Letter to the Editor

In today's PG , Chris Strayer of Homewood (misspelled as Hoomewood, I think) rebuts the “marriage is for procreation” argument.  Or, as Chris puts it, marriage for breeding.  That was worth a chuckle.

I'm confused about this “engendering” business. I thought that was something ultrasound readers and OB/GYNs did. They look at the kid and assign her/him to one of two categories. Never mind that kids come in far more than two categories, and frequently do not agree with the engenderer's opinion. Is Ms. Jarrell arguing that only ultrasound readers and OB/GYNs should be permitted to marry? Of course not. But her argument that marriage is for breeding falls flat.

Postmenopausal women may marry; I presume Ms. Jarrell would “grandmother” women who married before menopause but cannot now bear children. Men need not obtain a sperm count before obtaining a marriage license. Couples do not need to have a kid first and take her/him to the county offices to certify their fertility. Fertility clinics don't require marriage, either.

And as for the “gift” to civilization, that smacks of the pay-to-play we so roundly despise in our politics. Ms. Jarrell may as well demand that only those able to help a politician obtain re-election be granted the constitutional right to petition for a redress of grievances.

Let gay folks marry. It's simple 14th Amendment equal protection, people.

Pay to play seems to be a theme this week.  🙂 

Personally, I think procreation is less powerful than the “way God intended” argument. It is hard to challenge people who are absolute in what they know God intends.  Nonetheless, Chris, thank you for writing.  The more pro-gay content in the newspaper, the more impact we have, especially when the content is driven by readers. 

Share The Link: