Letters: Oh baby, let’s talk marriage
Re “Gay marriage opponents attempt unusual tack,” Jan. 27
Same-sex marriage opponents Paul D. Clement and Charles J. Cooper seem to have discovered a solution for the potential threat of “irresponsible procreation” posed by heterosexuals. The answer is clear: Only same-sex couples should procreate because they engage in “substantial advance planning.”
Still, what to do with the millions of heterosexuals? Clement’s and Cooper’s answer is also clear:
Heterosexuals, once married, will begin to act like homosexuals and also engage in “substantial advance planning.”
Maria-Barbara Watson-Franke
San Diego
It boggles the mind how warped the logic is of those defending “traditional” marriage. The traditionalists would have us believe that marriage was created only for couples who procreate and should only exist now for couples who can procreate, meaning opposite-sex couples.
The origins of a practice should not dictate how things are done currently. Out-of-wedlock children are not a burden on society. Outmoded thinking is.
Julie Bixby
Huntington Beach
ALSO:
Letters: Hillary Clinton’s legacy
Letters: A nation of immigrants
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
