It is with concern and alarm that I am writing to respond to Eric Wilson's March 23 column, "Defending the Family," which damns same-sex couples, contending that their relationships are "unusual, unnatural and unfruitful," and suggests that the very idea of homosexuality is yet another behavior we should add to the increasingly long list of un-American activities ("a foolish departure from the morals that have built our country").\nIn addition to ignoring the fact that this country was founded on religious freedom, not on the restriction thereof, Mr. Wilson commits logical blasphemy on a variety of points. While space and patience prevent me from detailing each instance, let me reiterate a few of his arguments which made the least sense.\nFirst, let me begin with a concession: Mr. Wilson's failure to see a "natural connection" between a homosexual couple's inability to reproduce and the "nurturing (of) the next generation" is actually understandable. He fails to see a connection, because there isn't one -- "nurturing" and biologically reproducing a child are virtually unrelated. A biological father (or mother) who abuses a child is a far \nworse parent than a gay man or woman who provides a supportive and safe environment for that child. "Nurturing the next generation" is a task that is better suited to some homosexual couples than it is to heterosexual couples who are abusive.\nNext, in an almost laughable paragraph, he claims that "A good predictor of crime in a given neighborhood is the percentage of (single-parent) households," and then claims this proves the benefit of the "old family model." The higher crime rate in such neighborhoods is probably because of the economic hardships which single-parent families must undergo, a hardship which has absolutely nothing to do with the sexuality of the parents. The "old family model" is, moreover, the same model which gave us the sexism that leads to abuse which, in turn, often leads to the phenomenon of the single parent burdened with raising a family alone.\nContinuing his laundry list of paranoid delusions, Mr. Wilson fears that, were same-sex marriage legalized, "pedophiles, bigamists and incestuous people" would suddenly begin demanding the right to marry. This logic escapes me. If I understand pedophilia and incest correctly, the desire inherent in those behaviors is the desire to abuse and to dominate, not to enter into marital bliss together.\nMr. Wilson then asks us to imagine a scenario supposedly analogous to same-sex marriage in which a "conscientious objector would claim discrimination in being denied benefits given to veterans." Huh? The conscientious objector chose his path. In contrast, the homosexual person does not choose not to marry -- s/he is forbidden from doing so. Of course, Mr. Wilson would have it that "Homosexuals … do not want to marry," they just "want marriage benefits." That is like saying \nAfrican Americans wanted the benefits of being allowed to drink from "white" water fountains, but they never really cared about being treated equally.\nFinally, it bears repeating that IU is a diverse population of students with conflicting views. It is one task of IU instructors to protect the rights of their students to voice those views and to foster an atmosphere in which students feel safe. I would hope that, as an employee of IU, Mr. Wilson is aware of IU's policy on nondiscrimination: "Indiana University prohibits discrimination based on arbitrary consideration of such characteristics as age, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status" (www.indiana.edu/~glbtserv/office.htm#nondiscrimination). As I understand this policy, nondiscrimination should also extend to the classroom -- that is, to non-heterosexual students who are under Mr. Wilson's tutelage, to whom I hope he proffers more respect in person than he does in his column.
Kris Thomas\nPh.D. candidate, Germanic studies
