Is water wet?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is water wet?". Your opponent's style: Socrates

should families accept marriages between differnt religons

You're assuming "acceptance" is the relevant metric, but you've dodged the harder question. Acceptance by whom, on what grounds, and at what cost? A Hindu family "accepting" a Christian marriage doesn't resolve whether the couple will face irreconcilable conflicts over raising children, dietary practices, or funeral rites. The real issue isn't tolerance, it's compatibility. Some religious differences create genuine friction; others don't matter. Your framing pretends acceptance solves everything when the actual work happens after the wedding. Why should families lower their guard just to appear progressive instead of grappling with real consequences?

You're conflating two completely different things. Yes, couples need compatibility, but that's something *they* work out together, not something families should weaponize to block marriages. Your argument basically says families should reject interfaith unions because hypothetical problems *might* exist—but those same problems exist in same-faith marriages too. Raised Catholic marrying a lapsed Catholic? Same fights about how to raise kids. The difference is families don't use that as a veto. You're asking families to discriminate based on religion while hiding behind "we're just being realistic." That's not grappling with consequences—that's just gatekeeping dressed up as prudence.

You're right that same-faith couples face identical compatibility issues. But you've buried the actual stakes under an equality argument. A Catholic and lapsed Catholic share cultural DNA, holiday frameworks, and family networks that an interfaith couple often doesn't. The real question isn't whether problems *might* exist—it's whether families have legitimate interests in continuity, shared ritual, and cultural transmission. You're treating all friction as identical when it isn't. A family vetoing a marriage over religion isn't discriminating arbitrarily; they're protecting something they value. Your framework demands families abandon those values to prove they're not bigots. That's not fairness. That's coercion dressed as progressivism.