It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by arpgme
As long as there is potential for procreation, marriage should be funded by the state. If there is no potential (yes that includes infertile heterosexual couples) then there is no logical reason for the state to fund marriage.
That, and he also states the cliche "A Child Needs A Mother And Father".
Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I guess the basis of his argument can be summed up from his first statement:
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
So, if a marriage doesn't benefit the state, they shouldn't allow it? Yeah, that's why we should get married, to benefit the state. How did Kim Kardasian's or Brittany Spears' marriage benefit the state?
To follow Mr. Kolasinksi's argument to its logical conclusion, we should just have the state assign our spouses to us, for the maximum benefit of the state.