LETTERS: Families come in all sizes

LETTERS: Families come in all sizes

Editor: Re: All families are our future, Sept. 8 letters.

Editor:

Re: All families are our future, Sept. 8 letters.

I have never been one to write letters to the editor of any publication, but the comments by Maria Walsh deserve a response.

It is admirable that she supports gay and lesbian couples in creating nurturing, supportive families through adoption and other biological means. I fully support those sentiments.

However, she goes on to say: “What may be of greater concern for the future of mankind is the number of heterosexual couples who are choosing to remain childless or are having just one child – who, by the way, are frequently overindulged and sometimes poor examples of decent human beings.”

I take great exception to this comment. There are many reasons why couples chose not to start a family or have one child.

We have been blessed to have one child. We have friends who have one child. We have never asked why – it is none of our business. I can tell you that these kids have grown up to be wonderful young adults. They are caring, hard working and proving to be young leaders in our community. Our daughter has volunteered for many charitable organizations, loves working with kids and has recently become a teacher in our area. I believe any parent would be lucky to have their child in her class.

The next time one wants to disavow one stereotype, don’t do it by supporting another.

Jay Rumley, Surrey

• • •

Re: No future generations, Sept. 1 letters.

Families come in all shapes and sizes. There are families with a mom and a dad and some kids. Some families have one parent at home, some kids, and maybe a step-parent. There are some with no kids. There are some with kids from the first marriage, kids from the second marriage and even kids from the third marriage. Some have two adults of the same gender and some kids, or none.

How can anyone say that the sole purpose of marriage is to unite the two opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation?

I’ve always thought of marriage as a commitment between two people to try to get along, to love, support and help each other, and to remain faithful if they both require fidelity and agree to it.

Anything beyond that, such as having children, is optional.

From her letter, I would guess L. Myyra would be in favour of allowing only people of opposite genders and breed to get married. That would be discriminatory, and there’s no logical, rational or objective justification for that.

Besides, humans are breeding themselves into extinction, as resources are depleted and pollution is increased. Would the letter-writer be satisfied only when worldwide living conditions and air pollution are equal to that of today’s Zabol, Iran; Gwalior, India; Xingtai, China; Allahabad, India; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Bamenda, Cameroon; or even less polluted cities such as Mexico City, Mexico; Beijing, China; and Delhi, India?

Jerry Steinberg, Surrey