wayneholland.org

 

GAY MARRIAGE

October 8, 2008

 

The very first essay I posted to this site was about gay marriage, and I use the term essay lightly. It was too brief. It was more like a letter to the editor. Check it out to see what I mean:

What are the damages? This is the only way to settle this tumultuous (and when you think about it, rather silly) issue: determine what exactly the damages are.
And I'll be damned if I can think of any.
I hear a lot of bitching and moaning over it, but I've yet to hear one person come forth and actually point out the damages that might result from gay people getting married to each other.  If you listen closely to what they're saying, it's nothing more than the way it's somehow an affront to their aesthetic (or ethical) sensibilities. Ok, fine; it's an affront to mine as well. But that's no reason to make a law against it. Show me the damages. (I find that I want to scream this the way Cuba Gooding screamed, "Show me the money," in the movie, Jerry McGuire.) Who's going to be hurt because of it? What kind of money is going to be wasted? (If time is money, as the more entrepreneurial like to point out, we've wasted a bunch of it just talking about it.) Laws are supposed to concern themselves with wrongness and damages. If it's only wrong (whatever the hell that means), with no damages attached, seems to me it falls within the purview of etiquette, not legislation.

The primary point of this essay is that gay marriage should not be an issue. I still believe that. However, I have changed my stance about its legalization, but not for the reason that you might think, because I have also changed my stance on the legalization of heterosexual marriage as well. If I were in charge of handing out marriage licenses, I would not give them to anyone who did not already have a child (or one on the way). Yes, I would not allow heterosexuals to be married, i.e., legally attached unless or until a child was involved. Why? Because there is no reason to be married (have a legal arrangement) if there are no children.

What is the purpose of marriage but family? If two people (of any sexual preference) just want to live together, let them. There is no reason to make it legal or illegal. The necessity for legalities does not become (at least it should not become) an issue until children are involved.

Does this mean that I would allow gays to adopt children? Why not? I honestly cannot think of a good reason to keep them from raising a child. After all, there are a lot of heterosexuals who have no business managing children. I don't see how sexual preference has anything to do with it. If you are good with children, want to have them in your life (and are not totally messed up in your head), I see no reason in the world why you should not be given the privelege/responsibility.