So I take it now that Pride Week is over, The State News is going to publish uninformed, uneducated, homophobic blathering? John La Fleur’s column was not only insulting, but embarrassing.
In John La Fleur’s column published Friday, he made public his ignorance of the topic of gay and lesbian relationships, as well as the role marriage plays in society. Sociologists recognize marriage not as a “legal union from which children are born,” but as “a multifaceted bond based on commitment, love and intimacy.” In addition, the reality of marriage is that many marriages remain childless by choice. La Fleur should have done some research before presuming to know what marriage means to American society.
I would hate to be John La Fleur’s wife. I can picture La Fleur coming home after a busy day.
I am writing this letter in response to John La Fleur’s column. I found La Fleur’s opinions to be ignorant and offensive.
If we subscribe to the ideas that John La Fleur suggests are correct in his column, we may find ourselves in a scarier, more unfortunate situation than what already exists by not allowing homosexual marriages. The way that marriage was described to me for as long as I can remember is that it is an institution for which people who love each other can live together with certain benefits and recognition - such as a joint tax situation or health benefits. Never was it described to me as “a legal union from which children are born.” The idea of marriage for the purpose of procreation is ridiculous.
The members of the Graduate Employees Union should be congratulated for their hard work in solidifying their collective bargaining victory. Graduate employees appointed as teaching assistants went to the polls Thursday and Friday to vote on whether they wanted to be represented by a union.
There is so much faulty logic and misused rhetoric in John La Fleur’s column, that one hardly knows what to respond to.
You have to feel sorry for the people of Peru if they are relying on President M. Peter McPherson to make sure they have a functioning democracy. McPherson’s paranoiac behaviors regarding Students For Economic Justice is far more damaging to this university than binge drinking and sports-related riots ever could be.
I don’t know what it is to be hated for what I am. I’ve been disliked for who I am, my beliefs and ideals, but not what I am. No one hates me because I have blue eyes.
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.
John La Fleur’s column, “Institution of marriage is for heterosexuals” (SN 4/20), was probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. His whole argument is based on faulty logic and selective reasoning.
Establishments should be held responsible for violations that occur on their premises or are related to activities that happened at the business. The Lansing City Council has taken away the liquor license from one bar and is considering taking away another’s.
I want to thank the nine men who attended the men’s forum at “Take Back The Night,” as well as those men who supported the event as a whole. Sadly, few men were this supportive.
I am writing in response to Michonne L. Omo’s column (“Message shouldn’t have been tampered with,” SN 4/17). I found her essay hypocritical and a prime example of why such an act as the sabotage of Campus Crusade for Christ’s chalk messages were necessary. In my opinion, the whole point of writing such offensive things was not to be just childish, but rather to juxtapose the traditional viewpoints of the Christian and non-Christian. There are complaints every year about the chalkings, and every year CCC counters with the argument that the chalk is harmless and can be easily ignored.
Because of an excessive amount of online bagel trading, Bagel Fragel will be closing down (“Bagel Fragel to close down,” SN 4/19). Just kidding.
It’s not just light. And it goes far beyond warmth. Past the beautiful MSU women (all of you) who take off their winter coats, and the flying balls and Frisbees orbiting the residence halls.
To say the least, it is unsettling to know such ignorance displayed in John La Fleur’s column exists (“ Institution of marriage is for heterosexuals,” SN 4/20). In fact, it makes me want to vomit. His definition of marriage is a “union from which children are born.” First of all, marriage is the union of two people.
A panel appointed to review the undercover investigation of a campus group will do little to help resolve this situation.MSU President M.
On Wednesday I received something in the mail that was scarier than my Verizon Wireless cell phone bill.Well, maybe not that frightening, but it certainly gave me chills.
I wonder how many readers of this column would object to the legal recognition of incestuous relationships, including states allowing a person to marry one of his/her first cousins or even a sibling. I do not refer to those relationships in which one person forces another to engage in sexual relations with a family member.