I thought the states argument was really weird. they say that their support for marriage is due to unintended pregnancy. and they want the father to stick around from the states financial support. and since gay ppl can't get pregnant accidently it doesn't apply to them. talk about being backed into a corner. this is their best argument?
if you read between the lines, they are saying they cause unintended pregnancy so as to support patriarchy. it's a weird argument but I don't see a better one for them either. playing the devils advocate, I can't think of a better argument for them even as lame as it is. and I can usually think up some weird stuff. it will be interesting how this goes.
what does it mean? I guess it just means that states will have to acknowledge gay marriages from other states but not allow gay to get married in states that don't allow it.
I don't really care, I just expected a better argument. it's a pretty lame argument from the side that cherishes marriage etc.. you'd think you'd be able to come up with a better definition for supporting marriage.
if you read between the lines, they are saying they cause unintended pregnancy so as to support patriarchy. it's a weird argument but I don't see a better one for them either. playing the devils advocate, I can't think of a better argument for them even as lame as it is. and I can usually think up some weird stuff. it will be interesting how this goes.
what does it mean? I guess it just means that states will have to acknowledge gay marriages from other states but not allow gay to get married in states that don't allow it.
I don't really care, I just expected a better argument. it's a pretty lame argument from the side that cherishes marriage etc.. you'd think you'd be able to come up with a better definition for supporting marriage.
Comment