John La Fleur’s column, “Institution of marriage is for heterosexuals” (SN 4/20), was probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read.

His whole argument is based on faulty logic and selective reasoning. He asks how one justifies recognition of one expression of sexuality and scorns another (using homosexuality and incest as examples) and somehow manages to miss that he’s doing the same thing by justifying heterosexuality while scorning homosexuality.

He goes on to claim the only purpose of a marriage is to procreate and foster a couple’s biologically own healthy child. Any marriage that doesn’t do this “contradicts” its own purpose. So, by his definition, I guess a 55-year old, postmenopausal woman or a sterile man should never be allowed to marry?

It sounds like La Fleur has believed every stereotype he’s ever heard about all homosexuality stemming from sexually or physically abusive relationships. I guess anyone who has enough confidence to say something as ignorant as this and put his picture up next to it deserves a little bit of respect.

Let’s all give him a hand.

Janelle Palmer
Lyman Briggs
zoology sophomore