In John La Fleur’s column Friday, he states marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals because “marriage is a formal mechanism to establish order in the lives of children.”

Therefore, because homosexuals are incapable of having children among themselves, he argues they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. But what about heterosexuals who choose to marry but cannot or choose not to have children? Following La Fleur’s logic, they shouldn’t be permitted to legally marry either.

Furthermore, suppose two men wanted to marry the same woman. Technically, they could have children, so according to La Fleur’s reasoning, they should be legally permitted to marry.

Later in the column, it becomes apparent that La Fleur does not understand that the argument in favor of homosexual marriage is not simply “what the heck, animals do it.” Rather, it is that it is unfair that two people in love should not be permitted to legalize their bond simply because they happen to be of the same gender.

Thus far, the judgmental attitude that La Fleur exemplifies has not caused homosexuals to retreat back into the closet, and it is inconceivable that this attitude will be successful in doing so in the future.

Instead of condemning those people whose lifestyle choices are different from the mainstream, both La Fleur and our society would be better served by trying to understand and accept them.

Liz Abdnour
political theory and
constitutional democracy senior