Letter to the Editor: Both sides

The following letter to the editor was published in the LJWorld on 16 August, 2010.

To the editor:

In light of Arianne Cordray’s letter on Aug. 10, I would like to thank the Journal-World for publishing Cal Thomas’ piece, if for no other reason than that the gay marriage debate needs to be open to opinions from both sides. Anyone who believes that the subject of gay marriage does not hold serious moral ramifications either way is kidding themselves just as they would if they said the same of the abortion debate.

Mr. Thomas expressed his firm moral beliefs but did so without the extreme name-calling and profane speech others have used before, and we should welcome people to express themselves and their justifications without such loathsome language. Besides, if Cordray wishes to call someone a “bigot,” I could think of better candidates than Mr. Thomas.

Arguments are uncomfortable and tend to be especially so for Americans, but attempting to dismiss a person as bigoted ultimately becomes unhelpful, especially when the individual is not being profane and is simply expressing his opinion and justifications. I respectfully invite Arianne Cordray to rebut Mr. Thomas’ piece with an argument instead of dismissing it as “bigoted, homophobic and misogynistic.” It would certainly move the debate in a positive direction.

I received a response from Lisa Rasor on 18 August.

To the editor:

I find it depressing that homophobia is viewed as a valid moral stance, that it is seen as the “other side” of any debate. No other form of bigotry is so encouraged in our society and media today. We would be outraged today if media pundits harped about the immorality of black people, of the danger posed by black people raising children, the horrors of children learning about black people throughout history. 

Why? Because we know statements like that are bigoted and just plain stupid. Substitute the word “gay” for “black” and suddenly it is all right to say such things. Why? Because, apparently, we’re bigoted and just plain stupid.

A recent letter by an Isaac McPheeters (Aug. 16) ominously warns of “serious moral ramifications” of gay marriage. What ramifications are those? Accepting people for who they are? Encouraging stability in long-term relationships? Strengthening families? Making sure that there are no second-class citizens in our nation? Serious ramifications indeed, those pesky equal rights.

Sadly, she misses my point entirely and uses flawed logic in her argument on why positions like mine should not be heard in mainstream media.


The point of my letter was about good discourse. I didn't see a letter to the editor from a conservative arguing that the LJWorld should refuse to publish Leonard Pitts because his arguments in favor of gay marriage are offensive to his sentiments. If so, I could have just as easily written a similar letter defending him. Again, good discussion is not necessarily comfortable.

Lisa asks me to answer her questions on "What ramifications are those? Accepting people for who they are? Encouraging stability in long-term relationships? Strengthening families? Making sure that there are no second-class citizens in our nation?"

So here she wants me to write a letter to the editor discussing the moral ramifications for gay marriage, to what degree we "accept" certain sexual behavior, the dynamics of long-term relationships and homosexual unions, what strengthening families looks like, and also what qualifies a "second-class" citizen in our nation.

That would be a tall order to accomplish in 250 words or less; each of those topics deserves a chapter in a book.


As for her letter, Ms. Rasor commits two flaws in her analogy of choosing to "substitute 'gay' for 'black'". First of all, she assumes that any argument against people of darker skin color is just as invalid as an argument against different sexual behaviors. Unfortunately, her logic would also work for defending people engaging in consensual incest. Unless she wants to defend that as well, she really shouldn't use logic that permits (in fact leads to) that conclusion.


Second, she argues that we shouldn't even discuss this in the same way we don't discuss or debate whether blacks are fully human. The reason that we don't have many debates on university campuses about whether blacks are fully human is because our culture has had that discussion. It took men like Frederick Douglas to argue their case even when (can it be?) they withstood offensive arguments. They were willing to take the offensive arguments and respond. The thing is, we still talk about race a great deal, but portions of the discussion are largely in the  past. Those discussions have been had, and most Americans would argue it's been decided for the better. The discussion about homosexuality in American culture is far from resolved.