http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/archives/interracial.

htm
Inter-Racial Dating, Inter-Racial Marriage, Judgement Day
By Dr. Ed Fields
All of organized society trumpets the tremendous growth of a once-unheard of phenomenon in America...the appalling
surge in the number of racially mixed couples and their inter-racial offspring. Movies, television, magazines,
newspapers, ministers and popular music all promote this new mixing of the bloods.
What is behind this great wave of interracial breeding? Is it good for America, the White race or your children? Are there
ulterior motives behind this massive campaign to boost this previously forbidden activity? Is it something that responsible
citizens should promote or oppose?
As late as 1950, mixed marriage between Whites and Negroes (or Asiatics) was banned in the following states: Ale. Ariz.
Ark. Calif. Cole. Del. Fla,. Ga. Id. Ind. Ky. La. Md. Miss. Mo. Mont. Nebr. Nev. N.C. N.D. Okla. Ore. S.C. S.D. Tenn. Tex. Ut. Va.
W.Va and Wyo. This ban continued in the southern states until outlawed by a liberal Supreme Court on June 12, 1967.
In order to better understand the debate on the desirability of inter-racial breeding, one should understand several
terms totally censored from the English language today:

Mongrelization: The inter-breeding of different races into a hybrid (mixed) race.

Miscegenation: Same defmition as above, used to describe the many now, invalid state laws prohibiting White / Black
liaisons.
Mulatto: The offspring of a White/Black interracial couple (half Negro).
Quadroon: Person who has one black grandparent (one-fourth Negro).
Octaroon: Person having one Black greatgrandparent (one-eighth Negro).
Dysgenics: (or down-breeding): The process of increased negative genetic changes (retrogression) in a species. An
example being an intelligent high l.Q. White woman giving birth to a low I.Q. mulatto baby.
To young people of the late 1990's, it seems Iconceivable that all of organized society once actively opposed the mating
of Whites with non-Whites. Those few who dared voice support for such an abomination were generally regarded as
depraved crackpots. Most states had Anti-Mtscegenation laws that tbrbade sexual relations between the races. One could
be imprisoned for mating outside of the White race.
This changed with Franklin Roosevelt and the onset of the Civil Rights era. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated
all state laws forbidding interracial marriage. From that time on, there has been an ever growing campaign in the popular
culture to promote and expand this irreversible race-mixing -- Why?

Inter-Racial Breeding Threatens All

Some might ask: Why should the government ever have regulated the behavior of two consenting individuals? Do they
not have the right to mate with whomever they choose?
Our forefathers recognized the vast gulf which exists between the White and Black races in terms of equality. They
recognized the Negro African race to be an inferior race, child-like, capricious, impulsive and cruel, yet useful for manual
labor under the constant direction of the White man. They also recognized the inherent danger in the presence of a large
Negro population in contact with Whites because it invariably leads to interracial sexual relations. They saw the hideous
results of low-class White men mating with plantation negro females. They knew that every civilization in history that had
used Negro slaves eventually succumbed to the corruption of interracial breeding, leading to the collapse of that society.
Therefore, the founders of America passed laws forbidding White-Black marriage. This was the real motivation behind the
segregation laws which existed in the pre civil rights era South. They did not want their civilization to decay and fall due to
interbreeding with inferior racial stock!

Problems of Mixed Couples

1) Black males are 20 times more likely to be bi-sexual than are White males. They are also many times more likely to be
users of intravenous drugs than are Whites. The obvious implication here is that the White female who chooses a non-
White mate drastically increases her chances of exposure to the dread HIV-AIDS plague and the hideous death that
inevitably follows. According to medical sources in 1996, one out of every 33 young Black males is infected with AIDS in
comparison to one in 100 young males as a whole. Were this one fact common knowledge, interracial mating would cease
overnight!
2) Negro genes are dominant over that of the White by a four-to-one ratio. This means that any offspring from such a
union will always favor the Black parent, even if the Black parent is not a full-blooded Negro.
3) Domestic violence is far more prevalent among mixed couples than among Whites. We need only to cite the O.J.
Simpson-Nicole Brown marriage as evidence for this.
4) White parents will often dis-own a child who enters into an inter-racial relationship. They are in fact despised by the
general public of both races.
5) When an interracial baby is conceived, a White family line, thousands of years old, has instantly ceased to exist. In
fact, one could say that the only reason an individual is White today is because all of their ancestors mated only with
other Whites.
6) Inherited health problems of the Negro race, such as sickle-cell anemia, can be passed along to the mix-breed
offspring of an interracial couple.
7) The low I.O. of Negroes has been scientifically proven to be hereditary. Low-I.Q. people breed only more low-I.Q.
offspring and usually have large numbers of offspring, further polluting the White gene pool. Blacks score 15 to 20 I.Q.
points lower than Whites on every intelligence test ever given. Blacks have brains which exhibit primitive features such as
small size, light weight.
and fewer convolutions ("wrinkles" linked to intelligence). For this reason, the offspring of interracial couples will have
lower intelligence than if the White partner had a child by another White person.
8) The divorce rate of inter-racial marriages is 75%. It is believed that many who engage in mixed unions have profound
emotional problems and/or are drug users. Often they seek to mock society's norms or are in rebellion against their
parents.
9) The Racial Throwback: This is when one parent in a mixed marriage suddenly learns that he or she has distant black
ancestors. THE TRUTH AT LAST has carried several shocking stories about "White" couples having a black baby. One was
Abraham Laing, whose daughter was born black. After her birth, he discovered that he had one mulatto grandparent. The
book, America's Greatest Problem, by the eminent Prof. R.W. Shufeldt and published by the F.A. Davis Co. Shufeldt
wrote:
"A young American artisan of excellent racial background met a pretty girl in Virginia and in due course married her.
At the end of a year a boy was born. He was black as coal. The hair was kinky with all the typical Negro facial features. The
mother swore that the husband was the father. He then quietly went to work to trace his wife's ancestors. After much
trouble and expense, he finally ascertained that her great-grandmother was a Negro. It was in this stock, through cross
breeding with Whites, that his young wife saw her pedigree. Her first child was simply a reversion to the black ancestry on
her maternal side. I have heard of several other well -authenticated cases of this nature.

What The HOLY BIRLE Says About Race Mixing

Liberal ministers have had a very difficult time reconciling the Holy Bible with their crusade to promote inter-racial
marriage. Quite frankly, the Bible demands Segregation of the different races.
The Apostle Paul: Acts 17:24-28 says that God made man "and hath determined the bounds of their habitation." Genesis
28:1, says that the Canaanites (blacks) were the "servants of servants" and Isaac called Jacob and said unto him, "Thou
shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."
Jeremiah 13:23 stresses the fact that we can not make white people out of the Negroes in these words: "Can the
Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots." This could be interpreted as a warning that Negroes could breed
Whites down into mongrels but that we can never breed them up into Whites.

John and Lynette Adams of Capetown, South Africa. They had a "throw-back" Black daughter. Juliana, from a distant
Negro ancestor on the mother's side.

Inter-Breeding of The Races Destroys Civilization

It is an historical fact that every nation in the history of the world in which the White population mixed its gene pool with
that of the lower races lost its civilization. Prime examples are India, (where the Aryans interbred with the dark skinned
Dravidians of the South), Egypt (where the Caucasian builders of the Pyramids inter-bred with their Nubian / Sudanese
slaves) and Brazil, a nation far richer in natural resources than the U.S.
Brazil's teeming, poverty wracked northern half has self destucted due to massive racial inter-breeding. In sharp
contrast, only the southern part of Brazil, with a White majority in Sao Paulo, maintains a productive society.
Carthage and the other great White civilizations of North Africa all vanished due to inter-breeding with the Negro. The
great explorer Stanley stated that black history in Africa did not begin until they came in contact with the White colonial
powers, who built modern civilization for them.
Today, with the withdrawal of the Whites, "African Civilization" has collapsed as brutal, superstitious and illiterate chiefs,
generals and witch doctors struggle for power and a brief but violent reign as "president for life". There is not one truly
freely elected leader in all of Africa.
A reknowned historian. Sir Arthur Reith, wrote: "In our brief experience of the world we have never found that Negro
people are gifted with inventiveness or have ever manifested a strong desire to improve their material culture." Prof.
Arthur De Gobineau, in his book, The Inequality of Human Races, writes: "We look at all of the achievements of the
European people and then try and find some semblance of a civilization in black Africa. We are unable to find any
advanced art, science, religion, morality, philosophy, history or even one single civilization"

Great Men Speak On Interracial Marriage

Abraham Lincoln, in his debate with Senator Douglas at Quincy, IL, on Oct. 13, 1858 and quoted in Abraham Lincoln -
Complete Works, published by The Century Co., 1894, Vol. I, page 273 stated:
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality
of the White and Black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes - nor of
qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there ia a physical
difference between the White and Black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and
political equality, and in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of
superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White
race."

"Take Your Choice - Separation or Mongrelization"

Senator Theodore G, Bilbo, of Mississippi wrote the famous book with the aforementioned title just prior to his death in
1947. Sen. Bilbo called for a permanent solution to the Negro problem. Like Lincoln, he said that they should be repatriated
back to Africa. He said that race was "America's greatest problem." Bilbo warned that by allowing integration to proceed,
the amalgamation of the races would result.

