Although Dr. Benjamin Carson's same-sex marriage remark was an unfortunate enthymeme, surely well-educated Hopkins students have the intellectual capacity to understand the unstated premise of his argument ("Hopkins chides Carson for gay-marriage remarks," April 6):
Once you reduce the qualification for marriage to a single characteristic for the sake of inclusiveness, you can't object to the word being used for any situation that fits that characteristic.
Polygamists, for example, argue that they too enter into loving, caring relationships. What would be the objection to labeling those relationships "marriages" as well?
Under the new definition of marriage, aren't polygamists equally entitled to loving heterosexual and homosexual relationships that are recognized by the law? I think that is the point Dr. Carson was trying to make.
Charles Clough, Bel AirCopyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun