Letter writer Ann Sandt exhibits specious reasoning and relies on a frightening number of logical fallacies in her recent letter “Only humans have a problem with homosexuals” (Aug. 10).

First, she alludes to the historical practice of the arranged marriage and how this enterprise devalued women as mere possessions to suggest that “marriage has been used to develop bonds for reasons other than love and holy matrimony.” Sandt is correct.

However, she points out a flaw in the institution of marriage only to insist that if such atrocities have occurred in the past, society should permit homosexuals to marry each other now because they actually love each other.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, Ann.

If “love” is the only component of a marriage, cannot one woman marry two men, or a man marry his dog?

Next, Sandt queries, “How can (those who are religious) say that God created everything in the universe and it was good, and then pick out one segment of this creation and say it is bad and defective?” This is an important question, and it undoubtedly poses a great difficulty to many believers today.

Indeed, God did create everything good. However, humans themselves introduced evil into the world when they first sinned against God. Hence, evil abounds in the world today not because God created evil beings, but because those good beings chose to pursue evil rather than good.

Like the inclination to suffer from alcoholism, homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder. Obviously, the individuals who suffer from both should be treated with the love and respect they deserve as humans. However, others must not enable them in their disordered behaviors.

Sandt continues, citing examples of members of the animal kingdom who exhibit homosexual tendencies to further her argument that only humans “have a problem with homosexuality.” Yes, this appears to be true.

However, arguing from the behavior of the animal kingdom can be dangerous. Several animals, including the wolf spider, polar bear, and hyena, consume their offspring. Does this mean the strong human aversion to doing so is absurd or irrational? Of course not. But, frighteningly, by the reasoning of the aforementioned editorial, one could also argue that humans eating their children is a “balancing piece in creation, not a blight to be scorned and abolished.”

Let’s just stick with our human rationality and strive to preserve true marriage as a sacred institution between one woman and one man. After all, to do anything less degrades the inherent dignity of the human being.

Harold Geno, Federal Way