The letter writer ["Gay marriage can't be compared," June 5] apparently needs to take a refresher biology class, if he believes that marriage creates babies. There is no marriage license required.
The letter also dismisses out of hand heterosexual married couples who are childless for whatever reason. Should women have to get divorced once menopause removes the chance to have children? Should marriage continue only so long as procreation is the goal?
This is a poor, ignorant argument against equality for same-sex couples. Personally, I'd like to see government get out of the marriage business altogether. But, until it does, we need to make it available to all committed, loving adult couples.
Suzanne Mueller, Great Neck
So we are subjected to yet another letter from a reader who insists that same-sex marriage is a "joke," because, according to him, the purpose of marriage is procreation. What then of heterosexual couples who remain childless, either through circumstances or personal choice? Should we require that they divorce, since their marriages did not serve this purpose?
Or perhaps all of their marriages should simply be annulled, since a marriage that does not produce children does not fit the reader's definition of marriage?
The fact is that the procreation argument has never held much validity when deciding which committed, loving couples are entitled to the legal protections of marriage. And countless same-sex couples have raised healthy, well-adjusted children, further undercutting the claim that raising children requires heterosexual unions.
Richard Schloss, East Northport