Constructive gadfly

When I idealize marriage, I think of monogamous love sublime and indeed holy between a man and a woman. When I perceive marriage in fact it is as a rule a tool for monogamous room mates to legalize an otherwise vague share in the rent, or under contract to pool their full resources to buy a home and perhaps to bear or adopt children. I stress monogamy because I frown on “sleeping around” whether it’s in your own home or cruising the streets, it is still polygamy that thins out the richness of love’s blood.

Frankly I wouldn’t care if two manly, girly-manly or perfectly straight women heterosexuals wanted to marry. Garrulous people love to proclaim that they love their friends; all that should be required — and in keeping with monogamy — is to decide which is a best friend ripe for marriage with or without sex. Of course, my bias compels me to join forces in a constitutional amendment stipulating “no pets allowed” in the event one should insist that his or her best friend is a dog or cat with which he or she wishes to join in marriage.

Marriage to a mate of the same sex whether gay or straight would weaken the controversy over adopting children; for who could argue that there would be a distinction if a child were adopted by a gay couple or a straight couple of the same sex? — there’s equal loyalty and sense of permanence in either case. For those who think that sex is needed for a couple to bond, denies divorce statistics among opposite sex couples. As for those confirmed bachelors or bachelorettes, each will be free to engage with the opposite sex just as married couples do but without the hassle of jealousy.

In returning to ideal marriage as I have defined it, homosexuals would argue that they too should be included in the definition; for they have experienced the sublime and state of holiness. I must bluntly say unto them: “Hogwash.” For no matter how much I extend my understanding of their emotions, the wall goes up to protect my aesthetic image of a holy marriage which — with or without ceremony — must be romanticized in the format of a man and a woman.

I believe in old romantic tales wherein chivalric sentiment is a necessary ingredient that a man bestows to a woman, who in return through subtle goose bumps and feminine demureness rewards him with tenderness and grace. However much I accept their fate and beg their forgiveness, no degree of empathy with the romance of gays will ever top the beauty of Homeric, ideal love. I confess I am a helpless romantic.

      

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 25, 2004.


Comments
on Oct 28, 2004
I believe in old romantic tales wherein chivalric sentiment is a necessary ingredient that a man bestows to a woman, who in return through subtle goose bumps and feminine demureness rewards him with tenderness and grace. However much I accept their fate and beg their forgiveness, no degree of empathy with the romance of gays will ever top the beauty of Homeric, ideal love. I confess I am a helpless romantic.

I realize that you posted this several months ago, but honestly, how come there are not more guys like you and Richard R. Kennedy? It isn't fair that most of the available guys these days are so feminine and weak. I don't want a weak guy, they disgust me!