Communist Party and Roosevelt Promoted Race-Mixing

The interracial breeding of the races was not promoted as an issue until Roosevelt became President with Communist
Party support. Roosevelt issued the first "civil rights law" on June 25, 1941 in the form of Executive Order No. 8802. This
established the Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC). It banned discrimination based on "race, color or creed"
among all private businesses receiving defense contracts.
His wife Eleanor was the first prominent White woman to join the NAACP. She was also the first to approve interracial
marriage in a speech to Negro students at Howard University. She said: "Marriage between Whites and Negroes is an
individual and personal marrer. I would never say yes or no to intermarriage." She also opposed Sen. Bilbo's repatriation
plan which led him to offer her the position of "Queen of Liberia".
Communist Party chairman Earl Browder supported the Roosevelts and issued this statement: "We must, as a war
necessity, proceed to the systematic and relentless wiping out of every law, custom and habit of thought, which in flagrant
violation of our Constitution enforces an unequal status between Negro and White citizens.
Famous scientists warned that interracial breeding would lower the quality of the White Race. It is known that the Negro
has an I.Q. 15 to 20 points lower than the average White and this is an inherited trait. Their racial features are those of
primitive man, such as: 1) The Negro arms are two inches longer than the White. 2) The Negro jaw juts forward giving him
a facial angle of 70%, compared with the White of 82%. 3) The Negro skull is thicker and their brain weeghts 1249 grams
compared to 1380 far the White. 4) The mouth, jaw and teeth are much larger than the White. 5) The skin is thicker and their
sweat glands emit a strong oder when perspiring. The body is mostly hairless. 6) The mouth has thick protruding lips,
often showing the inner red mucous membrane inside the mouth. Likewise, the flat nose in pure Negroes has the nostril
often showing the inner red mucous membrane. 7) The eyes are always black and the white part frequently is tinged with
yellow. 8) At birth, the Negro skull sutures close much earlier than any other race which retards the development of the
forebrain - where the centers of intelligence lie.

Interracial Breeding Destroys The White Race

Race Traits and Tendencies, by Dr. F.L. Hoffman, found that: "The mulatto may be superior to the Negro but he certainly
is inferior to the Cauccasian in intellectual ability. At best, amalgamation can improve the Negro only at the expense of the
White race. Amalgamation is not, therefore, desirable on scientific grounds."
The Corruption of The Blood, by Prof. W.B. Smith states that: "Who, then, would have the foolhardiness to make this
experiment of race amalgamation - an experiment which , once made, is made forever, whose consequences could never
be undone - when there is, at least, and at the very lowest, an undeniable possibility, not to say a certainty, that those
consequences would be disastrous in the extreme? Can we imagine a more wanton folly ? Would such an experiment be
seen any other place so well as in a madhouse ?"
Sen. Theodore G. Bilbo summed up every argument on how interracial marriage will destroy America's civilization with
the words;
"Take Your Choice - Separation or Mongrelization."
"If our buildings, our highways, our railroads should be wrecked, we could rebuild them. If our cities should be
destroyed, out of the very ruins we could erect newer and greater ones. Even if our armed might should be crushed, we
could rear sons who would redeem our power. But if the blood of our White race should become corrupted and mingled
with the blood of Africa, then the present greatness of the United States would be destroyed and all hope for the future
would be forever lost. The maintenance of American civilization would be as impossible for a negroid America as would be
the redemption and restoration of the White man's blood which has been mixed with that of the Negro.

http://spec.lib.vt.edu/archives/blackwomen/miscegen.htm

Back Talk

Pros and Cons of Mixed Dating and Miscegenation

By: Fredi Hairston and Larry Billion

Source: "Back Talk," Virginia Tech, 13 October 1967.

The original text, spelling, and punctuation have been retained.

"Back Talk" is a column which deals with controversial issues and presents both sides of the topic. The opinions expressed within
the column are not to be construed as being necessarily those of either or both writers.

Con

Inter-racial dating, which may lead to inter-racial marriage, is certainly improper, immoral, and unnecessary. The most pressing
issue of concern is the probable results of such unions...mulatto children.
These children will grow up with increased psychological stress, which is already severe enough during maturation. The child will
meet with unacceptance from both social groups of the parents. This rejection most definitely will be a hindrance to the child's
development. The psychological problems of the racially mixed siblings are of utmost concern.

Dr. D. A. Ausubel, noted child psychologist (Ph. D.) and medical doctor, believes that the properly adjusted child passes through a
period of satellization. The phase of satellization is one of parental identification for the child. How does a child with parents of
different races formulate his identification? Certainly, the necessary identification is extremely difficult and almost impossible. The
child may never satellize (non-satellization) and become maladjusted. The non-satellizer encounters increased social barriers and
problems which the satellized child never encounters. Those difficulties are added to the social rejection already thrown upon the
children of miscegenation.

Status, which all individuals perpetually strive for, is also a vital aspect of the subject. Before reaching puberty, the child's status is
mainly derived. The child obtains status for being who he is, what he is. How do the siblings in consideration receive the status
necessary for development? Primary status, that received for accomplishments, is not prevalent enough to suffice the individual's
needs in childhood. This lack of status is another " hang-up" for the inter-racial child.

Dr. Ausubel also states that the properly developed child must pass through a period of desatellization from the parents. This is
immediately followed by a time of re-satellization with the peer group. How can the children of miscegenation satellize with the peer
group? He is unaccepted by his peers because he is unlike them. Another barrier for proper maturation is hurdled in the path of the
racially intermixed individual. Psychologically, the children of inter-racial unions will most definitely meet with increased and undue
development problems.

Inter-racial marriages are also immoral in our society. Morality is according to one authority the "manners, customs, or patterns of
behavior that conform to the standards of the group." The "group" does not perceive inter-racial marriages, miscegenation, as the
norm...accepted behavior.

Inter-racial dating is actually up to the individuals involved. However, when marriage enters the picture, utmost care must be taken.
The probable outcome of this marriage must be evaluated. The result is children who are out casts from both the parental social
groups. Extreme psychological barriers, which impede normal and desired development are thrown upon the maturing child. The
siblings suffer from such unions...not the parents. Certainly the children must be considered before prospective maters enter the
bonds of inter-racial marriages. The ultimate conclusion is...EACH TO HIS OWN!!!

Pros

Interracial dating like every other type of dating is a personal thing and should not be a public affair. Yet, the plane of understanding
which is required to accept this situation has not as yet been reached by most Americans. When two people who like each other
meet, they do not stop to consider skin color, religious background, or any other such obscure facets of an individual.

A popular argument against interracial "anything" is that "purity" of the race (usually white) will be destroyed. The sensible answer to
this is, "what purity?" It is a well established fact that all races are mongrel.

The conclusion that interracial dating leads to miscegenation is invalid. No one who is psychologically stable marries another person
simply because he has dated her.

If a couple does consider interracial marriage it is not immoral or "against nature." Dr. William Bass, last week's visiting scholar on
Tech's campus and a noted anthropologist from the University of Kansas stated that all men are possible mates for all women. In his
talk on the "Concept of Race," he pointed out that the only reason interracial dating and miscegenation are not more prominent is
because of the social and cultural isolation of races.

A few weeks ago Dr. Samuel Proctor, president of the Institute for Services to Education, emphasized that the only way in which a
minority can infiltrate into the mainstream of a society is through assimilation. Amalgamation is a necessary step in this progress.
This does not mean that everyone should rush right out and marry someone who is of another race. Few people have the love and
courage to go against the morals and folk laws of present day society. Involvement with someone who is "different" takes more than
just a desire to experience something new.

It must be noted, however, that the children of an interracial marriage are the only victims of miscegenation. This is solely because
of the hypocrisy and cruelty of man. The day is coming when people will realize that the ostracization of children because of their
heritage is meaningless. The only result that can arise from such treatment is alienation. Alienation can lead to complete rebellion
which in turn will perpetuate hate like that which drives rioters into the streets.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/591537/whats_in_a_race_views_on_interracial.html?cat=41
What's in a Race? Views on Interracial Dating
Published February 13, 2008 by:
Geoffrey Weed
Often times, especially in the vast complexity of the modern era, it seems as if the clash of cultural norms can be a difficult problem
to resolve. The taboos of one culture are often markedly different than those of

others, and when questions of morality arise, who is to say what's right and what's wrong? Certain issues, though, while sometimes
highly contentious, seem as if they have a true moral solution. One such issue is that of interracial dating. While there are many
people that argue that the practice of interracial dating or marriage is immoral, unnatural, and generally wrong, the strength of any
such argument rests on nothing of substance. The fact of the matter is that, for many reasons, there is simply nothing about
interracial dating that makes it an issue suitable for a society to censor in any way.

First of all, and quite importantly, it would be apropos to further discuss the arguments that are made against
interracial relationships and the type of individual who tends to make them. Arguments against interracial dating are generally based
on ignorance, fear, and racism, with an occasional argument being made that has at least some sort of logical merit. Within such
arguments against relationships of mixed racial background one will find terms such as, "be with your own kind," and racial epithets.
One will also find that those who argue against interracial relationships tend to be less educated. Many of their arguments stem from
fundamental religious beliefs or plain hatred of that which is different. In fact, one of the greatest proponents of banning interracial
marriage was Adolph Hitler and his group of Nazi peers. It hardly seems necessary to state why arguments that were supported by
such people are automatically cast in a dubious light today. The proof, however, of a given position can not be found in the
examination of those who oppose it. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, owned slaves, but we do not today take that fact as a proof
that because we admire him

slavery is therefore a reasonable practice. Instead, the proof that there is nothing patently objectionable or immoral about interracial
dating stems from the fact that it seems, as an institution, to be utterly protected. Legally speaking there is absolutely no question
that interracial dating is perfectly within the bounds of the law. Nothing in the Constitution even hints at the idea that such a thing
could be discriminated against, and the Supreme Court has definitively protected the right of individuals to marry whomever of the
opposite sex they so desire.

