I come across some pretty stupid things being said on a daily basis either at work, on the bus, train, or standing in line at a store. Today, however, proved to have a particularly amusing instance that left me somewhat con fuddled and wondering if I was reading things correctly. In a twitter post, Pink Paper attached a link to an article about US presidential hopeful, Tom Pawlenty and his rather unique views on same-sex marriage. Granted, it was late morning before a coffee and I was a bit groggy but the argument I was reading just seemed ridiculous and mores than other ridiculous things I had heard before 10 am.
In conjunction with his usual anti-gay, anti-marriage rhetoric, Pawlenty made the argument stating that the purpose of marriage was procreation and child rearing. I have already had people presenting me the question of whether this would include marriages between senior citizens and couples that are infertile. Ignoring his generally ignorant, bigoted views on marriage and the like, this statement seems even more ridiculous than the oft herd "marriage is between a man and a woman" argument that these opponents of same-sex marriage have been touting. As far as I am aware, he hasn't come down on adoption or surrogate mothers or even a child that may have been conceived during a previous union. Perhaps I have been living a delusion but I always believed that it was the child's welfare that was most important.
As far as his comments about the idea of marriage being deluded by allowing same-sex couples to marry, does the fact that websites like Ashley Madison and drive-thru wedding chapels exist accomplish that as well? I would have to say that these undermine the sanctity of marriage quite bit more.
