This letter is in response to Fred Bangar’s online feedback printed in the Feb. 25 edition of the Daily, titled, “Homosexuality is the wrong choice.”

Should your tax dollars go to subsidize this? Why not? We already deny same-sex couples the right to be the social security survivor or military pension survivor when the other dies, while dual-sex couples are allowed to get married and are granted that special right.

Many are denied the cheaper rates for loans and mortgages, as well as lower insurance rates that married couples are allowed. The state employees who have domestic partner benefits will even be taxed as the state does not see the partner as a spouse or relative.

Two men can have children. Two women can have children. Having children is not the same as bearing or producing children. Reproductive technology is at the point where my partner and I will be able to combine an X-sperm of his and a Y-sperm of mine to produce a son with the help of a surrogate mother, and my friend Jessica and her partner will be able to combine an egg from each and have a daughter.

The human species is nowhere near extinction. It is more likely we are like a virus and are overabundant. Even with 10 percent of the population born gay we will not face extinction.

Having 10 percent of the population less likely to reproduce unless they truly want a child — and are willing to adopt the mistakes made by careless straight people — works as a form of population control and social justice. Children abandoned by their reckless parents will be cared for and not left to be a burden on taxpayers.

The least that taxpayers can do is spare a bit to help these families as they do dual-sex parented families. Can you really be against this, Mr. Bangar? Can you really be against your conservative leader’s cry of “leave no child behind”?

Joel Taylor

Sophomore

Political Science