Apart from legal concerns, though, there remains the more pressing question of morality. Frankly, though, morality is not the key to
the issue. There are many practices in America today that are legally protected and yet held in contempt by many as immoral.
Things such as gambling, legalized prostitution, alcohol and tobacco, and political contributions all draw great criticism. Obviously,
there is no way to really isolate one set code of morality that everyone would agree to.

Instead, the key to the question of interracial dating lies in one simple query, that being namely, who does it hurt? Therein is the
issue. The most convincing, logically reasoned arguments against interracial dating/marriage tend to be the ones that contend that
such practices hurt any children that result from such relationships. The basic concept is that children that are of a mixed heritage
will be discriminated against and will not belong in any one subculture. Upon further examination, though, this argument is utterly
ridiculous. It is clearly evident that the vast majority of African Americans already have some amount of mixed heritage in their past,
as do the vast majority of whites, Asians, Latinos, and the whole of the world's population. In fact, mankind originated from one
common origin. Different races are not different species. The very idea of race, actually, is highly debated, with many arguing that
there really are no differing races due to the fact that there isn't any scientific way to classify a person from one race to the next. If a
child has a black father and a white mother, the resulting child will be a mixture of two races, and what is generally called a mulatto.
If that is actually so, however, then the absolute majority of African Americans are mulattos, due to the fact that they have white
blood in them. If, on the other hand, having black genetics automatically makes a person black, then a good deal of people that
consider themselves to be white are actually black. In the end, the ridiculous nature of such paradoxes proves the point that
interracial dating has nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Any problems that people have with it are not matters of science, or anything
even

similarly solid, but are instead matters of social convention. If society, though, decides that it is all right to keep people of different
races from marrying because their offspring are objectionable to a fringe minority, then what is to stop the prevention of people with
genetic disorders from marriage? Wouldn't the world be better if there weren't disabled people? If there weren't people with
diabetes? What about people that will be prone to high blood pressure? The whole concept is laughable. What isn't funny, on the
other hand, is the fact that people use such arguments to thinly veil their racism, ignorance, and plain stupidity. The human right to
choose whatever person one wants to pair oneself with is one of those pesky fundamental rights like the ones to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, which many people like to invoke only when it suits them. The very nature of such liberties, though, is that they
apply to all, and that they are not up for debate. Likewise, the concept that interracial dating shouldn't be allowed hasn't really been
up for debate for a number of decades, and anyone that should want to reopen the question will quickly find that the proof of their
idiocy will lie in the flat refusal of any court in America to allow such a demonstrably offensive matter to even be argued in a court of
law.

http://www.mixedfolks.com/names.htm

Names for MixedFolks

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Mulatto: NOUN :1. A person having one white and one Black parent. 2. A person of mixed white and Black ancestry.
Inflected forms: pl. —tos or —toes

ETYMOLOGY: Spanish mulato, small mule, person of mixed race, mulatto, from mulo, mule, from Old
Spanish, from Latin mulus.

Quadroon: NOUN A person having one-quarter Black ancestry.

ETYMOLOGY: Alteration of Spanish cuarterón, from cuarto, quarter, from Latin quartus.

Octoroon: Noun A person whose ancestry is one-eighth Black.

ETYMOLOGY: Greek okta-, okto-, from okto, Latin octo-, from octo prefix of Eight+ - quad)roon
The terms mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon originated with the racial policies of European colonizers in the
Americas, especially the Spanish. Because civil rights and responsibilities were based directly on the
degree of European blood that a person had, such classifications were highly elaborated, and minor
distinctions in ancestry were carefully recorded. While these terms have highly precise definitions, in actual
practice they were often used based on impressions of skin color rather than definite knowledge of
ancestry.

However Dictionary.com gives us a different etymology of the word Mulatto, one that is more befitting a human being as
opposed to a mule.

Mulatto: 1. A person having one white and one Black parent. 2. A person of mixed white and Black ancestry. - moo-
lat'o, -lä'to, myoo-)n., pl. mu·lat·tos or mu·lat·toes.
ETYMOLOGY: Spanish from Arabic muwallad, person of mixed race, from walada, to engender, give birth.

Other names I'm sure many of you MixedFolks have heard:

1.) A person of mixed Black and European ancestry who speaks a creolized language, especially one
Creole: based on French or Spanish. 2.) A Black slave born in the Americas as opposed to one brought from
Africa.
1.) The offspring of a white person and an American Indian. 2.) The offspring of a white person and a
Metisse:
quadroon; an octoroon.
Biracial: Of, for, or consisting of members of two races or combining two races.
Multiracial: Made up of, involving, or acting on behalf of various races.
Relating to, involving, or representing different races; involving or existing between two or more races;
Interracial:
involving or composed of different races.
Half-Breed: - Offensive. The offspring of parents of different races, A person having parents of different ethnic types.
Of European and African descent. Relating to or coming from Europe and Africa; a person of mixed
Eurafrican:
European and African descent.
Has been in use since the mid-19th century to refer to a person of mixed European and Asian birth. It was
coined during the British rule over India and was long used primarily in designating a person born to a
Eurasian:
British father and an Indian mother. In a contemporary context Eurasian has a much wider application,
denoting only that one parent is Asian and the other whitethat is, either European or of European descent
Offensive. A person of mixed racial descent. One born of a European parent on the one side, and of a
Half-Caste:
Hindu or Muslim on the other. Also in Austrailia, one born of a White parent and an Aboriginal parent.
Colored: A person of a racial group not regarded as white. A person of mixed racial strains.
Native Hawaiians used this word to describe someone who was "half Hawaiian". In colonial times, it was
often combined with the word "haole" which meant stranger, foreigner, or white person. As time passed,
"hapa" was used on the Continental United States by Japanese Americans and other Asian to describe a
Hapa:
person of partial Asian ancestry. Many Nisei - second generation Japanese Americans) considered the
term to be derogatory. Today, "Hapa" is simply accepted as a way to describe a person of partial Asian
ancestry.
A person of mixed racial ancestry, especially of mixed European and Native American ancestry. n., pl.
Mestizo: mes·ti·zos or mes·ti·zoes. ETYMOLOGY: Spanish, mixed, mestizo, from Old Spanish, mixed, from Late
Latin mixticius, from Latin mixtus past participle of miscere, to mix.
Zambo: The child of a Mulatto and a Black person; also, the child of an Indian and a Black Person. Also Sambo.
A person of mixed negro and American Indian blood. The offspring of a mulatto woman and a negro; also,
Griffe:
a mulatto.
Mestee:
1. The offspring of a white person and an American Indian.
Mustee:
2. The offspring of a white person and a quadroon; an octoroon (so called in the West Indies).
Metisse:

Names submitted to MixedFolks.com

1. 50/50's
2. AfroAsian - A person who is mixed with black/African and Asian.
3. Afroindipean - Person of African, Indian & European descent.
4. Afrorean - Someone who is black/African and Korean.
5. Afrorican - Someone who is black/African and Puerto Rican
6. Afropean - Someone who is black/African and European
7. Afropino - Half black, half filipino
8. AmerAsian - A person of mixed American and Asian descent.
9. Apple - I'm told this can be used for people who are half Native American and half White.
10. Bananas - I'm told this is what they call Half Asian folks and half white folks.
11. Beige - in reference to skin color, not white or black.
12. Biethnic
13. Blackcambo - Someone who is Black and Cambodian.
14. Blackinese - I'm told this is what some people who are half Black/half Chinese have been called.
15. Blackipino - someone who is Filipino and Black.
16. Blacklao - Someone who is Black and Laotian.
17. Blacknamese - Someone who is Black and Vietnamese.
18. Blasian - Black and Asian.
19. Blatino - Black and Latino.
20. Blaxican - slang for someone of both Mexican and black ancestry.
21. Blenders - can refer to anyone that is Mixed.
22. Blinks - Half black, half Asian
23. Bumble Bee - someone who is half Black and half Asian.
24. Buttercream - someone who is half Asian and half White
25. Butterfinger - Someone who is Black and Asian.
26. Cablinasian - Tiger Woods' term for what he is Caucasian, Black, Indian [Native American], Asian.
27. Café Au Lait - Term for a person who is mixed with Black and something else that makes them have light brown skin
28. Casian - Someone who is White [Caucasian] and Asian.
29. Caucindiblack - pronounced Cauc-indi-black.. Caucasian, Indian - American Indian. and Black.
30. Caucindicreole - (pronounced Cauc-ind-icreole) Caucasian, Indian - American Indian. and Creole - Black French.
31. Caurean - Someone who is White and Korean.
32. Checkered - Can be used for just about any mix.
 33. Chexmex - A mix of mexican and chinese.
34. Chigro -someone who is half Black and half Chinese.
35. Cinnamon & Sugar - Cinnamon being Native American and sugar referring to White
36. Coconuts - I'm told this is what they call Half Latino and half white folks.
37. Cookies and Cream - Can be used to describe people who are black and white.
38. Dalmations - Someone who is black and white.
39. Dougla - Someone who is part-East Indian and part-black, or of that ancestry.
40. EurAsian - A person of mixed European and Asian origin.
41. Filatina - Someone who is Filipino and Latin.
42. Fligga - someone who is Filipino and Black.
43. German Chocolate - A mix of German and Black
44. Greybabies
45. Halfies - Can be applied to anyone who is Mixed.
46. Halfrican - Half African
47. Halo Halo - mixed Filipino and any Polynesian mix.
48. Heinz 57 - Can be applied to anyone who is Mixed.
49. High Yellow - A light skin Black or a person who is mixed with Black/African.
50. Japorican - Half Japanese/Half Puerto Rican.
51. Mambo - Person who is the offspring of a Sambo and black, and is therefore 1/8 white and 3/4 black.
52. Marble Cake
53. Mexicoon - Offensive term for someone of both Mexican and black ancestry.
54. Mexigro - Mexican and Black.
55. Mexipino - Mexican andFilipino.
56. Mixed - Can be applied to any mix
57. Mixie - Can be applied to any mix
58. Moreno - A Quadroon or light Mulatto.
59. Mud People - How the KKK referred to multiracial people.
60. Mulattanese - Part Black, Part White, Part Asian.
61. Mustifee - Someone who is the offspring of an Octroon and white person.
62. Mutt
63. Nasian - Someone who is Black and Asian.
64. Nigapino - Offensive term for someone who is half Black and half Filipino.
65. Nigganese - Offensive term for someone who is half Black and half Japanese.
66. Nigorean - Offensive term for someone who is half Black and half Korean.
67. Nigorican - Offensive term for someone who is half Black and half Puerto Rican.
68. Oreo - Offensive term for someone who is mixed with Black and White
69. Pardo - A person of multiracial or tri-racial origins.
70. Point Five - half black & half white meaning .50, half & half, only 50%.
71. Rainbow - a generic term that can be applied to those with many different races in their background.
72. Redbone - a term used to describe those who are half black or also light skinned black people
73. Rice Cracker - Offensive term for someone who is half Asian and half White.
74. Salt and Pepper - black and white
75. Skunks - someone who is half Black half White.
76. Spigger - offensive term for someone of both Mexican and black ancestry.
77. Sushi and Grits - Slang term to describe someone of mixed Black and Japanese heritage
78. Swiss-Roll - Someone who is black and white.
79. Twinkie - someone who is half Asian and half White.
80. Wasian: someone who is white and asian
81. Whitebodian - Someone who is White and Cambodian.
82. White Chocolate - Someone who is white and black or sometimes used to describe white people with "black
characteristics".
83. Wigger - Offensive term meaning White Nigger, mostly used to describe White people who "act Black".
84. Woodchips - 1/2 Black 1/2 White, because they're light.
85. Yellow M&M - Someone who is Black and Asian.
86. Zebra - half black, half white

