To say the least, it is unsettling to know such ignorance displayed in John La Fleurs column exists ( Institution of marriage is for heterosexuals, SN 4/20). In fact, it makes me want to vomit.
His definition of marriage is a union from which children are born. First of all, marriage is the union of two people. It is never understood nor expected that married people have children. Most of the legal rights involved with marriage have nothing to do with children.
Secondly, a good proportion of functional families do not consist of a husband, a wife and children. Plus, there is nothing that inhibits a homosexual marriage from offering a healthy, stable environment to raise children.
The fact homosexual sex is present in nature is not a justification for homosexuality; it is simply an argument for the ever-popular, inane argument that its not natural.
I feel it is unnecessary to respond to his comparison of homosexuality and incest or his archaic preaching that homosexuality is unwholesome and is merely a means to deal with a traumatized childhood. Most people capable of thought understand this is plainly false.
Perhaps La Fleurs attempt to oppress this minority is his way of dealing with traumatizing or unfulfilling relationships. In any case, I hope students of this university, and everyone else for that matter, will see La Fleurs column for what it is - an ignorant, hateful, oppressive piece of garbage.