I am writing this letter in response to John La Fleurs column.
I found La Fleurs opinions to be ignorant and offensive. First of all, La Fleur compared homosexual relationships to incest. Both kinds of relationships are natural, but incestuous marriages were not banned because they are perverted. These marriages are illegal because there is an increased chance of children of incestuous relationships to be born with recessive genetic disorders.
There is no possibility of homosexual marriages resulting in children, much less children with genetic disorders. Secondly, marriage may have originally been established as a legal union from which children are born. However, many heterosexual marriages do not result in children. Do these marriages contradict the purpose of a marriage; therefore a state has no legal reason to recognize them?
Also, many homosexual couples adopt children and provide a very loving home for those children. La Fleur also stated homosexuality should be viewed as a futile means to deal with traumatic or unfulfilling relationships, just as people turn to alcohol abuse, narcotics usage or other such activities.
There are plenty of homosexual people who had very good relationships with their fathers and have never been sexually abused as a child. Some people are gay for the simple reason that they are attracted to people of the same sex.
Homosexuality is not a disease or an addiction and should not be viewed as such.
chemistry and pre-med junior