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-04/living/pew.interracial.marriage_1_interracial-marriages-millennial-generation-race-and-ethnicity-
matter?_s=PM:LIVING

Interracial marriages at an all-time high, study says

June 04, 2010|By Stephanie Chen, CNN
The first time Priya Merrill, who is Indian, brought her white boyfriend home for Thanksgiving in 2007, the dinner was uncomfortable
and confusing. She still remembers her family asking if Andrew was the bartender or a family photographer.

The couple married last August, and her Indian family has warmed up to her husband despite their racial differences.

"I think we get the best of both cultures," said Merrill, 27, of New York. She added, "Sometimes I just forget that we're interracial. I
don't really think about it."
Asian. White. Black. Hispanic. Do race and ethnicity matter when it comes to marriage?

Apparently, race is mattering less these days, say researchers at the Pew Research Center, who report that nearly one out of seven
new marriages in the U.S. is interracial or interethnic. The report released Friday, which interviewed couples married for less than a
year, found racial lines are blurring as more people choose to marry outside their race.

"From what we can tell, this is the highest [percentage of interracial marriage] it has ever been," said Jeffrey Passel, a senior
demographer for the Pew Research Center.

He said interracial marriages have soared since the 1980s. About 6.8 percent of newly married couples reported marrying outside
their race or ethnicity in 1980. That figure jumped to about 14.6 percent in the Pew report released this week, which surveyed
newlyweds in 2008.

Couples pushing racial boundaries have become commonplace in the U.S., a trend that is also noticeable in Hollywood and politics.
President Obama is the product of a black father from Africa and a white mother from Kansas. Supermodel Heidi Klum, who is
white, married Seal, a British singer who is black.

But not everyone is willing to accept mixed-race marriages. A Louisiana justice of the peace resigned late last year after refusing to
marry an interracial couple.

However, studies show that support for interracial marriages is stronger than in the past, especially among the Millennial generation.
Among 18- to 29-year-olds, about 85 percent accept interracial marriages, according to a Pew study published in February.
Scholars say interracial marriages are important to examine because they can be a barometer for race relations and cultural
assimilation.

Today's growing acceptance of interracial marriages is a contrast to the overwhelming attitudes 50 years ago that such marriage
was wrong -- and even illegal. During most of U.S. history, interracial marriages have been banned or considered taboo, sociologists
say.

In 1958, a woman of black and Native American descent named Mildred Jeter had married a white man, Richard Loving. The couple
married in Washington, D.C., instead of their home state of Virginia, where state laws outlawed interracial marriages. The couple
was arrested by police. Their case made its way to the Supreme Court in the case Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, where the justices
unanimously ruled that laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional.

In the decades after the court's ruling, the U.S. population has been changed by an unprecedented influx of immigrants. The
growing numbers of immigrants, said Pew researchers, is partially responsible for the increase in interracial marriages.

The Pew Center study released Friday found that marrying outside of one's race or ethnicity is most common among Asians and
Hispanics, two immigrant groups that have grown tremendously. About 30 percent of Asian newlyweds in the study married outside
of their race, and about a quarter of Hispanic newlyweds reported marrying someone of another race.

David Chen, 26, of Dallas, Texas, is Taiwanese. He is planning a wedding with his fiancee, Sylvia Duran, 26, who is Mexican. He
says race isn't an issue, but parts of their culture do play a role in their relationship. They will probably have a traditional Chinese tea
ceremony at their wedding.

"The thing that we really focus on is our values and family values," instead of their race, he said. "We both like hard work, and we
really put a focus on education."

The African-American population also saw increases in interracial marriage, with the number of blacks participating in such
marriages roughly tripling since 1980, the study said. About 16 percent of African-Americans overall are in an interracial marriage,
but researchers point out a gender difference: It's more common for black men to marry outside of their race than for black women.

The gender difference was the reverse in the Asian population surveyed. Twice as many newlywed Asian women, about 40 percent,
were married outside their race, compared with Asian men, at about 20 percent.

"We are seeing an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic country," said Andrew Cherlin, professor of public policy and sociology at
Johns Hopkins University. "The change in our population is bringing more people into contact with others who aren't like them."

The Pew Center also found education and residency affected whether people married interracially, with college-educated adults
being more likely to do so. More people who live in the West marry outside their race than do people in the Midwest and South, the
survey found.

Cherlin explained why education has helped bridge various races and ethnic groups: With more minorities attending college,
education, rather than race, becomes a common thread holding couples together.

"If I'm a college graduate, I am going to marry another graduate," Cherlin said. "It's of secondary importance if that person is my
race."

Technology is also making it easier for people to date outside their races, said Sam Yagan, who founded OkCupid.com, a free
Internet dating site. He said his site, which receives 4 million unique visitors a month, has seen many interracial relationships result
from people using its services.

Adriano Schultz, 26, who was born in Brazil and identifies himself as having a "mixed ethnicity," met his wife, Teresa, who is white,
through the site in 2006. A year later, the couple married.
 "I don't feel as if ethnicity for us was a big issue," said Schultz, of Indiana. "It was more about personalities and having things in
common that really drove us together."

Yagan attributes the increase in interracial relationships to the Internet, which makes it easier to connect with someone of a different
race. People who live in a community where race is an issue can meet someone of another race more privately, than say, instead of
having to start their relationship in a public setting.

"You don't have to worry about what your friends are going to think," he said. "You can build the early parts of the relationship."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0604/Interracial-marriage-more-than-double-the-rate-in-the-1980s
Interracial marriage: more than double the rate in the 1980s
As America becomes more diverse, interethnic and interracial marriage has become much more common, according to a
Pew report released Friday.

By Husna Haq, Correspondent / June 4, 2010

Americans are more likely than ever before to marry outside their race or ethnicity.

Skip to next paragraph

Related Stories

 La. interracial marriage: Is life tougher for biracial kids?

 A year into Obama‘s presidency, is America postracial?
 Arizona immigration law: two rallies, two very different views

Nearly 1 in 7 marriages in 2008 was interracial or interethnic, according to a report released by the Pew Research Center Friday.

That‘s more than double the intermarriage rate of the 1980s and six times the intermarriage rate of the 1960s.

Also, most Americans say they approve of interracial marriage, with more than 6 in 10 saying they‘re OK if a family member marries

outside his or her group. Thirty-five percent say they already have a family member who is married to someone of a different race or

ethnicity.

―Race relations have certainly changed in a positive way,‖ says Daniel Lichter, a professor of sociology at Cornell University in

Ithaca, N.Y. ―This indicates greater racial tolerance, a blurring of the racial divides in the US. In general, it‘s an optimistic report.‖

Still, he cautions against notions that the United States is entering a postracial era.

―I don‘t think these racial boundaries are going to go away anytime soon, despite these patterns we‘re seeing over past 20 years,‖

Dr. Lichter says. ―It‘s hard to imagine the black-white divide in particular is going to go away anytime soon.‖

Immigration, changing attitudes drive trend

Waves of immigrants from Latin America and Asia are driving the intermarriage trend by enlarging the pool of potential marriage

partners, says Jeffrey Passel, a lead researcher and author of Pew‘s report.

―American society is becoming more diverse, and workplaces, schools, and other arenas are fairly open so people can meet others

of different races on one-to-one levels,‖ Mr. Passel says. ―Underneath that, there‘s a broad acceptance of interracial marriages that

40 or 50 years ago just didn‘t exist.‖

But, he adds, ―It‘s very much a generational phenomenon.‖ While 80 to 90 percent of people under age 30 say they find interracial

marriages acceptable, that number falls to about 30 percent for those over 65, he says. ―People 65 and over grew up in the ‘30,

‘40s, and ‘50s when such things weren‘t acceptable or were illegal. That‘s an indicator of how things have changed.‖

Whites', blacks' rate of intermarriage rising; Hispanics, Asians steady

Approximately 280,000 of the roughly 2 million marriages in 2008 were between spouses of different races or ethnicities, according

to the Pew report. White-Hispanic couplings accounted for the greatest proportion of those intermarriages, at 41 percent. White-

Asian couples made up 15 percent, and white-black couples 11 percent.

