Is interracial marriage "wrong"?

[HeWillProvide]

Is interracial marriage wrong because it would cause too many conflicts for the kids growing up, having to deal with all of the harassment they might receive?
What is your feeling on interracial marriage?

 

[Zeemeermin]

What “harassment?” More and more people are racially mixed. If you live in an area where people of color get harassed… MOVE. Bluh.

Anyone who has a problem with people marrying because of the color of their skin is racist. Period.

Never, ever base life choices on the immoral idiots around you and what they might do. That’s just capitulation, and no one wins moral victories with that. Society doesn’t advance by cowards hiding in closets, but by courageous people who live faith and morals out loud and proud.

 

[Tsuwano]

Is interracial marriage wrong because it would cause too many conflicts for the kids growing up, having to deal with all of the harassment they might receive?
What is your feeling on interracial marriage?

No, they aren’t wrong, though, as a person involved in an interracial marriage, I do find such questions insulting.

 

[Wowbagger]

No, they aren’t wrong, though, as a person involved in an interracial marriage, I do find such questions insulting.

Hey, now. Keep your feathers tucked in. Everyone should be able to ask a question without being afraid of offending somebody, and we must assume, in charity, that HeWillProvide was asking an honest question.

That being said, HeWillProvide, the above two answers are absolutely right. Interracial marriage is never wrong in and of itself, and I cannot conceive of a case where it would be wrong by social circumstance. It’s similar to the argument abortionists and eugenicists use for killing Downs Syndrome kids in the womb: “Isn’t it immoral to bring those kids into the world, because their quality of life will be so low?”

On the other hand, if somebody were seriously concerned about racial harassment in their locale, it would be legitimate – but not obligatory – for that person to consider that factor in deciding whether to marry or not, just as it would have been legitimate, for example, for Juliet to refuse to marry Romeo on the grounds that their families were at war and their kids could be in constant danger. Juliet’s decision to marry him anyways was not immoral, but either decision would have been morally acceptable in those circumstances.

There. Clear as mud, eh? Short answer to your question: no. Medium answer to your question: HECK no.

 

[Tsuwano]

Hey, now. Keep your feathers tucked in. Everyone should be able to ask a question without being afraid of offending somebody, and we must assume, in charity, that HeWillProvide was asking an honest question.

That being said, HeWillProvide, the above two answers are absolutely right. Interracial marriage is never wrong in and of itself, and I cannot conceive of a case where it would be wrong by social circumstance. It’s similar to the argument abortionists and eugenicists use for killing Downs Syndrome kids in the womb: “Isn’t it immoral to bring those kids into the world, because their quality of life will be so low?”

On the other hand, if somebody were seriously concerned about racial harassment in their locale, it would be legitimate – but not obligatory – for that person to consider that factor in deciding whether to marry or not, just as it would have been legitimate, for example, for Juliet to refuse to marry Romeo on the grounds that their families were at war and their kids could be in constant danger. Juliet’s decision to marry him anyways was not immoral, but either decision would have been morally acceptable in those circumstances.

There. Clear as mud, eh? Short answer to your question: no. Medium answer to your question: HECK no.

You’re absolutley right. I should keep my feathers tucked in, as you say. But aren’t such questions on par with questioning whether someone should marry a bald man because, well, it may cause the children conflict at school when classmates refer to their father as “baldy?” It may be true that children from interracial marriages endure undue pressure and conflict in some cases, but that isn’t a reflection on the marriage itself. It’s more a reflection on those individuals or that society which brings about conflict by questioning the legitimacy of such marriages. The better question would be isn’t it wrong to stigmatize children from interracial marriages?

 

[1sicht]

HWP, do mockingbirds mate with blue jays? They’re both birds, but they stay with their own kind. Do chameleons mate with geckos? No, each type couples with its own kind. All manner of birds can fly the skies together, perch on the same branches and hop around on the same fields, but they “know” that reproduction is reserved for their own kind.

The question you ask, OP, has biological ramifications (for example, sickle cell anemia being imported into a much wider population), as well as cultural ramifications (which include politics and religion). In our heavily fascist PC era (and as a result of the debacle of Nazism), we are not allowed to calmly discuss this topic, but it needs to be. The Soviets tried to pave over the whole issue, pretending it was a non-issue, yet look what happened as soon as that atrocity-ridden system crumbled: renewed ferocious hostility between the races.

