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

Same-sex marriage is unnatural

As the referendum on same-sex marriage moves forward to the November election, I offer the following points on why I oppose same-sex marriage.

The basic thrust of many supporters of same-sex marriage is to argue that same-sex marriage is a civil right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that it is a corollary of the unalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence. However, to argue such a position is not consistent with the original intent of either the 14th Amendment or the Declaration of Independence. It strains credibility to imply that the concept of same-sex marriage was even in the back of the minds of the signers and framers of these documents. Only modern society and inventive legal scholars have tried to broaden the concepts contained in these documents to include rights such as same-sex marriage.

Supporters also argue that same-sex marriage should be viewed as equivalent to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman. However, this argument ignores the basic laws of human sexuality. Human sexuality exists to assure the promulgation of the human species. It is only through the sexual relationship of a man and a woman, as established by natural law or the Creator of the world, that human offspring are created and the human race is able to continue.

This premier function of human sexuality and the man-to-woman relationship should be honored and revered as fundamental to any civilized society. Historical precedent throughout recorded human history, both in civil law and most religious doctrines, has done this by defining the concept of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. This pre-eminent role of human sexuality within the man to woman relationship should continue to be recognized as the definition of marriage and should not be altered to accommodate other life styles.

Supporters of same-sex marriage are seeking more than just legal protection or recognition. They are seeking the acceptance of society. They want same-sex physical attractions and unions to be viewed by society as equivalent to natural heterosexual unions and attractions. However, the laws of nature will never recognize this equivalency. Same-sex couples can never create children. They may raise children created via a man-to-woman relationship, natural or artificial, but they cannot have offspring that will carry forward their joint genetic heritage.

Same-sex couples should be treated with respect and dignity as fellow human beings in a civil society and, if society feels it is appropriate, they should be provided with legal and civil protection under state and federal law. However, that does not mean that the definition of marriage should be altered to include them. Human laws should continue to recognize the natural, historical and religious precedent that marriage is between a man and a woman. Society should not try to change the natural order of the universe and try to make something seem natural that is inherently unnatural.

Earl Wahlquist, Frederick

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.