Yippee! I have had more or my excess verbiage printed in The Record and once again it was on the subject of so homosexual rights (this is getting to be a habit for me). So, for your reading pleasure I have included here both my letter to the editor an dthe original which provoked my response. Enjoy or disagree strenuously — your choice.

First, the original...

The sense in which the nearly unanimous history of human culture has viewed homosexual behaviour as unnatural is independent of statistical considerations, whether anthropological or zoological.

As The Record anticipates in its June 11 editorial, the naturalness or otherwise of human sexual behaviour has always and everywhere been tied to the great good of conceiving and rearing children. "Ah," muses our editor, "but 'most people do not believe that the sole purpose of... intercourse is procreation.' "

True enough, but procreation is a purpose, and furthermore, it is a vitally important purpose for the nurture and survival of civilization itself. Hence the nearly universal care taken by civilizations to protect and foster the fragile institution of marriage.

Clearly, not "every single act" of sexual intercourse can or even should be procreative. But the more relevant question is whether it is acceptable for every sexual act of a person to be, intentionally and with full knowledge, non-procreative. In the human race, sexuality and civilization are bound together because sexuality is the means by which civilization exists and continues its existence into succeeding generations.

It is a unique characteristic of our species that our young remain dependent for many years upon their parents for both physical and psychological development. Where the enjoyment and pleasure of sexuality is separated from the care and nurture of children, society loses its ability to transmit itself through time. Thus, whatever else sex may be about, and it is about many things, it must irreducibly be about children.

This is why the expression of homosexual desires, which undoubtedly existed with as much statistical regularity in other times and places as in our own, has never been given the sanction and blessing of society.

Philip Toman
Waterloo

...and next my repsonse

Philip Toman, in his June 18 letter to the editor, Our Survival's At Stake, has got it all wrong on sexuality and homosexuality.

Toman first says that not every act of sexuality should be about procreation, but he later says that sexuality must irreducibly be about children.

Well, which is it? Human sexuality is obviously not only about procreation. If it were, women would only be interested in sex when they were ovulating. At other times of the month they would be completely uninterested.

At the end of his letter, Toman suggests that we shouldn't sanction homosexuality because it was not done in the past.

Using that logic we should revoke women's right to vote because they never had it in the past.

What about interracial marriages? Shall we go back to the days of Ira Johnson and Isabel Jones being harassed by the Ku Klux Klan, right here in Ontario?

Just because something was done a certain way in the past does not automatically mean that way is the better way. What is important in the present is that we do what is fair.

Cory Albrecht
Kitchener