John La Fleurs column, Institution of marriage is for heterosexuals (SN 4/20), was probably the most ridiculous thing Ive 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 hes 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 couples biologically own healthy child. Any marriage that doesnt 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 hes 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.
Lets all give him a hand.