"It equally amazes and amuses me that people honestly believe that the sexual 'choice' of being homosexual and marriage of the same-sex are morally and ethically OK.
     "It is impossible for two people of the same sex to conceive and give birth to children, and based on that scientific fact it appears to me that 'nature' is the determining factor on whether same-sex marriages are OK."

- Victor R. Edgington in a letter to the editor of the Toledo Blade published Aug. 15, 1999

     Dear Mr. Edgington -

     It equally amazes and amuses me that - 
     But no, that would be too flip a beginning to what I hope to be a serious response to a point of view I've often encountered and have had just about enough of for the following reasons:

     1.  You object to homosexual marriage on the grounds that gays cannot reproduce.  Do you also object to heterosexual marriages in which one or both of the people involved are sterile? Do you believe that women who have experienced menopause are acting immorally or unethically if they wed?  And what of heterosexuals who marry and are sexually active but avoid having children through the use of modern contraceptives?  If you don't object to these marriages, you're being inconsistent.  If you do object, why didn't you say so?  Why did you single out homosexuals for special criticism?

     2.  You say that married homosexuals may not reproduce.  That's not true.  They may not biologically reproduce with each other, but that's a slightly different thing.  Many lesbian couples chose to have a child with the help of a sperm donor - just as many heterosexual couples do when one partner is unable to produce enough sperm.  Does the gender of the partner who is unable to produce the sperm on their own really matter?  Why is it ethically ok when the male is deficient but immoral when it happens to be a female who is deficient?  Isn't the female naturally the one who is supposed to be deficient?  Explain.

     3.  Suppose the day comes when two lesbians may biologically reproduce thanks to advances in cloning technology.  Does any marriage between them suddenly become morally OK the moment a certain technological breakthrough occurs?  If so, it seems to be a very odd sort of morality which depends upon the activities not of the people directly involved but of faraway scientists who will probably never meet them.  If not, why aren't you condemning in vitro fertilization which allows otherwise sterile women in heterosexual marriages to conceive today?

     4.  Even if homosexual couples could never reproduce, they still could become parents through adoption.  Should the morality of their parenting be judged on the basis of their physiology?  I don't believe you can possibly be saying that all wedded heterosexual parents are moral and ethical merely because they are wedded and heterosexual.  Are you really saying that all homosexuals are condemned to be immoral parents simply because they are homosexual?  Why?
Why the focus on human sexuality (not obviously relevant in this case) as opposed to, say, any couple's ability to keep their guns under lock and key?

     5.  Your letter suggests that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad.  Do you believe everything unnatural is bad?  Airplanes?  Antibiotics?  The wearing of pants?  Women who shave their armpits?  If not, what makes the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality so special?  It seems to me a better case can be made that airplanes are immoral.  After all, I've never heard of two men engaged in sex crashing into a city and killing hundreds of people.

     6.  Actually, I don't believe you'd find many biologists who would agree with you that homosexuality is unnatural.  As I understand it, the habits of our close cousins, the chimpanzees, would shock you.  And I dare not mention all those creatures for whom the murder of a mate is an intrinsic part of the sex act.  Or the wasp that lays its eggs in the body of a caterpillar so that they may hatch and eat the caterpillar alive without benefit of clergy.  If what you're saying, in part, is that whatever is natural is good, moral, and/or ethical, I'm afraid you're one sick puppy 
- or at least have never watched a nature program on TV.

     7.  Whether nature is good or bad, it is a moving target.  Nature is more a process than a thing.  Over time, it is a process which has given birth to many, many different and often contradictory things.  Sex itself was quite "unnatural" in the world of amoebic fission in which it first evolved.  Did the amoebas protest with letters to the paper?  Not that I know of.  Is there something to be learned from this?  Discuss.

     8.  I discovered a long time ago that it's very, very difficult to make meaningful distinctions between natural and unnatural.  That word unnatural is just too slippery.  It is better to avoid it altogether and replace it with one of two other words: supernatural or man-made.  Obviously you're not objecting to homosexual marriage because it is supernatural - right?  So: Perhaps you are objecting to it because it is man-made.  And I'll interpret that in the best way possible: You think homosexuality is an artificial, human practice which is much inferior to "natural" heterosexuality.  To which I have two things to say: 1) What makes you a much better judge here than the people directly involved?  And 2) It seems that the difference between "man-made" homosexuality and "natural" heterosexuality 
is far smaller than the difference between "man-made" marriage and natural polygamy, promiscuity, and "cheating."  After all, no animal that I know of in nature gets married.  And its success rate of - what? 50%? - hardly makes it a shining example of human creativity at its best.  Can you imagine what the reaction would be if 50% of all car rides ended in fiery explosions and/or nasty custody battles?  Can you imagine anyone calling cars "the moral choice"?  Can you imagine anyone blaming the drivers all the time instead of the very idea of automotive transportation?  Isn't it time we consider the matrimonial possibilities of... oh, I don't know.... maybe mass transit?

     9.  No, I'm not gay.  I'm just naturally idiotphobic. 

   10.  Sorry.  That was uncalled for, as were some of my other remarks.  I'm so ashamed....

    11.  But at least I know better than to embarrass myself by sharing 'em with a newspaper that would probably just make them seem ten times worse with poor editing.

    12.  So: What say we just kiss and make up in private like self-assured heterosexuals sometimes do?  Please?

    13.  OK, OK - settle down!  I just suggested that because that's what Romans 16:16, First Corinthians 16:20, Second Corinthians 13:12, First Thessalonians 5:26, and First Peter 5:14 says we should do!  Geez!  There's just no getting along with some people!!