I submit that the modern taboo on discussing this subject is our counterpart to the Victorian taboo on discussing sex. There is no justification for the ban other than that certain powerful minorities (the ones controlling all the organs of influence in Western society) have managed to propagandize the majority into squeamishness, using the handy cudgel of “hate speech” and “hate crimes” as their weapon of choice.

Here is my question back to you: if all races are equal, then why are there such deep disparities between them culturally? Why do people like the Jews and the Japanese, races that endured the most horrendous of massacres, resurge like the Phoenix, while other groups, who endured lesser hardships (or comparatively none), actually get worse (more crime, illegitimacy, drug use and sales, etc.), even after decades of billions of dollars in subsidies?

Even the apostle Paul himself refers to the Cretans of his time as being lazy and liars. Will the Berias of today excise that passage out of God’s Word because of our wussy Gleichschaltung du jour (this time from the Left)? There are others who gnash their teeth at the references to “the Jews” in John’s gospel. The new RSV is already “gender neutral” (AlkaSelzer, please); will future editions simply drop that gospel entirely? Orwell’s prescient warnings notwithstanding, it would seem that Big Brother has definitely made great strides.

[Note to Tsuwano: my comments are not meant to belittle your choice. I personally see no problem with, for example, a Japanese and a Caucasian marrying—because I don’t consider the Japanese a different race.]

 

[DexUK]

1sicht, I barely know where to begin with your comment. I run the risk of being rather rude.

Let’s take the Cretans. There weren’t a ‘race’. They were a bunch of people that had a collective culture. It was the culture that they ‘enjoyed’ that St Paul was concerned about.

People’s skin colour is irrelevant.

The Semitic peoples - a ‘race’ by most definitions - encompasses both Arabs and Jews. That race clearly has within it two cultural extremes. So extreme that these cultures are constantly at enmity with each other.

I really don’t know where you get the idea that the Japanese were subject to pogroms and massacres in the same way that Jews were. Perhaps my history is at fault. You appear to propose that Jewish and Japanese people ‘resurged’ as a result of properties inherent in their race. I propose to you that you should have ascribed these tendencies towards culture. It is a peoples’ culture and background that determines their collective ability to recover from a situation that they find themselves in. A culture that was inherently indolent and idle, even in the face of catastrophe, would simply die out, particularly if it is suffering from other privations like poverty or lack of education. A culture that values hard work and responsibility will adapt and survive. It’s as simple as that. ‘Race’ has nothing to do with it.

I really don’t want to go on because I find your argument about race distasteful in the extreme. When considering the point about marriage, the very thought of shunning a ‘race’ because of a slight genetic trait that a few of its population might carry is obscene.

 

[Wowbagger]

…on the other hand, Tsuwano, if you want to get offended by 1sicht’s reply, I am totally onboard with that.

To answer your question: yes, asking about interracial marriage is not really any different from asking about marriage to the hair-challenged. And, yes, it would be wrong to stigmatize children based on their traits. And, yes, children are monsters, so they are going to stigmatize and traumatize your children somehow no matter what you do, so, yes, there’s probably no sense worrying about it anyway. (I really don’t like children, incidentally, and hated being a child, and really the only redeeming thing about children is that they eventually grow up into human beings, and can finally be a source of pride and friendship to their parents.)

So your answer to HWP is quite right: it is definitely moral to marry interracially, and it would almost definitely be a stupid mistake not to get married for fear of how the kids would be treated. So, yeah, we agree.

EDIT: …seriously, though, 1sicht, I just reread your post, and, you know, I thank you for being so polite about it, and I appreciate your bringing your extremely unpopular perspective to the table here, but… you’re so darned wrong about it. All of it.

Mexicans aren’t a different species from Caucasians (which blows up the premise of your bird comparison and your first paragraph); biological assimilation of traits strengthens the genome more often than it weakens it; post-Soviet strife in the Eastern Bloc has little to do with racial DNA and everything to do with economics, politics, religion and culture (second paragraph); eugenics, though it was discredited mainly after the fall of the Third Reich, was made taboo more by conservative moral outrage than by liberal political correctness (and, indeed, many progressives remain closet eugenicists) (third paragraph); “billions and billions of dollars in subsidies” is the cause of the current plight of African-Americans, not their racial makeup; the Japanese have never faced what you suggested they faced, nor rebounded in any manner unique to their race (fourth paragraph); and… well, in your fifth paragraph, I have to agree that the newer Bible translations are increasingly stomach-turning.

