a politician has attacked a justice like that.

Thats okay. They have their day, for now. But their antics will cause a backlash after a while because they just don't get that the majority of America is a little right of center politically and culturally.

Isn't "Reign of Terror" a bit strong and over dramatic?

 

[Shane Roach]

I just want people to live the life they choose as long as they do not directly harm other people. Any argument that suggest it hurts society fails, in my opinion, because we are not actively banning things that cause society harm. I think fast food restaurants are pretty horrible when abused, so is Coca-cola and ice cream. We don't have lots of bans on those things, and people keep getting bigger and bigger.

The "can't well all just get along" solution to this was civil unions, which seem to have gone over ok but which gay activists simply refuse to accept.

Civil unions would grant gays a sort of open legal ground to work out the issues unique to gays living together and sharing property without unnecessarily prying into the inner workings of an already strained family law surrounding hetero couples.

Add the civil rights angle, and you are suddenly suggesting that Christianity is innately opposed to civil rights. This is simply not an issue that can be characterized as one where everyone just tries to get along. It's an open attack on Christianity.

 

[Shane Roach]

Isn't "Reign of Terror" a bit strong and over dramatic?

Wasn't, "Bush Lied, People Died"?

This is the political climate you have been born into. You're stuck -- either you need to be a part of the solution, or you will be part of the problem.

Middle ground... Courtesy. Compromise...

One of the most disgusting things about US history is slavery. Yet, there would be no US history without compromise on that issue.

 

[LightHorseman]

Why is changing the definition of marriage necessary? Simply address the issue on its own merits. I have heard similar stories about not being allowed to visit in hospitals etc. You'd get almost zero resistance to changing these issues as they arise.

I dont think the definition changes at all, merely the interpretation. If your personal definition reads "man and woman" is changing it to "people" really so difficult?

As for addressing these issues one at a time as they arise, wouldn't accepting homosexual unions as analogous to marriage be easier and simpler?

First off, this is not "proving a negative" in the classic sense. You want a change. You should take some responsibility for the benefits of the change and not rely on rhetorical tricks to attempt a little political Judo. I have already ceded the point that the immediate effect would not result in the destruction of your marriage or anyone else's. I have asked what the benefits will be, and how you will go about ensuring there are no unintended consequences to our family law, which by most accounts is already a shambles.

Well I tried to "take responsibility" as you put it. I offered a personal example where a friend of mine has been adversely effected, and you yourself said you have heard similar examples. There is also the theory that if homosexual marriage were recognised, homosexuality would become more generally accepted which would lead to a decrease in discrimnation and persecution of gays. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

I'd like some citations for your assertion that the entire history of marriage and love has changed. The Bible itself relates how love was a big part of marriage even in its most ancient stories on the topic. I suspect there are literally thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands, of stories that refute your assertion here. But simply one that supports your assertion would be at least a start.

Citations? Again? I thought this was stuff was general knowledge! *sigh* off the top of my head, read your Pentaeuch, its all about betrothals and organising bride prices and parents giving their children into marriage and stuff. But if you want a more specific citation? *sigh* wait one... Here, have 3...

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

Enjoy.

The fundamental purpose of marriage has been to protect the interests of the man, woman, and any offspring and to regulate and enforce the use of their resources for the benefit of society, to curtail abuses, and to provide for some sense of a steady, accepted course of action should the marriage eventually break down. This has not changed one iota, really, as far as I can tell.

Gays have no need of this sort of pre-determined relationship. Indeed, they do not fit the format seeing as the differences between men and women are precisely the sorts of things the marriage contract and surrounding law are supposed to account for.

Why should homosexual unions not want or need the same protections of the two partners, any offspring, the appropriate regulation of their uses for the benefit of society, the curtailment of abuses, and a provision of an accepted action should the relationship break down?

Why would a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship not need exactly the same sort of protections and provisions as an opposite sex couple in a long term committed relationship?

