Analysis: Why Won't Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Answer These Two Questions?

Christian Post ^ | 98/28/2014 | Napp Nazworth

[manc]

I would like to also know why our side in court has not argued that where does it state in the constitution that you have a right to marriage, and more importantly what rights do they not have what we have,.
We cannot marry the same sex like them and they can marry the opposite sex like we can , so where is the argument of not having equal rights,.
Then why are they against other kinds of marriage like polygamy>

[CharlesOConnell]

Wrong 2 questions. The right ones:

1. What is marriage?
2. What about kids?

Hints to Question #2:

‘Gold standard’ study’s striking findings: children of heterosexual parents happier, healthier

The most scientifically credible studies show that children of heterosexual parents fare better on numerous indicators of personal well-being than children of homosexual parents. Authored by Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, the study was published in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research.

• Children of lesbian mothers are nearly 12 times (≅ 1200%) as likely to say they were sexually touched by a parent or adult as those raised in intact biological families. Asked if they had ever been raped, 31 percent of those raised by lesbian mothers and 25 percent of children raised by gay fathers answered yes, compared to 8 percent of those from intact biological homes.
• Twenty percent (20%) of those raised by lesbians and 25% of those raised by gay men reported having contracted a sexual transmitted infection, compared to 8% of those raised by their biological parents.
• Twelve percent (12%) of those with a lesbian mother and 24% of those with a gay father reported having recently contemplated suicide, compared to only 5% raised by an intact biological family or a single parent.
• Nineteen percent (19%) of those raised by a lesbian mother or gay father were currently or recently receiving psychotherapy, compared to 8% of those raised by their heterosexual parents.
• Twenty-eight percent (28%) of those of working age raised by a lesbian mother and 20% of those raised by a gay father reported being currently unemployed, compared to 8% raised by an intact biological family and 13% raised by a single parent.

Regnerus’ findings conflict with studies widely touted by homosexual activists which have claimed that children raised by homosexual parents fare as well or even better than their peers. Many of these studies, Regnerus points out, have relied on small, self-selected samples, parent rather than child reported outcomes, and have exhibited evidence of political bias.

Regnerus drew his data from the New Family Structures Study, a data collection project that drew from a large, random sample of American young adults. This study is one of the few that measures outcomes as reported by the children of homosexuals, rather than relying on an assessment by the homosexual parent.

Children from same-sex households much less likely to graduate high school: large study

Girls living in “gay” households are only 15 percent as likely to graduate compared to girls from opposite sex married homes.

A large-scale study by Douglas W. Allen, professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, has found that children in same-sex households were only 65 percent as likely to graduate from high school as those living in traditional opposite sex marriage families.

Adverse Family Experiences Among Children in Nonparental Care, 2011–2012

WHO KNEW? Homosexual Activists Aim to Destroy Mar

 

[Alex Murphy]

1. "Equality" is an insufficient argument in support of SSM, because in order for two things to be equal, one must first define what they are; so, what is marriage and why should it be defined that way?

2. Since the debate is about state recognition of marriage, not what religious groups are able to do in the privacy of their congregations, each side of the debate should answer: what is the public policy purpose of state recognition of marriage?

PFL

[LearsFool]

1. What is marriage?

The author of the article doesn't even know the answer to that question. He talks about "traditional marriage", "same-sex marriage", etc.

Who gave him the power to redefine marriage?

[cloudmountain]

I would like to also know why our side in court has not argued that where does it state in the constitution that you have a right to marriage, and more importantly what rights do they not have what we have,.
We cannot marry the same sex like them and they can marry the opposite sex like we can , so where is the argument of not having equal rights,.
Then why are they against other kinds of marriage like polygamy.

====================================

You hit the nail on the head: Marriage is not a RIGHT. It is a license-able privilege, like driving. LOTS of people can't drive: blind, deaf, non-readers, too-young, etc.
Lots of people can't marry also: close relatives, not-divorced, too young, etc.

Some people here are SO spoiled that they think that WHATever they want should get and to hell with the rest of the world.
Two people with Downs Syndrome now do have the "right" to marry. Sigh. So sad.

