Childbearing does not exactly define a marriage

Childbearing does not exactly define a marriage

Date published: 3/1/2005

Regarding gay versus "traditional" marriages, I don't think the creation of children is a defining characteristic of marriage ["Religion aside, good reasons exist to oppose gay marriage," Feb. 21].

I was conceived and born out of wedlock from a brief encounter between two lonely people in their early 30s. Afterward, they went their separate ways.

When I was 7 months old, my mother could no longer afford to raise me, and I was put in foster care with an infertile couple who later adopted me.

They were wonderful parents, but the parents who created me were pretty wonderful, too, giving me some awesome genes and--best of all--giving me life. It took all four to make me who I am.

If a purpose of marriage is the creation of children, then all my parents failed. The first pair failed by not being married, the second pair failed by not producing children.

I don't think anyone failed. Nature did not make me my adoptive parents' child, but legal action did.

My adoptive mom was a good athlete who taught me how to fish, play sports, and drive. Since she didn't give birth to me, she could have been a man and I would still have loved her.

My adoptive father was a gentle, scholarly man, who loved to play with me and make me laugh. He could have been a woman and still have done all those things, and I would still have loved him.

If my adoptive parents were allowed to adopt me without the sexual act that created me, why couldn't a gay couple have done the same thing? It wouldn't have mattered to me.

Billy Plumb

Locust Grove

Follow us on

Read more stories about Orange
Date published: 3/1/2005