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, Im pretty sure I didnt 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?
Arent these vows the contract of marriage? By La Fleurs 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 cant produce a child of their own either. La Fleurs 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 cant produce a child who shares half of each partners genes is wrong. I suggest that if you want to oppose same-sex marriages, then you should look into finding some better reasons.