[cloudmountain]

Who gave him the power to redefine marriage?

Some people here are SO spoiled that they think that WHATever they want should get and to hell with the rest of the world.
He is a case in point.

[MrB]

This is always the problem with “progressive” thinking -

why is your definition “better” than what was the definition previously,

and by what standard is it “better”?
And why is that standard itself valid?

[miele man]

later reading

[MortMan]

To be fair, the author uses TM and SSM as labels in order to differentiate the two sides of the debate. If one is to write on a subject, one has to use words to describe the subject. I don’t see how the article could have been written without qualifying the term “marriage”, as that is exactly what the debate is about - the definition of marriage.

[LearsFool]

why is your definition “better” than what was the definition previously,
and by what standard is it “better”?
And why is that standard itself valid?

Exactly! The author has abandoned the secure fortress of Truth, and is now engaged in what's known as a "fighting retreat".

(And this from some publication called "Christian Post"?! They might want to consider changing their name.)

[driftless2]

Homosexuals have never been blocked from being married. They’ve never had their “rights” violated. Like everybody else, they’ve always been free to marry someone of the opposite sex. That’s the way societies around the world have managed to stay together for thousands of years.

[LearsFool]

To be fair, the author uses TM and SSM as labels in order to differentiate the two sides of the debate.

I understand that. But he conceded the point when he adopted their terminology. He's now trying to rationalize God's definition of marriage by appealing to human reason.

There is one reason why marriage is what it is, and that's because God made it so. Once we abandon that truth, we'll suffer the discouraging defeats and retreats we see all around us in this "Christian nation" (sic).

[MrB]

And leftists are just baffled by that line of argument, as well.

When they reject the idea of absolute and objective Truth,
they have nothing on which to base their assertion of “this is right, that is wrong”.

Of course, they’ll “borrow” the idea of objective standards, but only as a vague appeal like “everyone knows”. Or, they’ll try to put it back on you of “don’t YOU believe that X is right?”

Of course, the answer is - yes, I believe X is right, because of the standard laid out in God’s word, but YOU have no such standard on which to base your belief.

[only1percent]

They don’t have to answer those questions because they’ve already won, just like conservatives don’t have to answer the question “Why shouldn’t we just co-exist in detente with the Soviet Union?”

Confusing the victory lap for a continuation of the race just makes conservatives look stupid.

[Iron Munro]

One of the main reasons Homos and liberals want "Gay Marriage" is to rub it in the faces of heterosexuals who believe a real marriage can exist only between one man and one woman.

When liberals take up a cause they quickly lose track of the original reasons and any pretense of civility is soon forgotten.

For them, the disagreement quickly degrades into a mean spirited quest to beat the other side, to win at any cost, to stomp the opposition and rub their noses in the dirt.

To win the fight becomes the prime objective.

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats.”
— P.J. O’Rourke

[LearsFool]

Indeed. They have more confidence in their human reasoning than we do in our God.

[tumblindice]

I get a kick our of the Democrats’ meme that anyone who is opposed to homosexual “marriage” is: `on the wrong side of history’.
They say this with a look of earnest intensity, as if comparing perversion (pedophilia, bestiality, homosexual relations, polygamy) with civil liberties.
What “history” do they reference?
Two thousand years of Judeo-Christian history?
Or one thousand years of Anglo-American history where homosexuals earned a white-hot poker up the old rear hatch, or imprisonment?
As is often the case, in fact the opposite of what they say is the truth: history is not on the side of perversion.

[Chances Are]

Not altogether accurate.

Deaf people are license-able, and can drive.

Otherwise, your point is taken.

CA....

[cloudmountain]

Not altogether accurate.
Deaf people are license-able, and can drive.
Otherwise, your point is taken.
CA....

I wonder how they get around the fire engines, ambulances, police sirens, CHP and people who are speeding to an emergency ward and honking their way along the street.

They can't react to what they don't hear and by the time people see it, sometimes, as James Brown (Papa Needs A Brand New Bag....dadadadada!) would say: It's TOOO LATE!!"