 

[BigBadWlf]

The Sin of Interracial Marriage « David Ben-Ariel
30 Apr 2008 ... Then again, ‘Satan is going to use interracial marriage as the next attack upon ... Condemnation of such relationships is explicitly laid-forth throughout ... results of the fall of man from the Christian point of view. ...
davidbenariel.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/the-sin-of-interracial-marriage/ - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMYChristian Reconstructionism arose out of conservative Presbyterianism in the .... Rushdoony's condemnation of inter-racial marriage appears to have been his ...
www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm - 77k - Cached - Similar pages

Chronicles magazine condemns interracial marriage | JAMES EDWARDSObama’s mother wasn’t a Christian; she was the furthest thing from it. And just how many “radical leftists” were promoting the idea of ... No, they were promoting interracial marriage, and that’s just what Chronicles is condemning here. ...
www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2008/11/07/chronicles-magazine-condemns-interracial-marriage/ - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

So, theres a few out there.

Plus, you know, they used to lynch black men in the South for LOOKING at a white woman, so, you know, theres that.

Nicely done. But I bet your findings will either be ignored or excused

 

[LightHorseman]

Wasn't, "Bush Lied, People Died"?

This is the political climate you have been born into. You're stuck -- either you need to be a part of the solution, or you will be part of the problem.

Middle ground... Courtesy. Compromise...

One of the most disgusting things about US history is slavery. Yet, there would be no US history without compromise on that issue.

You percieve universal emancipation to be a "compromise"?

 

[b&wpac4]

The "can't well all just get along" solution to this was civil unions, which seem to have gone over ok but which gay activists simply refuse to accept.

Civil unions would grant gays a sort of open legal ground to work out the issues unique to gays living together and sharing property without unnecessarily prying into the inner workings of an already strained family law surrounding hetero couples.

Add the civil rights angle, and you are suddenly suggesting that Christianity is innately opposed to civil rights. This is simply not an issue that can be characterized as one where everyone just tries to get along. It's an open attack on Christianity.

So is the rise of non-Christian religions and their free practice therein, but none of us try to say that those should be banned.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

.....I can only offer that I love my partner and we live together and raise our family together, and we do our best to do our best. I don't believe that recognising the validity of homosexual unions will alter my partner and my relationship in the least iota. Why should it?.....

I see you have a Catholic icon. You are in a state of mortal sin right now and need to remain chaste if you cannot overcome your same-sex attraction issues. You need to go to confession and repent of this activity which you engage in.

From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV


Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[LightHorseman]

I see you have a Catholic icon. You are in a state of mortal sin right now and need to remain chaste if you cannot overcome your same-sex attraction issues. You need to go to confession and repent of this activity which you engage in.

From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church:

Nice try, but I don't have any same sex attractions. I am male, my partner is female and we have one biological daughter.

I am getting so sick of people arguing against my Catholicism, rather than my arguments.

 

[BigBadWlf]

What Mr Darwin actually said:


Oh, my, did Darwin really say that? It's not like this is so surprising, really, since the entire basis of evolution is that man 'evolved' from something else, and hence, there must have been other 'species' of 'men' before the current one came along. Do a search on "Homo" with any word following, I'm certain you'll find a number of species of man that are not classified as "homo sapiens."

Yes, this concept of different 'species' of man actually was a major support in the argument against interracial marriage, up until very recently.



Russ

Thank you for disproving your own claim

You claimed: “The specific reason interracial marriage was banned was because it was believed the different "races" were actually more akin to different "species," (asserted by Darwin in his book "The Descent of Man"), and it was not a good idea to have inter-species breeding of any sort. None of this was from a Christian perspective, but rather from a secular evolutionist perspective.”

And as you just noted Darwin asserted nothing of the sort as you quoted Darwin:


“Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species.” (emp. mine)
Darwin didn’t claim Caucasians and Blacks were different species.
And when one reads about the fight to ban interracial marriage one finds that the arguments used were religious

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."