Skip to main content

View Diary: The Supreme Court hears the same old arguments (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, I was just trying to parse that. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FogCityJohn

    This POV seems to be saying that marriage is needed to keep straight people from accidentally having kids outside of it.

    Ignoring the obvious issue that a) it doesn't stop that, and b) huh? It exists solely to keep things from happening without it?

    But ignore that weirdness and you get the idea that marriage is some sort of straightjacket that straight couples must be placed inside so that their accidental children can have a family. Okay, that's a rather insane view of marriage, but let's go with it.

    So, the logical conclusion is that...gay people, being very unlikely to have accidentally children, do not need to get married. Well, okay. I'll buy that also, pretending I am unaware of other reasons to get married.

    Now, why are people barring them from getting married? We know they don't need to be in the straightjacket that, apparently, marriage is (1)...but why can't they get in if they want to?

    1) Incidentally, people who keep yammering about 'defending marriage' might actually want to think a little more about their wording of what marriage is. Standing there pounding the table about how we must force straight couples into marriage because otherwise they will cause harm to their accidental children rather makes marriage sound like it's some sort of regulation along the lines of safety railing or something, and not something people would actually choose if given such a option freely.

    So considering we don't. despite what they think, actually require marriage, it might not be a clever idea for 'defending marriage' to stand around talking about how we force straight people to get married!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site