The report found vastly different rates of intermarriage for each of the groups studied. Among all newlyweds in 2008, 9 percent of

whites, 16 percent of blacks, 26 percent of Hispanics, and 31 percent of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was

different from their own.

But while blacks nearly tripled their intermarriage rates from 1980, and whites more than doubled theirs, the rates have hardly

changed for Hispanics and Asians over the past 30 years.

―For whites and blacks, new [Asian and Hispanic] immigrants and their now grown US-born children have enlarged the pool of

potential partners for marrying outside one‘s own racial or ethnic group,‖ Passel writes in the Pew report. ―But for Hispanics and

Asians, the ongoing immigration wave has greatly enlarged the pool of potential partners for in-group marrying.‖

Lichter of Cornell has documented this trend in his own research. In some cases, he says, immigration is reinforcing cultural and

ancestral identities.

―Native-born populations are returning to their national-origin group, in part through marriage,‖ he says. ―An increasing share of

second-generation Hispanics are marrying first-generation immigrants. If marriage is one factor of assimilation, this represents a

slowdown in assimilation among Asians and Hispanics.‖

Black men and Asian women have highest rates of intermarriage

The report also tracks stark differences in intermarriage by gender.

Some 22 percent of black male newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 9 percent of black female

newlyweds.

Among Asians, it's an opposite pattern. Some 40 percent of Asian female newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared

with just 20 percent of Asian male newlyweds.

―A lot of this has to do with cultural definitions of beauty and stereotypes of gender roles ... the exotic Asian woman and the

patriarchal man,‖ Lichter says.

This can also create tension within racial and ethnic communities.

―The opportunities to marry for African-American women are exacerbated by high shares of black men marrying out, combined with

extraordinarily high rates of incarceration among black men and higher rates of mortality," says Lichter. "That leads to a shortage of

men to marry in the black community.‖

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/interracial.asp
Inter-racial marriage: is it biblical?

First published:

Creation 21(3):22–25

June 1999

by Ken Ham

What if a Chinese person were to marry a Polynesian, or an African with black skin were to marry a Japanese, or a person from

India were to marry a person from America with white skin—would these marriages be in accord with biblical principles?

There are a significant number of Christians (particularly in America) who would claim that such ‗inter-racial‘ marriages directly

violate God‘s principles in the Bible, and should not be allowed.

But does the Word of God really condemn such mixes as those above? Is there ultimately any such thing as ‗inter-racial marriage‘?

What constitutes a ‘race’?

In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when talking

about ‗races,‘ would be referring to such groups as the ‗English race,‘ ‗Irish race,‘ and

so on. However, this all changed in 1859, when Charles Darwin published his book On

the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured

Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that

different groups or ‗races‘ of people evolved at different times and rates, so some

groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others. The Australian Aborigines,

for instance, were considered the missing links between the ape-like ancestor and the New Zealand Caucasian husband and
1
rest of mankind. This resulted in terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Malaysian-Chinese wife on their wedding
2
Australian Aborigines. The leading evolutionary spokesperson, Stephen Jay Gould, day; both fervent Christians and Biblical

stated that ‗Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but creationists.

they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary

3
theory.‘

Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an

4
orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo.
 As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world

representing different ‗races,‘ but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously

or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people.

However, all human beings in the world today are classified as Homo sapiens Sapiens. Scientists today admit that, biologically,

there really is only one race of humans. For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta stated, ‗Race

is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological

5 5
reality.‘ This person went on to say that ‗Curiously enough, the idea comes very close to being of American manufacture.‘

Reporting on research conducted on the concept of race, the American ABC News science page stated, ‗More and more scientists

find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word race should be abandoned because

6
it‘s meaningless.‘ The article went on to say that ‗we accept the idea of race because it‘s a convenient way of putting people into

broad categories, frequently to suppress them—the most hideous example was provided by Hitler‘s Germany. And racial prejudice

6
remains common throughout the world.‘

7
In an article in the summer issue of the Journal of Counseling and Development, researchers argue that the term ‗race‘ is basically

so meaningless that it should be discarded.

Personally, because of the influences of Darwinian evolution and the resulting prejudices, I believe everyone (and especially

Christians) should abandon the term ‗race(s).‘ We could refer instead to the different ‗people groups‘ around the world.

The Bible and ‘race’

8
The Bible does not even use the word race in reference to people, but does describe all human beings as being of ‗one blood‘ (Acts

17:26). This of course emphasizes that we are all related, as all humans are descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians

9
15:45). As Jesus Christ also became a descendant of Adam, being called the ‗last Adam‘ (1 Corinthians 15:45), this is why the

Gospel can be preached to all tribes and nations. Any descendant of Adam can be saved, because our mutual relative by blood

(Jesus Christ) died and rose again.

‘Racial’ differences

But some people think there must be different ‗races‘ of people because there appear to be major differences between various

groups, such as skin colour and eye shape.

The truth though is that these so-called ‗racial characteristics‘ are only minor variations among people groups. If one were to take

any two people anywhere in the world, scientists have found that the basic genetic differences between these two people would

10
typically be around 0.2 percent—even if they came from the same people group. But, these so-called ‗racial‘ characteristics that

7
people think are major differences (skin colour, eye shape, etc.) ‗account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation.‘ In

other words, the so-called ‗racial‘ differences are absolutely trivial—overall, there is more variation within any group than there
 isbetween one group and another. If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best

match may come from a black person, and vice versa. The ABC news science page stated, ‗What the facts show is that there are

6
differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.‘

The only reason many people think these differences are major is because they‘ve been brought up in a culture that has taught

them to see the differences this way.

Real science in the present fits with the biblical view that all people are rather closely related—there is only one ‗race‘ biologically.

Therefore, there is in essence no such thing as ‗inter-racial marriage.‘ So we are left with this—is there anything in the Bible that

speaks clearly against men and women from different people groups marrying?

Origin of people groups

In Genesis 11, we read of the rebellion at the tower of Babel which resulted in people being scattered over the earth. Because of

this dispersion, and the resulting splitting of the gene pool, different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant

within each group. Some of these (skin colour, eye shape and so on) became general characteristics of each particular people

11
group.

Note that the context of Genesis 11 makes it clear that the reason for God‘s scattering the people over the earth was that they had

united in rebellion against God. Some Christians point to this event in an attempt to provide a basis for their arguments against so-

called ‗inter-racial‘ marriage. They believe that it is implied here that to keep the nations apart, God is declaring that people from

different people groups can‘t marry. However, there is no such indication in this passage that what is called ‗inter-racial marriage‘ is

condemned. Besides, there has been so much mixing of people groups over the years, that it would be impossible for every human

being today to trace their lineage back to know for certain which group(s) they are descended from.

We need to understand that the sovereign creator God is in charge of the nations of this world. Paul makes this very clear in Acts

17:26. Some people erroneously claim this verse to mean that people from different nations shouldn‘t marry. However, this passage

has nothing to do with marriage. As John Gill makes clear in his classic commentary, the context is that God is in charge of all

12
things—where, how and for how long any person, tribe or nation will live, prosper and perish.

In all of this, God is working to redeem for Himself a people who are one in Christ. The Bible makes clear in Galatians

3:28, Colossians 3:11 and Romans 10:12–13 that in regard to salvation, there is no distinction between male or female or Jew or

Greek. In Christ, any separation between people is broken down. As Christians, we are one in Christ and thus have a common

purpose—to live for Him who made us. This oneness in Christ is vitally important to understanding marriage.

Purpose of marriage

Malachi 2:15 informs us that an important purpose of marriage is to produce godly offspring—progeny that are trained in the ways of

the Lord. Jesus (in Matthew 19) and Paul (in Ephesians 5) make it clear that when a man and woman marry, they become one flesh
 (because they were one flesh historically—Eve was made from Adam). Also, the man and woman must be one spiritually so they

can fulfill the command to produce godly offspring.

This is why Paul states in 2 Corinthians 6:14, ‗Be ye not unequally yoked together with

unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what

communion hath light with darkness?‘

According to the Bible then, which of the following marriages in the picture at right does

God counsel against entering into?

The answer is obvious—number 3. According to the Bible, the priority in marriage is

that a Christian should marry only a Christian.

Sadly, there are some Christian homes where the parents are more concerned about

their children not marrying someone from another ‗race‘ than whether or not they are

marrying a Christian. When Christians marry non-Christians, it negates the spiritual

(not the physical) oneness in marriage, resulting in negative consequences for the

13
couple and their children.

Rahab and Ruth

The examples of Rahab and Ruth help us understand how God views the issue of marriage between those who are from different

people groups but trust in the true God.

Rahab was a Canaanite. These Canaanites had an ungodly culture, and were descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham. Remember,

Canaan was cursed because of his obvious rebellious nature. Sadly, many Christians state that Ham was cursed—but this is not

14
true. Some have even said that this (non-existent) curse of Ham resulted in the black ‗races.‘ This is absurd and is the type of false

teaching that has reinforced and justified prejudices against people with dark skin.

In the genealogy in Matthew 1, it is traditionally understood that the same Rahab is listed here as being in the line leading to Christ.

Thus Rahab, a descendant of Ham, must have married an Israelite (descended from Shem). Since this was clearly a union

approved by God, it underlines the fact that the particular ‗people group‘ she came from was irrelevant—what mattered was that she

trusted in the true God of the Israelites.