But still, that’s a pretty awful track record! Your belief structure on this issue has little to no connection with reality!

 

[kib]

On a genetic level race means almost nothing. I agree with poster #2, if you feel your children would face ridicule, move to a different area. I know that if I married a black woman I would never live where I grew up in rural PA. Racial prejudice is too prevalent.

 

[wardrandolph]

HWP, do mockingbirds mate with blue jays? They’re both birds, but they stay with their own kind. Do chameleons mate with geckos? No, each type couples with its own kind. All manner of birds can fly the skies together, perch on the same branches and hop around on the same fields, but they “know” that reproduction is reserved for their own kind.

The question you ask, OP, has biological ramifications (for example, sickle cell anemia being imported into a much wider population), as well as cultural ramifications (which include politics and religion). In our heavily fascist PC era (and as a result of the debacle of Nazism), we are not allowed to calmly discuss this topic, but it needs to be. The Soviets tried to pave over the whole issue, pretending it was a non-issue, yet look what happened as soon as that atrocity-ridden system crumbled: renewed ferocious hostility between the races.

I submit that the modern taboo on discussing this subject is our counterpart to the Victorian taboo on discussing sex. There is no justification for the ban other than that certain powerful minorities (the ones controlling all the organs of influence in Western society) have managed to propagandize the majority into squeamishness, using the handy cudgel of “hate speech” and “hate crimes” as their weapon of choice.

Here is my question back to you: if all races are equal, then why are there such deep disparities between them culturally? Why do people like the Jews and the Japanese, races that endured the most horrendous of massacres, resurge like the Phoenix, while other groups, who endured lesser hardships (or comparatively none), actually get worse (more crime, illegitimacy, drug use and sales, etc.), even after decades of billions of dollars in subsidies?

Even the apostle Paul himself refers to the Cretans of his time as being lazy and liars. Will the Berias of today excise that passage out of God’s Word because of our wussy Gleichschaltung du jour (this time from the Left)? There are others who gnash their teeth at the references to “the Jews” in John’s gospel. The new RSV is already “gender neutral” (AlkaSelzer, please); will future editions simply drop that gospel entirely? Orwell’s prescient warnings notwithstanding, it would seem that Big Brother has definitely made great strides.

[Note to Tsuwano: my comments are not meant to belittle your choice. I personally see no problem with, for example, a Japanese and a Caucasian marrying—because I don’t consider the Japanese a different race.]

This is wrong on so many levels I would’nt know where to start.A mixed marriage is a marridge where a Catholic marries someone of a differant faith.Evan this is not considered “wrong”,but one needs to be strong in their faith and know and understand the teachings of the Church.

 

[1sicht]

really the only redeeming thing about children is that they eventually grow up into human beings

:bigyikes: From your other posts, I know you are pro-life, Wowby, but that sentence there sounds too much like the pro-deathers. (I know, off-topic, sorry. BTW, I agree with you.)

biological assimilation of traits strengthens the genome more often than it weakens it

Yes, for non-Caucasians, it does indeed.

post-Soviet strife in the Eastern Bloc has little to do with racial DNA and everything to do with economics, politics, religion and culture

Um, no: read up (just for starters) about the problems with the skinheads in former East Germany; the e., p., r. & c. come into play, too, of course, but the race question is VERY much the foundational issue.

eugenics, though it was discredited mainly after the fall of the Third Reich, was made taboo more by conservative moral outrage than by liberal political correctness (and, indeed, many progressives remain closet eugenicists)

This might be true wrt right at the end of WW2, but since then, it is the “Progressives” (euphemism for the Pinkos, aka Leftists) who make it totally criminal to discuss things like Shockley tried to (if they’re “closet eugenicists,” why have they sponsored and pushed the massive welfare system? Why have they been sponsoring and pushing the whole illegals tsunami for decades?)

