Mr. Tweedt, my objections to your original letter that appeared Sept. 28 have still not been addressed. I can attempt, however, to make this abundantly clear, which I apparently failed to do initially.

Firstly, you do not establish that the government rewards heterosexual couples only because they might possibly procreate, and you do not establish that a homosexual couple might not be just as deserving of a reward for making a lifetime commitment to one another.

It does seem questionable that possibility of procreation is the “chief” reason why the government rewards couples who marry, for one could cite many other reasons that might cause the government to want to reward couples for committing themselves to monogamous relationships.

And there is no shortage of adoptable children in our world in this day, so if our government is rewarding procreation, we might wonder why. Secondly, in the instance of a sterile heterosexual couple, your analogy of a sink producing water does not help this couple excuse themselves for still wanting to marry.

The water in your analogy need not be children — hence my accusation of question begging — it could be some other positive effect that arises when two people make a lifelong sexual commitment to one another. Again, in this analogy you assume that the positive effect of a sexual relationship — the water — is children.

Indeed, a majority of us humans are sexual in nature and we inevitably will demand satisfaction for our desires. This can be done responsibly or irresponsibly.

It would make sense that the government of any country should want to reward people who go about achieving this satisfaction in a responsible, healthy way — a way which would then be beneficial to society, regardless of the sex of the couple.

Benjamin Zahradnik

Senior

English