The same can be said of Ruth, who as a Moabitess, also married an Israelite, and is also listed in the genealogy in Matthew 1 that

leads to Christ. Prior to her marriage, she had expressed faith in the true God (Ruth 1:16).

When Rahab and Ruth became children of God, there was no longer any barrier to Israelites marrying them, even though they were

from different ‗people groups.‘

Real biblical ‘inter-racial’ marriage

 If one wants to use the term ‗inter-racial,‘ then the real ‗inter-racial‘ marriage that God says we should not enter into is when a child

of the Last Adam (one who is a new creation in Christ—a Christian) marries one who is an unconverted child of the First Adam (one

15
who is dead in trespasses and sin—a non-Christian).

Cross-cultural problems

Because many people groups have been separated since the Tower of Babel, they have developed many cultural differences. If two

people from very different cultures marry, they can have a number of communication problems, even if both are Christians.

Expectations regarding relationships with members of the extended family, for example, can also differ. Even people from different

English-speaking countries can have communication problems because words may have different meanings. Counselors should go

through this in detail, anticipating the problems and giving specific examples, as some marriages have failed because of such

cultural differences. However, such problems have nothing to do with genetics or ‗race.‘

Conclusion

1. There is no biblical justification for claiming that people from different so-called ‗races‘ (best described as ‗people groups‘)

should not marry.

2. The biblical basis for marriage makes it clear that a Christian should marry only a Christian.

When Christians legalistically impose non-biblical ideas such as ‗no inter-racial‘ marriage onto their culture, they are helping to

perpetuate prejudices that have often arisen from evolutionary influences. If we are really honest, in countries like America, the main

reason for Christians being against ‗inter-racial‘ marriage is, in most instances, really because of skin colour. (By the way—every

16
human being has the same skin colour—it just depends on how much of the colour one has).

The church could greatly relieve the tensions over racism (particularly in countries like America), if only the leaders would teach that:

all people are descended from one man and woman; all people are equal before God; all are sinners in need of salvation; all need to

build their thinking on God‘s Word and judge all their cultural aspects accordingly; all need to be one in Christ and put an end to their

rebellion against their Creator.

References and notes

1. ‗Missing links with mankind in early dawn of history,‘ New York Tribune, p. 11, 10 February 1924. Return to text.

2. Carl Wieland, Darwin‘s bodysnatchers, Creation 14(2):16–18, 1992. Return to text.

3. Steven Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, Cambridge, Mass. USA, pp. 127–128, 1977. Return

to text.

4. Jerry Bergman, ‗Ota Benga: The man who was put on display in the zoo!,‘ Creation16(1):48–50, 1993. Return to text.
5. Robert Lee Hotz, ‗Race has no basis in biology, researchers say,‘ Los Angeles Times article reprinted in the Cincinnati

Enquirer, p. A3, 20 February 1997. Return to text.

6. ‗We‘re all the same,‘ American Broadcasting Corporation News, 10 September 1998,

<www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye72.html>. Return to text.

7. Susan Chavez Cameron and Susan Macias Wycoff, ‗The destructive nature of the term race: growing beyond a false

paradigm,‘ Journal of Counseling& Development, 76:277-285, 1998.Return to text.

8. In the original, Ezra 9:2 refers to ‗seed,‘ Romans 9:3 to ‗kinsmen according to the flesh.‘Return to text.

9. Ken Ham, Where did Cain get his wife?, Answers in Genesis, Florence, Kentucky, USA, 1997.Return to text.

10. J.C. Gutin, ‗End of the rainbow,‘ Discover, pp. 72-73, November 1994. Return to text.

11.

 Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, How did all the different ‗races‘ arise (from Noah‘s family)?, The

Answers Book, chapter 18, to be updated and republished in 1999.

 Rugby star ‗proof of evolution,‘ Creation 18(1):8, 1995.

 ‗Races very close,‘ Creation 17(2):9, 1995.

 ‗Modern ―Stone Age‖ reconsidered,‘ Creation 15(4):51, 1993.

 Carl Wieland, ‗Shades of Babel,‘ Creation 13(1):23, 1990.

 Dennis and Lyn Field (translators), ‗Julmbanu: Aboriginal Babel,‘ Creation 8(2):11, 1990.

 Jerry Bergman, ‗Evolution and the origins of the biological race theory,‘ CEN Technical Journal 7(2):155-168,

1993. Return to text.

12. See note on Acts 17:26, in: John Gill, D.D., An exposition of the Old and New Testament;the whole illustrated with notes,

taken from the most ancient Jewish writings (nine volumes), London: printed for Mathews and Leigh, 18 Strand, by W.

Clowes, Northumberland-Court, 1809. Edited, revised and updated by Larry Pierce, 1994–1995 forOnline Bible CD-

ROM. Return to text.

13. It is true that in some exceptional instances when a Christian has married a non-Christian, the non-Christian spouse, by the

grace of God, has become a Christian. This is a praise point but it does not negate the fact that Scripture indicates that it

should not have been entered into in the first place. This does not mean that the marriage is not actually valid, nor does it

dilute the responsibilities of the marital union—see also 1 Corinthians 7:12–14, where the context is of one partner

becoming a Christian after marriage. Return to text.

14. See Genesis 9:18–27. Return to text.

 15. Examples of such ‗mixed marriages‘ and their negative consequences can be seen inNehemiah 9 and 10, and Numbers

25. Return to text.

16. Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, How did all the different ‗races‘ arise (from Noah‘s family)?, The

Answers Book, chapter 18, (updated and republished in 1999).Return to text.

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100604/interracial-marriages-rise-us-society%E2%80%94pew-study-id-10116138.html
Interracial marriages on rise in US--Pew study
by Priyanka - June 5, 2010
According to a new research study published on Friday by the Pew Research Centre, inter-racial marriages are on all time high in
the nation.

Study researchers pointed out that today nearly one out of every seven newly wed couple‘s marriage is interracial, which is double
than the interracial marriage rate in the 1980s.
As per lead researcher and author of Pew study, Jeffery Passel, ―American society is becoming more diverse, and workplaces,
schools, and other arenas are fairly open so people can meet others of different races on one-to-one levels. Underneath that,
there‘s a broad acceptance of interracial marriages that 40 or 50 years ago just didn‘t exist.‖

Researchers also found out that almost all Americans are fine with the idea of marrying outside their race. 35 percent revealed to
have a family member married outside their race.

The study primarily analyzed marriages between four major groups in the United States, which are blacks, whites, Asians and
Hispanics.

Cultural and race barriers still in place

Sociologists agreed that study is an indicator of changing mindset and growing tolerance level among different races and ethnicities.
However, it does not prove that all cultural barriers and prejudices have ceased to exist.

Study researchers pointed out that today nearly one out of every seven newlywed couple‘s marriage is interracial, which is double
than the interracial marriage rate in the 1980s.
Christine Iijima Hall, district director of Equal Employment Opportunity for Maricopa Community Colleges in Tempe, Ariz., said on
the Pew study, "I don't think we've overcome all the taboos yet. The whole statement that we're post-racial after Obama got elected
is not true. People are even more aware of culture and race now — which can be good — but we still have our prejudices about
different groups."

Meanwhile, Daniel Lichter, sociology professor at Cornell University at Ithaca, NY, believes that probably it‘s a small change but
―race relations have certainly changed in a positive way. This indicates greater racial tolerance, a blurring of the racial divides in the
US. In general, it‘s an optimistic report.‖

Afro-American women still lagging behind

Study also revealed that compared to other races; only 9 percent of Afro-American women marry outside their race or are least
likely to get married at all.

Afro-American women, who took part in the survey, also revealed that they prefer to marry someone from within their own race.
However, over the year‘s eligible bachelors pool among their race seems to be diminishing fast.
"We are maybe not as coveted as black men in society. I just feel there is a lot of taboo that is associated withdating black women,
'cause I don't think they are necessarily ready to take us home to see momma," said Melinda Watson, a single black woman.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jul/22/upton-interracial-marriage-has-its-rewards/
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Upton: Interracial marriage has its rewards

By: Tabi Upton

(Contact)
Vinny and Valerie Joy first met at a picnic for singles.

―I‘d given up on marriage,‖ explained Valerie, who was 41 years old and never married at the time. ―I was just going to have fun, to
be around people.‖

Vinny, who was newly divorced, noticed Valerie, who is tall, athletic, and attractive. They hung out at the picnic and discovered that
they had things in common, including a love for music and an appreciation for ministry.

Valerie later told her sister, ―I met a really nice guy today.‖

Her sister asked, ―Is he white?‖

Valerie, who is black, responded, ―Yes.‖

―I‘d never thought about dating a white guy before,‖ Valerie says now. ―But years ago, I knew I needed to grow, I wanted God to do
something new in my life.

―(With Vinny) it was different. I was relaxed. I could be myself. It felt very natural.‖

Vinny, who‘d grown up in the North in a predominately white world, had always thought black women were beautiful. He and Valerie
have now been married for several years and say they enjoy life together.

Before their recent move to Chattanooga, Vinny searched the Internet for good churches and neighborhoods. They were
encouraged to see the slogan ―A Place For Every Race‖ of New Covenant Fellowship, a multicultural congregation.

Vinny‘s work often requires him to visit places areas where he is uncomfortable bringing his wife.

―Race is in the forefront again since President Obama got elected. You wonder how much we‘ve really changed?‖ he said.

Valerie added, ―It‘s like that on both sides. But who cares? We‘re with people who accept us.‖

When Randy and Joan Nabors were married in 1971, Ebony Magazine reported that only 1 percent of married couples in America
were interracial. It had just become legal for blacks and whites to marry in some states, and many laws forbidding it were still on the
books in the South.

