Ryan Anderson explains why gay marriage doesn't exist

Here is a 4-minute clip well worth watching for its logical, lawyerly speech regarding marriage. The responder is Ryan Anderson. Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

The homosexual man at the microphone is asking why he, as a married gay man, can't have the same tax advantage when it comes time to file IRS tax returns, as a heterosexually married couple.

Anderson is brilliant in his response. The homosexual man doesn't seem to understand the underlying principle of what Anderson tried to get at three times, so finally Anderson answers the gay man's question within its limited scope. But he does that brilliantly too.

Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
. (Genesis 2:23-24)

Anderson said in part:
Marriage is a union of sexually complementary spouses, a permanent, exclusive union- man & woman, husband & wife, mother & father. If you're not interested in entering into that sort of union, you're not being discriminated against.
What you're asking us to do is redefining marriage to include "the adult relationship of your choice." The relationship of your choice happens to be a same-sex couple. There are other adults who want to redefine marriage to include a relationship of their choice, which may be the same-sex throuple, or the opposite sex quartet.
It's like this. There is the color red. Red is known, it is certain. It is defined "of a color at the end of the spectrum next to orange and opposite violet, as of blood, fire, or rubies."
EPrata photo
Now say some people came along and wanted to add yellow to the color red. They agitated for it, proclaimed, exhorted, fought for yellow to be added to red, just because they thought that would be good.
EPrata photo

And say that they were successful in getting yellow added to red. You don't have red anymore. You have orange.

Because red and yellow make orange. Once you mix another element into the red, it becomes something else, and the old definition won't fit anymore. People will not recognize the old thing because now it is a new thing.

Once you add same-sex humans to the old definition of marriage, it isn't marriage anymore and it isn't recognizable.

The homosexual man asked as a final question, why he, Anderson didn't think that he, the gay man, had the right to get married.

Anderson concluded with this:
It's not that you don't have a right to get married, it's that what you are seeking out, isn't marriage.


  1. Brilliant stuff, Elizabeth. Thanks for finding this. The bottom line in the video was the gay issue, as always, and nothing to do with taxes or whatnot. Sigh.

  2. He did a nice job of answering with logical level headedness. I don't know how he kept a striaght face though when he said "throple".

  3. Even when those who favor gay unions along with all the rights of a marriage hear their error when it's explained they simply cannot and will not hear why it's "inappropriate". Romans 3:11

  4. Audio by John MacArthur

    Abandoned by God, Part 1
    Romans 1:24-25
    August 23, 1981


    Abandoned by God, Part 2
    Romans 1:26-32

    August 30, 1981


    Thanks for the posting Elizabeth.

    Metro Atlanta

  5. That was so straight forward. Thumbs up!

  6. A sweet moment of clear-headed reasoning in what feels like an upside-down world lately. Thanks for posting, Elizabeth.


  7. I think the guy who wants same-sex fake marriage understood what was being said, but he didn't like that answer so he kept trying to get a different response. Those pushing the homosexual agenda know exactly what they are doing, and they know exactly what they want in response to their questions.

    1. I agree. He was "on point" and he wasn't going to let Ryan Anderson off hthe the hook. The homosexuals working the agenda never let it vary, co-opt the conversation and then hang on for dear life. What the homosexual man didn't understand is that in so doing, each time Anderson came back, Anderson buried the homosexual's case even deeper. When Anderson finally relented and said "I'll answer your question" it was by then, pretty moot, but for fun, the lawyer hammered in one more nail.

      It was a Pyrrhic victory for ht egay guy, but an overall win for the Lawyer

  8. Good post, Elizabeth. It strikes me how the LGBT folks are always screaming about rights. "We want our r-i-i-i-g-h-t-s! Give us our r-i-i-i-g-h-t-s! WAAAA! You're denying us our r-i-i-i-g-h-t-s! We're gonna drag you into court and persecute you until the day you die to get our r-i-i-i-g-h-t-s!"

    I'm happy that Mr. Anderson hit on the key issue that many seem to dance around at times: the LGBT people arrogantly presume to make a highly presumptuous presumption, and that is that they have the "right" to redefine marriage. Which they don't. Nor does any U.S. state. Nor does the U.S. Nor does any other country.

    Nor does mankind.

    I'm happy that Mr. Anderson gently brought it to the attention of the gay guy that gays are not "married"--they are two homosexuals living together, clutching a document from man that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

    "Rights" don't even enter the picture, but that's all they ever squawk about.


Post a Comment