Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

Marriage is about devotion, not procreation

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

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination
    Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination

    A recent suggestion that some people should be exempt from serving gays because of their religious beliefs is nonsense. If you are licensed to provide a service or employed by the government to do so, you are required to perform that service without unlawful discrimination. Neither government...

  • Equality in Alabama
    Equality in Alabama

    These are heady days for advocates of marriage equality. The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments this spring in a group of cases that could settle the question of a national Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and this week, a decision not to enter a stay on the enforcement of a...

  • A speed bump for marriage equality [Editorial]
    A speed bump for marriage equality [Editorial]

    Our view: Decision upholding Louisiana's ban on gay marriage is an outlier but an instructive one as the issue heads to the Supreme Court

  • Jesus didn't condone marriage equality [Letter]
    Jesus didn't condone marriage equality [Letter]

    Madeleine Mysko's recent commentary advised that 645 commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA will vote later this month whether to accept marriage equality for the LGBTQ community ("Presbyterians to vote on marriage equality," June 6).

  • The triumph of fairness [Editorial]
    The triumph of fairness [Editorial]

    Our view: Failure to put Maryland's transgender rights law on the ballot despite trumped-up fears should be a source of pride

  • Opposing gay rights doesn't make you a hater [Letter]

    According to Tom Schaller's column ("Hate if you must, just don't act on it," March 5), any American who does not subscribe to Mr. Schaller's particular credo on the law and homosexuality is a hater. Such blanket condemnation and name-calling are more appropriate to a bigot than an academic.

Comments
Loading