I am addressing this letter to John La Fleur and others who may agree with him.
After reading The State News on Friday, I was appalled his column was printed. The only reason I can see fit to why it happened was to get a reaction out of our college population.
Well, thats exactly what you are going to get.
Within the column, I found two things I would like to comment on. First is that La Fleur says marriage is a legal union in which children are born and that marriage is a contract. Both of those comments would be considered reasonable. What I dont find reasonable is that La Fleur is saying because homosexual couples do not procreate and produce their own children, they should not marry.
I want to point out that not all heterosexual couples have their own children; many choose to adopt or have artificial insemination. Does this make those heterosexual couples not eligible for marriage? Also, if a married couple does not have children, are they still considered married? According to La Fleurs definition, they are not.
I would also like to say that homosexual people should not have to feel like outcasts by society. Why do they have to convince society their lifestyle is wholesome and worthy of acceptance? The only people who dont accept them are people who are afraid of something different.
Homosexual couples should be able to marry because marriage is a contract between two people who love each other, and as the saying goes, love has no boundaries.