Even rarer were unions of white men to black women. Today those couples number about 120,000, up from the 27,000 couples
who‘d said ―I do‖ by 1980.

―There were less stares up north and out west,‖ Joan said. ―Over time, the staring gets on your nerves. But just recently we haven‘t
noticed it as much. Now we stare at other couples.‖

Randy Nabors is the pastor of another racially mixed church in town, New City Fellowship, which has served as a social buffer for
him and his wife and many other interracial families in the city.

―We don‘t feel alone. We‘ve never encountered a violent situation,‖ he said. ―Some couples have felt isolated, even paranoid when
they first come to us.‖

Some people wonder how interracial marriage affects children of the union. ―Our children feel comfortable in both cultures and
consider themselves (part of) both races,‖ Randy said.

Being married to black women has made both Randy and Vinny sensitive to the feelings and concerns of blacks.
―I was sitting in a black megachurch once where there were very few white people. I realized what many people feel in similar
situations,‖ Vinny said.

Randy said, ―I have to be conscious of how black people feel because I love my wife, because of my church, my children. I have a
strong identification with the black community and I think I got the better end of the deal. I married my best friend.‖

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/07/interracial-marriage/

Interracial Marriage
Friday, July 22, 2005
By Kaimi Wenger

A commenter at Approaching Zion suggests that interracial marriage is wrong. The commenter, a critic of feminism, lists as one of
the harms of feminism was that it ―encourages single men to marry outside their race and culture.‖ What exactly is the status of
church doctrine on interracial marriage, anyway?

There is a lengthy history of Mormon oppposition to interracial marriage. Brigham Young famously taught that interracial marriage
was wrong, for example, and Bruce R. McConkie wrote that interracial marriage is discouraged by the church.

(Apologists have suggested a number of explanations, arguing that Brigham Young‘s statement may have been a warning not to
have premarital sex with Blacks and that Bruce R. McConkie‘s and others‘ statements about interracial marriage being
―discouraged‖ may be based on a desire to prevent divorce.)

But such teachings are now in the past, and no longer official. Aren‘t they?

I‘m barely thirty thirty-one, and I‘ve grown up almost entirely in the post-1978 world. I‘m a product of an interracial marriage myself
(my mother is part-Hawaiian), and I‘ve never been taught that interracial marriage was prohibited. This was on a personal as well as
intellectual level — when I was dating, I viewed black and hispanic women as potential dating (and potentially, marriage) partners.
I‘ve long had the impression that any prohibitions on interracial marriage are far in the past. Yet over the years I have run into
statements made here and there, often by older members, to the effect that interracial marriage is a sin today, or should be
discouraged even today.

So, let‘s ask a few questions:

First, is there any part of current church doctrine or instruction that supports a belief that interracial marriage is wrong? I‘m not
talking about Bruce R. McConkie‘s (unofficial) book from 1964 — has Gordon B. Hinckley, Boyd K. Packer, Thomas S. Monson
taught this in conference in the past decade? Has anyone? When was the last time any such statements were made?

And what sorts of official couner-statements to this idea (if any) have been made by church leaders?

Can we assume that any teachings against interracial marriage went out the door with the 1978 Declaration?

Or in other words, am I safe in my post-1978 assumption that the idea that interracial marriage is wrong or sinful, is officially bunk?
Can we unequivocally declare this idea to be no-longer-good-doctrine — and to the extent that it is held out as such,
now false doctrine? Or is there some remaining doctrinal support for the idea?

Second, even if the idea is officially bunk, is the wrongness-of-interracial-marriage a belief that is still prevalent among church
members? What is the reception accorded to an interracial couple who moves into a random ward in Mormonville, Utah? What do
you say to your friend/sibling/child when s/he announces an interracial engagement? Is there a generation gap? (My casual
observation suggests that there is, but that may just be my experiences).
Finally, if the idea that interracial marriage is wrong is no longer good doctrine, and if there is some element of lingering belief in this
idea, what should we do, as members, to try to combat this false doctrine? Should it simply be allowed to die a natural death?
Should it simply be left alone, as many folk doctrines are? Or should it be a target of more active criticism, the kind of criticism
generally leveled at invidious false doctrines?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Interracial-Marriages
What's wrong with Interracial Marriages?

74
rate or flag this page Tweet this

By Lady_E

Seal and Heidi Klum

When people fall in love, they love their other half as a person and as it so happens in life, we can't help who we fall in love with. No
matter the race - the fact is, two people have fallen in love and want to share their lives together.
I read an article in the news this week about Keith Bardwel, A Justice in America, refusing to marry an interracial couple. Full Story.
It‘s a pity to know that there are still people out there who think less of people of other races. This issue is still happening in some
continents, racism against Asians, against Caucasians and also amongst African/Americans - who get it the most. I wonder what
goes through people‘s minds. All human beings were born of a woman, deserve to be respected and treated equally. Yet, I still hear
stories of:

 Parents disowning their children because they married someone of another race.

 Footballers in Europe being subject to racist tauntings.

 Innocent people being attacked and sometimes killed because of their race. Some Asians even have ―honour killings‖
because they don‘t like their families marrying outside their race.

 And then there are websites such as whiterevolution.com who want to keep America white?!!

David Bowie and Iman

As at now, 2009 the issues above are still happening and those are just some issues. Have we forgotten that we should be our
brother‘s keeper no matter what race or religion we belong to. We are not better than our neighbours vice versa. Every human is
equal. God made us all and we should live together amicably and peacefully. Supporting and inspiring one another. Also, to fellow
Africans and other people – I know a lot of you have been hurt due to this issue, but please release the bitterness from your system
and move on or else it will eat away at your heart forever.

The two main points I want to raise in this article are that:

1) Interracial marriages are now on the increase, a lot of them are strong and are very happy families. So, lets just move on or does
Michael Jackson have to come back to sing ―It doesn't matter if we're Black or white‖ Pt Two.………? I didn‘t think so, either. I live in
London and can see these marriages growing in number.

Interracial Marriages Flourishing

2) Lets stop seeing each other as a colour. Every one has red blood flowing through their veins.

Food for thought - people of all races donate blood. I am yet to see a hospital that has blood for the Asians, blood for the
African/Americans and blood for the Caucasians. So, for those of you who have had blood transfusions or might have one in future,
the blood could be that of a different race. My point - we are all human.
In summary, I‘ll leave you with a short poem I wrote, while reflecting on this article.

How would you feel if your children were hated

Due to racial tension they never created?
.
You work so hard to be a success
But cos of your colour, they block your progress
.
How would you feel if people attacked you for no reason
Hands clean and innocent, yet your still thrown in prison?
.
What will it take for you to love your neighbour
Till a loved one gets killed or till your nearly 6 foot under?
.
Lets live together in harmony, irrespective of colour
Rom 12:10
Even God said, "prefer one another in honour".

http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/InterracialQA.htm
Q. Is interracial marriage right or wrong?

A. Christians often have very different opinions about the answer to this question. But if we approach the question with an open

mind as we search the Scriptures, the answer becomes clear.

Genesis 3:20 states that Eve "was the mother of all living." In other words, all humans of all races descend from Adam and Eve.

When God sent the Flood, he killed everyone on the earth but Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives; eight persons in all

(Genesis 6:17–18; 1 Peter 3:20). The genes for the races on the earth today passed through the Flood in these people. After the

Flood, in Genesis 11, we read how people had one language but, because they tried to build the Tower of Babel, God confounded

their language and "scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth" (verses 7–8). Possibly, now isolated in

smaller groups, certain genes began to dominate in each of the groups, leading to racial distinctions. Nevertheless, how the races

developed is not as important to this question as how they were viewed as far as marriage.

Genesis 24 contains the account of how Abraham sent his servant to get Abraham‘s son Isaac a wife, Rebekah, from among

Abraham‘s relatives back in Mesopotamia. The servant had to swear that he would not take a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites

among whom Abraham lived (verse 3). This has been seen by some as Abraham being against racial intermarriage as such. But

understanding what God was doing in Abraham‘s life and family reveals Abraham‘s real motive.

God had promised Abraham that He would give the land of Canaan to his descendants (Genesis 15:18–21; 17:8). These

descendants were the Israelites. Obviously, to give the land of Canaan to the Israelites, also meant God would take it away from the

Canaanites. Before Abraham fully understood what God was doing, he and his wife Sarah agreed—because they were at that time

childless—to have a child (Ishmael) with Sarah‘s handmaiden, Hagar (Genesis 16). Hagar was an Egyptian (verse 1), of a different

race than Abraham; yet Abraham apparently had no personal qualms about this. But after the birth of Isaac to Sarah and Abraham,

and after Abraham better understood what God was doing, he was careful not to allow Isaac to marry a woman from among the

peoples whom God would cast out of the land when He brought the Israelites into their inheritance.

The reason for this is quite simple. If the difference between Abraham‘s family and the people of the land of Canaan became

indistinct through intermarriage, God could not kick the Canaanites out and give the land to the Israelites; they would be one,

indistinct people. If intermarriage began as far back in the lineage as Abraham, God would be giving the land as much to people of

Canaanite blood as to Abraham‘s blood. That would not serve God‘s purpose of making Israel a type of the Christian church. Israel‘s

physical purity or distinction from the people around them was a type of our spiritual purity (more about this later).
This explains why Isaac and Rebekah were grieved by Esau‘s marrying women from Canaan (Genesis 26:34–35; 28:8). But, even

though he was the elder, Esau did not inherit. The Promised Land was not to be his inheritance; it was to go to the descendants of

his younger brother, Jacob. And Jacob took wives, Rachel and Leah, from Abraham‘s family, again keeping the line pure for the

sake of the inheritance.

