My husband has a super power. He can make the most incredible arguments about an issue that the other side has no hope of properly arguing back. I’ve seen him do this over and over on a local newspaper forum. What typically happens once he uses his debate mojo is that the other side stops responding because they know they’ve been defeated.
While he was playing Zen Master Leaf Blower, he came up with a response to people who claim that marriage is about procreation so they can justify not allowing gay people to get married.
Erik says, “If marriage is about procreation, then people should only be allowed limited licenses to be married, say, three years. If a husband and wife haven’t had kids within those three years, they should have to reapply for a new license. The marriage license would expire completely after the last child in the house reaches a defined legal age.”
Isn’t that brilliant? I mean, if you’re going to argue that marriage is solely about procreation, then let’s make it about procreation. Quit shilly-shallying around, trying to claim that marriage has any deeper reasons, meanings or benefits. Because, of course, then you’d have to admit that gays ought to be able to get married, right?
If we instituted this procreation-only marriage license, who do you think might scream the loudest? Perhaps those most vociferous about marriage being only about procreation?