Now you have raised an entirely separate issue from the one at hand. Prager reflects a number of commentors reflecting that in the end, we know nothing about same sex parenting. This has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage amendment. It will not prevent same sex unions other than marriage, as the President has said. I'm still against the amendment for several reasons, some of which I have previously listed.
I don't want same sex marriage in my state, and there is no threat to that. Neither you nor I have any right to interfere in the constitutional wrangling within the state of Massachusetts. They will eventually work it out. Either the people will pass an amendment prohibiting same sex marriage or they will permit same sex marriage by not altering their constitution. It's not up to the remaining 49 states to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. That's the essence of federalism. It works if you give it a chance.
I'm not considering any of the studies either way, because it will take a number of them all meeting the stringent standards of statistical excellence.
As for the one contention I did make it a previous post, I have seen nothing indicating a propensity of same sex couples to either attempt to influence children into their sexual lifestyle nor do I believe it would succeed with a non homosexual child.
There is really only one powerful argument against same sex marriage. That is that marriage is designed for procreation. I'm not aware of any other.
I don't want same sex marriage in my state, and there is no threat to that. Neither you nor I have any right to interfere in the constitutional wrangling within the state of Massachusetts. They will eventually work it out. Either the people will pass an amendment prohibiting same sex marriage or they will permit same sex marriage by not altering their constitution.