-Inego Montoya
This world of daytime television is an interesting one. I have been flipping channels between Olympic coverage and have, more than once, been suckered into watching a segment of talk show because the lead-in promised something interesting only to reveal complete crap.
Today some young "reporter" was doing a man-on-the-street piece. He was "interviewing" people about what they thought about same sex marriage. Never mind his smarmy delivery or the hack eyebrow movement. What really killed me was this answer from a woman standing, holding the hands of her two children:
[paraphrased] Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Anything else cannot produce children so it is not a profitable relationship and should not be legally recognized.
First of all, she gets to think what she wants...though I could not disagree with her more. From every angle, but especially from the one where she thinks having children for profit is a feasible business model.
2 comments:
Never understood this argument - by that logic, people should be tested for fertility prior to being granted a marriage license.
And having children is a definite economic loser!
If we were a Nomadic people with high infant mortality rate...but in 2010?
I am sure someone has crunched the numbers. If kids were bringing in money then they would be taxed at a higher rate. They are included in the "wicked expenses" column on Turbo Tax.
What her argument really says to me is, "I don't know what to think for myself in a rational, intelligent way. And I have been told to behave in a bigoted manner toward the homosexuals. Not sure why. I will admit they make me nervous, but mostly because I kissed a girl at a slumber party in 5th grade just to know what it felt like and I fear the Vengeful Old Testament Judgement of my otherwise Up With People Parish. SO I am just going to spout out the only argument I can remember that has some big words in it. (Hey, profitable is TOO a big word!)"
Post a Comment