A generation later, however, we see Judah take a Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:2). She bears him three sons. Two of them die as

described in Genesis 38. The third son, Shelah lives. We don‘t know who he married, but he did have children (1 Chronicles 4:21–

23). Joseph married an Egyptian (Genesis 41:45, 50). Even Moses married an Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). Significantly, God

did not consider this interracial marriage justification for Moses‘ brother and sister (Aaron and Miriam) to speak against him (see

Numbers 12). And Salmon married Rahab of Jericho (Joshua 2), a mixed marriage that we find in the ancestry of Jesus Christ

(Matthew 1:5). But why were these later interracial marriages acceptable?

The answer is that they were so far down the line of descent that they did not threaten the inheritance. The amount of mixed blood

compared to the general population of Israel was small, whereas if mixed marriages had been allowed beginning with Abraham‘s, or

Isaac‘s, or Jacob‘s generation, by the time the Israelites entered Canaan, the amount of non-Israelite blood would have confused

the promised inheritance, let alone made the Israelites hesitate about slaying people who would have been their brethren.

Later, marriages between the Israelites and Canaanites became common, but with bad results that had nothing to do with race and

everything to do with religion (Judges 3:6). The mixed marriages caused the Israelites to serve the Canaanites‘ gods. When the

faithful Israelites returned to their land after the captivity, marriage with the Canaanites was again forbidden (Ezra 9–10). The reason

is clearly stated as being because the marriages had caused the Israelites to do "according to their abominations.... For they have

taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those

lands" (Ezra 9:1–2). It was not because of racial concerns, but because of religion that the marriages were forbidden; the non-

Israelite spouses were causing the Israelites to turn away from God.

So we see that in the Old Testament, God saw to it that interracial marriages did not take place when they threatened the purity of

the Abrahamic line that was to inherit the Promised Land. He also had mixed marriages forbidden when they threatened to turn

Israel to other gods. In this case, the mixture was a mixture of religion. Race was not the important factor.

Much of the Old Testament is a physical type of the spiritual reality revealed in the New Testament, and once the spiritual reality has

come, the physical type passes away. Nowhere in the New Testament is racial intermarriage ever forbidden. A reading of the New

Testament will reveal that many sins are listed for Christians to avoid, but marriages between the races is not one of them. Christian
singles are not to marry outside the faith (1 Corinthians 7); doing so would make them "unequally yoked together with unbelievers"

(2 Corinthians 6:14). Christians who married before their conversion and now find themselves married to unbelievers must stay with

their spouse unless he or she is not "pleased to dwell" with them (1 Corinthians 7:12–16). But race is never mentioned. Instead of

the marriage restrictions placed upon the Israelites to maintain a pure line of inheritance, we—the church—will inherit because we

are a virgin bride (not defiled with false religion, pictured by sexual purity in Revelation 14:4) espoused to Jesus Christ (2

Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:25–27). In the church, national and racial distinctions are removed (Ephesians 2:14; Romans 10:12;

Colossians 3:11); all of the many peoples that make up the church become a new, "holy nation, a peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9–10).

In conclusion then, there is nothing in the Bible that today prevents racial intermarriage. As with any prospective marriage, however,

compatibility, interests, family feelings, and societal taboos should be taken into consideration. Causing a rift between the two

families involved or raising children who might become the target of ridicule in an intolerant society can create a painful strain in a

marriage. On the other hand, there are many happy, Godly, and blessed interracial marriages.

Peter Ditzel

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/10/support-for-bans-on-interracial-marriage-by-sex/

Blogs / Gene Expression

« Female race consciousness as prudence
Japan‘s end of history »

Support for bans on interracial marriage by sex

0digg
A quick follow-up to my previous post which points to the data that women tend to be more race-conscious in dating than men.
There‘s a variable in the GSS which asks if you support a ban on interracial marriage, RACMAR. Here‘s the question itself:
Do you think there should be laws against marriages between (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) and whites?
There isn‘t much surprising in the results for this variable. It was asked between 1972 and 2002, and support for a ban on interracial
marriages dropped over time. Whites, old people, conservatives, and less educated people, tended to support these bans, as well
as Southerners. But what about men vs. women? I‘ve never actually looked at that. I limited the sample to whites; the number of
blacks in the sample is small and wouldn‘t alter the result, but I figured I‘d control for race anyway. Support for such laws is in the
35-40% range for whites in 1972, before dropping off to 5-15% in 2002.
Here‘s the trendline broken down by sex:
There is a small but consistent difference until the last year. The difference is within 95% intervals within a given year of course. But
the consistency of the greater female support for interracial marriage bans made me want to perform a logistic regression. I decided
to look at the total sample, and also limit it to the 1970s. The pseudo r-square for both is ~0.20. Italics means lack of statistical
significance. The other values were all p = 0.000 in the GSS interface.
Full Sample 1972-1980
B B
Sex -0.282 -0.428
Degree 0.467 0.430
Intelligence 0.296 0.329
Political Ideology -0.147 -0.178
Year of Survey 0.054 0.041
Age 0.036 -0.041
These results confirm that being female predicts a greater likelihood of supporting laws against interracial marriage. Having more
education and being intelligent reduced the probability. Surprisingly year and age don‘t matter much when you‘re taking other
variables into account.
As a final note, let‘s compare sex differences on another issue: homosexuality. The HOMOSEX variable asks about ―sexual
relations between adults of the same sex.‖ There are four responses:
1 = Always wrong
2 = Almost always wrong
3 = Sometimes wrong
4 = Not wrong at all
Using the GSS I computed the mean value year by year. So if in 1974 50% said homosexual sex was always wrong, and 50% not
wrong at all, you‘d have a mean value of 2.5. Here is the trendline by year by sex:

As with interracial marriage, there is a small, but consistent, sex difference. On the margins the sex difference will disappear, so
one can think of it as one sex ―lagging‖ the other on social change.

http://family.jrank.org/pages/930/Interracial-Marriage-Difficulties-in-Interracial-Marriages.html

Interracial Marriage - Difficulties In Interracial Marriages

The problems encountered by interracial couples are often the result of negative societal attitudes about interracial relationships.
Black-Caucasian unions have the lowest frequency of occurrence because of longstanding negative beliefs about these marriages.
Studies have indicated that, in general, Caucasians tend to disapprove of interracial marriages, and blacks tend to approve. Other
research suggests that people engage in interracial relationships due to self-hate or rebelliousness. In addition, there is some
question as to whether or not partners in interracial relationships reciprocate love (Gaines et al. 1999). Given that the dominant
culture tends to disdain black-Caucasian unions, it is difficult to imagine how these couples are able to maintain their relationships.

Asian Americans have also experienced difficulties in their interracial marriages. Asian Americans engage in more interracial
relationships than any other racial or ethnic group in the United States. Laws forbidding interracial marriages between Asians and
Caucasians were common in the United States. For example, in 1901 California extended the 1850 Marriage Regulation Act to
include Mongolians (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), and in 1933 the law was further extended to include Malays (i.e., Filipinos)
(Kitano, Fugino, and Sato 1998). These laws, like all other anti-miscegenation laws, were overturned following a state judicial
decision in California (Perez v. Sharp 1948) and a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia). Even though the results
of these cases made interracial marriages legal, the negative societal perspective on such unions has been slow to change.

Bok-Lim Kim (1998) points out that since World War II, marriages between Asian women (specifically women from Japan, South
Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam) and U.S. military men have become a legacy of United States military involvement. He notes
that many of those marriages took place because of the low socioeconomic status of many of the women who lived near U.S.
military bases, and the low self-esteem experienced as a result of their low economic conditions. He also points out that these
interracial marriages displayed undaunted courage and optimism in spite of the obstacles they faced due to language and cultural
differences and the lack of support from their families and communities in both countries. However, Kim also points out that the
Asian women often carry the burden of cultural norms that provide severe penalties for marriage outside their ethnic group (out-
marriages). Even though there has been improvement in the acceptance of Asian outmarriages by their families, there continue to
be difficulties because of cultural differences.

Interracial relationships and marriages remain controversial for several additional reasons. Many Asian Americans are alarmed
because of the rising number of interracial unions, which they believe reduces the pool of eligible men and women who could
otherwise engage in same-culture unions. Some Asian Americans are concerned that, because of the high number of out-
marriages, distinct groups of Asians may disappear within a few generations. Additionally, whereas so many Asian women are out-
marrying, there is the fear that many Asian-American men will remain unmarried because of the dwindling number of available
Asian-American women (Fujino 1997). A similar fear is expressed by African-American men and women. As African-American men
and women increase their level of education and move to higher economic levels, fewer and fewer members of their race are
available for marriage. This often leads to frustration on the part of African Americans who seek to marry someone of their own race,
and also leads to increased levels of out-marriage, as increases in income and educational levels occur.

Some of the difficulties experienced by interracial couples are unique and a direct result of the interracial experience. The myths that
surround interracial couples can also be stumbling blocks to a healthy marriage. In a study conducted by Richard Watts and Richard
Henriksen (1999), Caucasian females report that, when engaged in interracial marriages with black males, they often receive the
following messages: "Black men belong with black women because they will treat them better than white women" and "Biracial
children will always be referred to as black and, therefore, should have a black mother." The Watts and Henriksen (1999) study also
found that problems and difficulties are also experienced because of the mythical messages received from the Caucasian culture.
These include: "Black men only marry white women for status symbols or upward mobility," "Interracial marriages do not work;
therefore, you will lose your spouse to someone else," "Those who engage in interracial marriages must hate their parents," and
"Those who engage in interracial relationships or marriages must have psychological difficulties." The problems faced by couples
involved in black-Caucasian unions are also experienced by those involved in other interracial unions. However, many couples state
that the reasons they got married are not that much different than same-race couples.