The last time I went to a wedding, the vows exchanged between the bride and groom said nothing about having children.

Since I was standing right next to the bride, I’m pretty sure I didn’t miss when the minister said, “Do you take this man to produce offspring with?” If the purpose of marriage is to “bind a man and a woman to mutually raise any children they procreate,” as John La Fleur stated in his column (“Institution of marriage is for heterosexuals,” SN 4/20), why then do wedding vows fail to mention children?

Aren’t these vows the “contract” of marriage? By La Fleur’s reasoning, the only people that should get married are a fertile man to a fertile woman with the intent of having children. Everyone else is destined to spend his or her life alone. Some of the best and most loving parents I know are adoptive parents who can’t “produce a child of their own” either. La Fleur’s column is an insult to those parents.

The purpose of marriage is not to have children. Denying a homosexual couple the right to enjoy the benefits of marriage because they can’t produce a child who shares half of each partner’s genes is wrong. I suggest that if you want to oppose same-sex marriages, then you should look into finding some better reasons.

Katie DeYoung
no-preference freshman