Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Ok, I'll take a shot at it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, milton333, starduster, kmfmstar

    Not because I believe it, but because conservatives are so dull, they can't even make their own arguments.

    1. What is the State's interest in marriage? The State does not care if the people are in love or are happy. The State only cares about making enough people to supply cannon fodder for future wars. Pretend for the moment that responsible procreation can only occur in the context of marriage.

    2. Therefore the State should support a marriage, only insofar as the marriage could, in principle, become a unit of procreation, to supply said cannon fodder.

    3. Since people are so variable, we cannot draw sharp lines around procreation using age or race, for example. However, because of the way sex works, as a biological phenomenon, we can say for sure that only a male & a female can procreate. Therefore the state should only recognize marriages that involve a male & a female. It's the only way, even in principle, we can make future dead soldiers.

    4. As for things like adoption, surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertlization, or any of the other myriad ways a couple could responsibly come by and raise a child, we can ignore those, because we are conservatives, and our small brains can only hold so much.

    How'd I do?

    “Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one - can stop us. ”-- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:40:09 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site