Thursday, May 10, 2012


I had an interesting talk with my mother today. It was about ... marriage. What brought it on? Obama in the news saying he supports gay marriage.

My mother is old school. She feels that only a man and woman should marry. Basically, after talking about it a bit, it came down to procreation. She feels that only a man and woman should be allowed to marry because a marriage should result in children.

I find that outlook beyond antiquated. In fact I find it kind of silly. Using that logic only men and women who WILL and CAN have kids should be allowed to marry. I didn't get too in depth with mom about it. After all, she is my mother. Her line of thinking led to more questions than I wanted to ask her.

If a couple doesn't have kids in 10 years should they be forced to divorce? 5 years? How long?

Should men with a low sperm count that would preclude conception not be allowed to marry?

What about people who are sterile? No marriage for them?

Then there is the answer I gave adult students who went on about getting married to have kids. You don't HAVE to be married to have kids.

If procreation is the purpose of marriage if you don't or can't do it should you be forced to divorce? Or not allowed to marry at all?

All in all, it seems a silly way to think to me. Who cares if two consenting adults of any gender want to share their lives with each other? Throwing things like procreation into it makes it seem stupider.

1 comment:

  1. I have no problem with any couple, whatever their orientation, to having the same rights as "straight" people. I think the fact that they're willing to make that commitment is what matters.
    I've been watching the presentation of the viewpoints of American Republicans on the Daily Show, etc. that make them look like antediluvean throwbacks to the Dark Ages.
    It's going to be interesting to see their reaction to President Obama's support of gay marriage. How do you defend bigotry and hatred? Cloak it in religious double-talk, I guess.