“billions and billions of dollars in subsidies” is the cause of the current plight of African-Americans, not their racial makeup

Read the memoirs of the Delaney sisters, delightful Black centarians: one of them or their siblings (it’s been at least a decade since I read their books) was a public health nurse in the late 19th/early 20th century, and she was appalled at the total ignorance of many of her Black contemporaries wrt the most basic issues of living.

the Japanese have never faced what you suggested they faced, nor rebounded in any manner unique to their race

Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Please enlighten me as to what other race (not even the Jews) had this sort of atrocity inflicted on them.

 

[1sicht]

I propose to you that you should have ascribed these tendencies towards culture. It is a peoples’ culture and background that determines their collective ability to recover from a situation that they find themselves in. A culture that was inherently indolent and idle, even in the face of catastrophe, would simply die out, particularly if it is suffering from other privations like poverty or lack of education. A culture that values hard work and responsibility will adapt and survive.

Yes, but culture has a lot to do with race, not to mention that “A culture that was inherently indolent and idle, even in the face of catastrophe, would simply die out” is baloney, bec. if either (a) another (industrious) culture pays the indolent and idle culture to continue to be that way and to keep reproducing in any way at all—in wedlock or out (nay, presses the lie on them that that is their inherent history!!! [please read Black writer Thomas Sowell’s book **Black Rednecks & White Liberals]) and/or (b) the lesser culture has as its main hobby reproducing, then the lesser culture will most certainly not die out (look at all the squalor in the 3rd World countries, yet they reproduce and reproduce…and reproduce). On the contrary, the (bizarrely suicidal) erstwhile superior culture WILL.

 

[mini_me640]

HWP, do mockingbirds mate with blue jays? They’re both birds, but they stay with their own kind. Do chameleons mate with geckos? No, each type couples with its own kind. All manner of birds can fly the skies together, perch on the same branches and hop around on the same fields, but they “know” that reproduction is reserved for their own kind.

This argument is so weak on so many levels, most importantly, biology. Mockingbirds and blue jays don’t mate because they are a different species. African people and European people, for example, are not different species. Orange cats mate with white cats don’t they? Yes, because they are the same species with different exterior traits. Human beings of different races are still the same “kind”, or species.

 

[LDNCatholic]

HWP, do mockingbirds mate with blue jays? They’re both birds, but they stay with their own kind. Do chameleons mate with geckos? No, each type couples with its own kind. All manner of birds can fly the skies together, perch on the same branches and hop around on the same fields, but they “know” that reproduction is reserved for their own kind.

People of different races are not different species as are the animals you have cited in your post. Members of the same species are able to mate and produce fertile offspring. If the different racial groups were, as you suggest, different species, then the offspring of say, a Nigerian man and a Korean woman would be a sterile mule child.

However many people of mixed ethnicity (probably the same percentage as those of a homogeneous racial stock) are fertile.

So, that theory goes out the window.

I submit that the modern taboo on discussing this subject is our counterpart to the Victorian taboo on discussing sex. There is no justification for the ban other than that certain powerful minorities (the ones controlling all the organs of influence in Western society) have managed to propagandize the majority into squeamishness, using the handy cudgel of “hate speech” and “hate crimes” as their weapon of choice.

Oh dear. This certain powerful minority…it’s the dreaded Jew right?

Here is my question back to you: if all races are equal, then why are there such deep disparities between them culturally? Why do people like the Jews and the Japanese, races that endured the most horrendous of massacres, resurge like the Phoenix, while other groups, who endured lesser hardships (or comparatively none), actually get worse (more crime, illegitimacy, drug use and sales, etc.), even after decades of billions of dollars in subsidies?

Abject poverty?

[Note to Tsuwano: my comments are not meant to belittle your choice. I personally see no problem with, for example, a Japanese and a Caucasian marrying—because I don’t consider the Japanese a different race.]

I’m sure both he, and the Japanese people are flattered…

 

[Tsuwano]

Offended? No, not really. Just a bit befuddled I guess. My wife and I are too busy trying to build a successful marriage and raising two beautiful daughters to be offended by every person who can’t understand how two people from such different backgrounds, cultures and races can love one another so much. The answer really is simple. We believe God called us to one another and gives us his grace to build this thing we call family. In the end, the future is ours. I hope God has blessed your family as much as he has blessed ours.

