After being deluged for weeks with opinions for and against marriage equality, it seems opponents' most convincing argument against Question 6 was that two people of the same sex cannot produce children. The implication is that such couples therefore should not be allowed to marry, and that permitting them to do so corrupts the whole institution of marriage.

If procreation were the primary purpose of marriage, a strong case could be made for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. However, one wonders then why traditional marriage vows make no mention of children or procreation.

Instead, they focus upon the couple's love for and devotion to one another, which can be equally valid for either homosexuals or heterosexuals. If having children is the primary justification for couples to marry, I would expect the marriage vows to at least acknowledge that fact.

Since they do not, it's a stretch to infer that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to wed because they cannot have children. In my view, and as traditional wedding vows clearly imply, a marriage is simply a union of a loving couple, and that's why I voted for Question 6.

Mark Houdashelt, Baltimore