Special interests of gay people | Letters
January 20, 2012 · Updated 12:51 PM
Regarding the letter of Jan. 13 (“Gay marriage: Is this evolution’s plan?”): Mother Nature “developed a man and a woman to be with each other...” etc. But she apparently also developed homosexuals. Letter writer Larry Ebaugh doesn’t embrace that as being in the long-term best interests of the public good. But gays are part of the public. Is it in their best interests to be denied “love, equality and freedom?”
Yes, the society does restrict love, equality and freedom when it prohibits marriage between siblings because of common genes possibly causing defects in children. It also prohibits an older person marrying an underage girl because she is too young to decide and she may be under adult pressure. This would also apply to underage gays if marriage was in their future.
The argument that gays have a high proportion of STDs is suspect. AIDS is no longer considered a gay disease. Is it possible that, if gays were allowed to marry, they would be more inclined to stay with one partner and therefore be less prone to disease?
Mr. Ebaugh says that gay marriage would dishonor healthy male/female marriages. What? How can that be dishonored by anything? The media is featuring gay marriage right now because it is news, not because the media “honors” it more than a traditional union.
Why is it that, when people who are different from us want what we have, they are labeled a “special interest” group?
In another letter in The Mirror (“Constitution vs gay marriage”), Pat Gee claims that both Washington and U.S. Constitutions contain words about marriage between one man and one woman. I just looked quickly at both documents and did not find the word “marriage.” Where is it?
Miriam Helgeland, Auburn