Homosexual couples aren't trying to destroy humanity

Editor,

I am writing in response to Benjamin Sanchez's letter in the Daily Lobo on March 9. From a biological perspective, heterosexuality is indeed the only way to produce new human beings. However, homosexuals are not trying to destroy humanity, and they are not trying to redefine marriage for heterosexuals. Marriage, after all, has already been defined: It is the special bond two people share when they care for each other emotionally, physically and financially.

The only problem here is that, because of fear or religious conviction, the government does not wish to extend the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual couples who possess all of these traits. Opponents of homosexual unions say they are simply protecting the sanctity of marriage, which is the foundation of our society. I'm not sure how highly marriage is held these days, considering that more than 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. It is therefore contradictory to say that two people who commit to loving each other are not allowed to express their love based on personal prejudice.

However, I think the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage comes from those who say that because a same-sex couple cannot bear children, they should not be married. In this case, it is the pundits who redefine marriage as a purely sexual union. That's simply heartless.

For the sake of argument, what about a man and woman who are infertile or cannot bear children? Should they have their rights stripped simply because they cannot add to the overpopulation problem? No, of course not. They can adopt and contribute to society. Interestingly, so can homosexual couples. A number of psychological journals have observed that there is no difference between children who are raised by gay parents and those who are raised by straight ones. It is heartless to say it is better for children to grow up with no parents than to grow up with gay parents who care for them.

Also, what if we consider that homosexuality is not unique to humans? Quite a few species have been observed to engage in homosexuality, so it obviously is not a moral choice. These creatures have no biblical or social standards that stigmatize homosexuality. It therefore must be a biological trait.

We are all familiar with the fact that Earth is rapidly becoming overpopulated. Hypothetically, what if nature gave us a built-in population control? It would be a recessive gene, and thus rare. But in large populations, the occurrence of it would increase as the size of the species does. Homosexuality is indeed on the rise.

Does this mean it's a bad thing? No, not really. As I've said, homosexuals are still able to form a lifelong and loving bond, contribute to society and raise children without adding to the problem of overpopulation.

David Martinez

UNM student