I explained very clearly and by your own analogy previous this distinction of what is going on. Furthermore, my argument has the added bonus of showing why interracial marriage is ok and should be allowed. Your argument is quite the opposite and could be used to argue against interracial marriage. The breakdown of that point on something we nearly universally accept as ok and something which government can't bar should show the real world end points of our arguments and which one fits the data better.
BTW, the first part of your post is BS. I responded in full to posts you've made, you weren't in middle of something else you would have finished it before you posted it. I've taken your argument, I know where you're coming from, I think you've purposefully left out key bits of information in order to make your argument. As your argument doesn't fit reality (i.e. in the application of interracial marriage) I think that's a big clue as to some starting assumptions being wrong or missing. Don't sit there and try to play the "I'm making an argument" blah blah blah. Cause I'm not in the room with you, I can't hear you talk. All I can go off of is your posts and when you've posted something that seems to say, this is my argument as of right now respond to it and we'll continue. Otherwise, finish your post before posting it. I'm not going to fault myself with this when you're basically making some deflect as to not consider my arguments but to demand your arguments be heard to their full.