Justice Kennedy needs a reminder about his own fear of harm from gay marriage

GFR7

New member
Really important piece from Public Discourse.

The poor are always harmed.

But of course gay advocates have little concern for the poor and for their children. :nono:

During oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry—the Supreme Court case involving California’s Proposition 8—Justice Kennedy asked a very important question: In its potential impact on children and society, wouldn’t imposing same-sex marriage on unwilling states be akin to “jumping off a cliff” and subjecting the nation and its children to whatever unseen dangers might lurk at the bottom?

According to a group of 100 academic marriage scholars, Justice Kennedy was right to be concerned about the harmful social effects of such a redefinition of marriage—especially on the children of heterosexuals. In fact, according to an amicus brief recently submitted in the pending Supreme Court marriage case that I filed on behalf of those scholars, the results of such a ruling could well be catastrophic. As the brief demonstrates, based on data from nations and US states that have adopted same-sex marriage, it is reasonable to predict that, over a generation, a forced redefinition of marriage would produce at least a 5 percent reduction in heterosexual marriage rates. That would result in an increase of nearly 1.3 million never-married women, and an increase of nearly 600,000 functionally fatherless children.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14822/
 

GFR7

New member
the purpose of marriage
is
to protect the child

we must remember that
Very true.

Sadly, marriage has become something to be done often serially, for the gratification of adults. No fault divorce began this, and gay marriage furthers it.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
the purpose of marriage
is
to protect the child

we must remember that

No it's not. You keep conveniently forgetting that a good number of couples either cannot have children or are unwilling to have children.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
No, it is not. Insisting otherwise denigrates millions of married folks without kids, and you know this full well.

no, I don't know that

I am here to protect the child
and
marriage is the best way to do that

it is my job to remind you of that
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
no, I don't know that

I am here to protect the child
and
marriage is the best way to do that

it is my job to remind you of that

Which is exactly why the marital vows mention the children ... oh wait.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I know what I think. Gays don't produce children naturally.

...which has nothing to do with anything I said, chrys said, or you addressed. So, again: When you figure out what exactly you're talking about, lemme know.
 

GFR7

New member
...which has nothing to do with anything I said, chrys said, or you addressed. So, again: When you figure out what exactly you're talking about, lemme know.
I don't need to let you know: My ideology is coherent. You're the one who cannot grasp it.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I don't need to let you know: My ideology is coherent. You're the one who cannot grasp it.

You're all over the place, deeply naive, and a sucker for clickbait.

What's the principal purpose of marriage?
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I know what I think. Gays don't produce children naturally.

Neither do married heterosexuals couples who adopt ...

IF this was truly about having children naturally, then you wouldn't support marriage for any couple who are unable to do so.
 

GFR7

New member
You're all over the place, deeply naive, and a sucker for clickbait.

What's the principal purpose of marriage?
I don't think I could have done a philosophical honors' thesis and defended it successfully before a panel, if such were true.

Bringing the 2 complementary genders together and procreating, within a cohesive and stable environment, which forms the foundation of society.
 

GFR7

New member
Neither do married heterosexuals couples who adopt ...

IF this was truly about having children naturally, then you wouldn't support marriage for any couple who are unable to do so.
Dead argument, been refuted several dozen times here.
 
Top