Really? At what time was interracial marriage banned in 80 countries? Considering the word for it was coined in the U.S.? And the laws weren't to ban black and white relationships. They were to ban whites from marrying ANYONE other than their own race. Maybe you need to do a bit of history research. The laws were created AFTER it became apparent that there were gonna be white people that wanted to marry outside their race.

Where did you get that information from? I'd like to see it. I've read nowhere that there were specific laws like that in "most of the world". Canada never had them. Mexico never had them. I'd be curious to find where you got your information.
But let's compare that to laws banning gay marriage. Right now there are less than 10 countries in the entire world that allow "gay marriage" and there are several that will still execute a person for "being gay". Up until the 90's there we no such thing as "gay marriage" in the ENTIRE WORLD. So is your comparison valid? I can't see it.

Actually there also wasn't a vote before the laws were enacted in the first place. The laws didn't accompany the pilgrims to the New World, they were created here after the fact. And the laws weren't enacted because anyone thought they were demonic, there were practical reasons for them under the system of slavery.
Anti-miscegenation Laws - Encyclopedia of Arkansas
Whereas allowing people afflicted with homosexuality to change the basic structure of marriage to allow for same gender unions to be recognized under the same name is unconscionable.

I agree it will, for no reason other than the number of people that don't care about "marriage" in the first place. it really doesn't matter the way it used to. Gay people aren't a "problem", same gender relationships simply are a manifestation of a human gestational error, and as such should be given a way to recognize their union. I just don't think it should be called a "marriage". If we are gonna just dole out "rights" based on birth defects, there are a few others I could think of.

Don't forget to get back to me on "most of the world" had laws banning blacks from marrying whites. The laws in the U.S. forbid whites from marrying any other races, that's just the unpopular way of looking at it. So your assessment doesn't really even describe anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S.

germany, israel, australia, new zealand and throughout the british empire there were laws regulating and restricting interracial marriage to at least some degree. china, india and the middle east have strong cultural and religious bans although they do not qualify as laws, except perhaps where sharia law is enforced.

further, people everywhere have always seen interracial relationships as illegitimate or second rate, and less than pure same race relationships. the statistics on interracial marriages where they exist illustrate that it has historically been rare, and only recently has it become more acceptable.

and the sky did not fall in, despite the doomsayers predictions. marriage continued despite the dire warnings that it was against nature, against god and against the prevailing culture.

additionally, throughout europe, china, africa, and american indians, there has historically been acceptance and recognition of gay marriages. it was only with the spread of judeochristian religious intolerance that gay marriage has become seen as illegitimate.

this information is readily available in numerous places on line, in libraries and big books called encyclopaedias. look and you will find.

it has been in the public domain for years, some of it decades. the fact that you do not know it is evidence enough that you do not know what you are talking about.

the information is there for anyone to access. of course, you have not done so. if you had, you would not continue to hold your outdated, middle ages point of view. you probably only read information that you know you will agree with and refuse to look at anything that you might find challenging.

you can do a simple search on google,or wikipedia, or read an encyclopaedia if you like. it will not take long to verify what i have said. you won't though.

you will write off this entry as proof that you are right. but then, you write off every entry as proof that you are right.

you arguments are old, have been debated for ages in numerous forums and have been found wanting. i am not the first person to tell you this. and i suspect i will not be the first person that you listen to either.

You said "most of the world" forbid specifically "black people" from intermarrying. You gotta do better than that vague BS. There are 195 or so countries in this world.

But rare isn't what you were implying. Lets revisit your statement.
most of the world had laws barring black and white relationships for centuries, because clearly blacks were an inferior race, interracial relationships were seen as destructive, unacceptable, socially frowned on at best and actively legislated against.

You clearly pointed out "black people" specifically. Interracial marriage is one thing. Forbidding "Black people" is quite another.
You are building on a premise that has yet to be established. Even in the U.S. interracial marriages existed before the laws were created to abolish them.

There is no record that I have ever seen that indicated that "gay marriage" was viewed to be the same as a hetero one. They always had a separate distinction. As well they should since they are NOT a marriage. I'd like to read some of this information you have amassed. Because it's all news to me. And I've read a lot on the subject.

i stand corrected on the issue of laws relating to interracial marriage. a few countries have had such laws. most have had a prevailing culture that made interracial marriage very uncommon anyway.

the point to consider however is that the nature of marriage has changed in relation to interracial relationships. it was once uncommon, frowned on at best, shuned or banned outright at worst. but when society matured and interracial relationships became more common, we realised it was not an issue.

this parallels the debate on gay marriage.

and garysher, why would i bother providing you with any information? you provide very little in your posts, and when you have you have given sources biased beyond reason. and then been unable to defend it. and when i have directed you to sources, you have completely ignored me. in fact, the only time you have every ignored me is when i have directed you to independent objective information.

that speaks volumes.