In the letter to the editor titled "No reason for marriage if pair can't procreate," the author states that God created woman so that "they could have children and increase the species. … Thus, for all of history marriage was accepted as a union of a man and woman." He also suggests that marriage serves no purpose if people can't procreate.
The author forgets that there are millions of heterosexual couples in the world who are unable to have children due to infertility. Is the author suggesting those couples should not be allowed to marry because they can't have children? Is the loving bond between the members of the couple not enough?
The author also says liberals are trying to create an anti-capitalistic, socialist form of government. Riddle me this: How is it that a government that by law would control who one can and cannot marry, is not considered an "anti-capitalist, socialist" government by the letter writer's definition?
And as for "our existing morals, one of which is marriage," that liberals are "undermining," what does the letter writer think the late Ronald Reagan and the first of his two wives would think about the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of God?
HIDE COMMENTS
Should childless men and women divorce?
HIDE COMMENTS