Mr. Zahradnik, in the Sept. 29 issue of the Daily, you replied to an article of mine in order to “point out some basic flaws” in my argument. The “flaws” that you pointed out, however, seem to be misunderstandings on your part; this is to clarify my position for you.

The first half of your article was spent arriving at the conclusion that, “he must be saying that the act of homosexual sex can never benefit society in any way…” This is correct. In fact, I stated this explicitly, and you quoted this earlier in your article. Of course homosexuals can benefit society, as can a single person who adopts or a convict who does community service.

You then say, “This seems to rely on the assumption that marriage has only one possible advantage.” This is false. Marriage does have one “chief” advantage, and this is the advantage for which the government awards them. That was the point of my article.

You then critique my sink analogy, claiming that I am begging the question, and you state what you think is the conclusion of my argument: “Sexual relations can never be exactly the same as heterosexual relations.” This was not my conclusion. The point of my analogy was to demonstrate that there is only one kind of relationship (the sink in the analogy) that can produce children (water in the analogy). You left the water out, and this is the most important part.

Finally, you mention marriage in your article, something that I did not attempt to address. My point refers to benefits, not marriage.

The government should award only commitments to those kinds of relationships that have the potential to produce children. This has nothing to do with marriage. According to my article, civil unions could be allowed, as long as no benefits are given as a result of them.

Chris Tweedt

Senior

Philosophy