Editor,
In the Daily Lobo on March 9, Benjamin Sanchez argues that the complementary nature of male and female genitalia and the associated reproductive capacity means "those who want to change the definition of marriage are living outside of objective reality."
The argument is obviously false. The objective reality is that reproduction is not a necessary condition of marriage, nor is marriage a necessary condition for reproduction.
Sanchez's argument also fails by deficiency of inclusion. Reproduction is one element of objective reality. Homosexuality is equally real, though, having been around for eons and in diverse species. Clearly, it is not disappearing anytime soon. So, if we're going to deal with reality, let's deal with all of it. As Sanchez stated, "Only those who want to ignore objective reality argue against these basic facts."
Sanchez suggests that human beings cannot be fully understood from a biological perspective. This possibly alludes to faith-based elements. Of course, one can have faith in anything. For example, one can have faith that homosexuality is God's plan for salvation, the divine design to save humanity from self-induced extinction through overpopulation. Does this view stray from anachronistic documents upon which traditional religions are based? Yes, but look how many are dying or have died in the name of traditional religions.
Returning to the definition of marriage, I remind Sanchez that unlike, say, fundamentalist religions or the Republican Party - I cite these institutions for the odious nature of their garden-variety bigotry - language is not a static entity. Language is vibrant and dynamic and will evolve, whether Sanchez likes it or not.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Sanchez also needs to own up to the truth about what he means by definition of marriage. Everybody knows the real intent is to deny equal rights to those Sanchez disapproves of.
Speaking of fundamentalists and the Republican Party, how would Sanchez feel about a constitutional amendment to keep these people from marrying and raising kids? What if I said their lifestyle was harmful to children, and the offspring grew up in conditions of deplorable educational and moral depravity? This might make people like Sanchez consider how they sound to others.
I think we can all agree bigotry - intentional or unintentional - will always be defined by
ignorance.
James Thiel
Daily Lobo reader