 

[DaveBj]

Hummingbirds don’t mate with blue jays (or cats with dogs) because, as has been pointed out, such a mating, if it could even take place, would be infertile. Human beings from any race can mate with human beings from any other race, and those matings are fertile. In this the will of God can be seen.

I had my first major encounter with “interracial” marriages while I was overseas in the Air Force, and what I observed was that the children of such marriages were, in general, better looking (and sometimes smarter) than their parents. I discussed this with a professor of sociology, and he said that this was a manifestation of “hybrid vigor.” In other words, when parents from different gene pools have a child, there is less amplification of harmful recessive genes. In this the will of God can be seen.

As far as the acceptance of “mixed-race” children is concerned, the county in which I live used to be a center of KKK-type anti-African-American sentiment. Nowadays there are plenty of mixed marriages and “mixed-race” children, and nobody seems to bat an eye.

DaveBj

 

[LDNCatholic]

Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Please enlighten me as to what other race (not even the Jews) had this sort of atrocity inflicted on them.

I don’t know…The estimated death toll of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stands at around 150-240,000. Atrocious, but not ‘‘the worst’’ atrocity.

Roma gypsies in the holocaust: 220,000-1.5 mil.
Jews: 6 mil.

I am not writing this to belittle the Japanese suffering, merely to counter the ‘‘not even the Jews’’ point made in the above post. If anyone is offended I apologise.

 

[mdgspencer]

I take my cues from what is right and wrong from the Catholic faith. The Church never spoke against interracial marriage. Asking myself as a Catholic if this is wrong seems very strange to me as a Catholic for this reason.
The opening poster asked if it is wrong because the children would not be accepted. If that is a valid reason for saying a marriage is wrong, then any marriage in the U.S. between two black people would be wrong. Their children would have the same degree of unacceptance. But this is absurd.

 

[Joan_M]

Is interracial marriage wrong? My answer - there is only one race: the human race, of which we are all members. Yes, there are racists still - just shows how hard it is to really overcome prejudices!

My marriage would be termed an interracial marriage. I am, as far as I know, 100% Irish. My husband is Trinidadian and is a “stew-pot” - he has African, Irish, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Indian ancestors. Big deal!! We have two sons. One takes after my side of the family, but with fairly olive complexion, dark brown eyes and fairly kinky hair. The other has his father’s features, but his skin color is more like mine (burns easily).

They did experience some racial comments growing up - in Ireland my youngest son (then 6 years old) was called “******” by a twelve year old boy. My son was standing on a low wall at the time, and so, his head was on a level with the 12 year old. My son then showed him what he thought of that remark - he head butted the boy, causing him great pain… Thereafter the older boy would cross to the other side of the street when he saw my son!

In Trinidad, my oldest son was nicknamed “Reds” - light-skinned blacks here are referred to as red-skinned. They were also called “Zebra” - black and white…

You cannot shield children from all prejudice or racism, but if their home life is good, they can overcome all of that and let it go.

Far more important is the culture your spouse grew up in. Cultural differences, particularly in the way a man will treat his wife, can be very, very important. Much more than the color of someone’s skin, the texture of their hair, or the color or shape of their eyes. These things are just a part of their description, not their character.

My husband and I will celebrate our 41st Wedding Anniversary next week (Sept. 9th). We love each other much more than we did on our Wedding Day. Have no fear of “interracial” marriage!

 

[DexUK]

They did experience some racial comments growing up - in Ireland my youngest son (then 6 years old) was called “******” by a twelve year old boy. My son was standing on a low wall at the time, and so, his head was on a level with the 12 year old. My son then showed him what he thought of that remark - he head butted the boy, causing him great pain… Thereafter the older boy would cross to the other side of the street when he saw my son!

Hmm… violence is not remotely to be encouraged, but I must admit that did give me a little chuckle.

The point is that Man is made in the Image of God.

Not some men. Not particular types of men. ALL men are made in the Image of God.

No person has any right whatsoever to discriminate against another person based simply upon differences in colour of skin. To do so would be to break the greatest of all the commandments: to love God and to love one another as we would ourselves be loved. And that would be objectively sinful.

We must love each other because we love God and because we are made in God’s image. If we don’t love each other, then we aren’t loving God, because it was God that put us here. And if we don’t love God, then we’re in trouble.

It cannot be spelled out any simpler than that.