Come on DUers, help me improve this Letter to the Editor

[Ediacara]

The letter below is in response to Writer mischaracterizes Christians in argument for gay marriage which is half way down the second page.

---------------

Editor,

This letter is in response to a long and rather rambling letter to the editor by Luke Morscheck (Writer mischaracterizes Christians in argument for gay marriage, 04 March 2004). I am not going to attempt to argue for or against the merits of Christianity that Mr. Morscheck discusses, but to correct several factually incorrect statements and logical missteps he makes.

His first incorrect statement is that homosexuality is not genetic or biological in origin. Although there is still debate on the issue, it is clear that there is some biological component to homosexual behavior. In addition, there is extensive data demonstrating that homosexuality is a widespread and common behavior among non-human animals. An excellent place to start looking is Dr Bruce Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance, which documents quite thoroughly hundreds of instances of non-human homosexuality citing primary research throughout.

To back this up, he refers to an organization know as the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH is an organization that supports the psychological “curing” of homosexuals and pushes an agenda that homosexuality is a pathology of the mind. This is in stark disagreement with the premier medical organizations in the United States, namely: the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics; which all view the scientific basis of homosexual “curing” as dubious and dangerous at best.

However, let’s take a step back from the debate on the causes of homosexuality, and get back to the issue of marriage. Marriage is an issue that has two meanings, one legal, and one religious. No proponents of same-sex marriages are attempting to force clergy to perform a religious marriage ceremony on anyone people whom the clergyman does not wish to marry. Instead, they are supporting the equal rights of homosexual couples granted by the government to married heterosexual couples, which as of this writing number greater than 1000. Those rights range from the convenience of filing a single tax return, to being allowed to have parental rights over stepchildren, and being allowed to visit a partner in the hospital.

No argument made against same-sex marriage can ever be separated from a religious basis. That’s ok though, like I said before, no one is urging the state to force clergy uncomfortable with homosexuals to perform same-sex marriages. The only thing the proponents of same-sex marriage are suggesting is that the legal definition of marriage, which is what grants married couples extraordinary rights and privileges, be expanded to include same sex couples. A denial of civil rights for married interracial couples based on sectarian religious arguments would never be accepted, and denial of rights to same-sex couples should be rejected just as whole-heartedly.

-----------

Am I in too many places at once? Should I add something? Should I clarify or re-word anything? Any help is greatly appreciated.

[Vogon_Glory]

1. Ideas and Notions Regarding Rebuttals

I can't make a coherent or complete argument, so I won't.

I can't help but think that most people would understand or agree with the idea that most of the human population is biologically hard-wired heterosexual, and it's mostly those pious individuals who consider themselves to be "Christians" or perhaps pious Jews who act as if sexuality was a malleable as a tub of soft margarine. Most boys will desire girls and most girls will desire boys.

As far as marriages go, the strength of marriage has far, far more to do with the individuals working to maintain their marriage than it does by being strictly defined as one man, one woman. Marriage counseling before tying the knot would help. Moreover, the self-righteous don't seem to pay that much attention to the fact that marriage is as much an economic institution as a social unit, and that money and finances are a major contributor to divorce. Further, divorce rates are very high in Bible Belt states where gay marriage is still illegal.

I would say that the economic institution of marriage has been under attack, in part due to the shifting economic trends aided and abetted by this oh-so-pious administration.

This oh-so-pious party in power is continuing the "conservatives" undeclared war against the extended family with its parental notification legislation, just as it did with its immigration law changes, but that's another story.

Also, hasn't anyone considered that gay couples that stay together twenty, thirty years or more can serve as role models to follow for heterosexuals?

[patricia92243]

2. Way too long.

[Ediacara]

3. and it should be shortened where?

[JohnLocke]

4. A couple of suggestions

1st paragraph:

- Strike "long and rather rambling"
- When you say "Dr Bruce Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance" be sure to put the period after Dr. and italicize the name of the work.
- I'd reword the phrase "premier medical organizations" -- sounds too awkward.
- I'd also change "namely" to "including," and strike the colon.

4th paragraph:

- Reword second sentence.

[Ediacara]

5. THANKS!

-Long and rather ramnling was included when I was still fuming after reading the letter.
-I left out the period (oops) but have it italicized in the .wps form, thanks for the catch though.
-I've reworked the entire second paragraph somewhat, does this read better:

To support his claim, he refers to an organization know as the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH is an organization that supports the psychological “curing” of homosexuals and pushes an agenda that homosexuality is a pathology of the mind. This is in stark disagreement with the opinions of the United States’ most trusted professional medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics; which all view the scientific basis of homosexual “curing” as dubious at best, and dangerous for the patient.

-is this what you were after:

Marriage is an institution that has two meanings, one legal, and one religious.

Thanks again for the help!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I like it

but I was a bit confused by who "he" was in the beginning of the third paragraph. Took a minute to realize you were referring back to the letter writer and not the author of the book you mentioned in the paragraph before.

I felt your arguement about civil vs religious marriage was quite good. Hope your letter gets printed.

[Ediacara]

7. Thanks!

For both the compliment and the criticism. I will change "he" to "Morscheck."

[LoverOfLiberty]

8. Your points are salient

and your writing is superior to most of what I read in the Opinions section.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

[Ediacara]

12. thanks for the compliment :-)

Let's hope it gets published!

[LeahMira]

9. Minor details...

I am not going to attempt to argue for or against the merits of Christianity that Mr. Morscheck discusses, but to correct several factually incorrect statements and logical missteps he makes.

I would not put it quite that way. Mentioning the idea of arguing for or against the "merits of Christianity" could put Christians on the defensive. I think that Christian thought is far from monolithic on the subject of homosexuality, and Mr. Morscheck speaks about only one of a number of Christian views, so I would say something to the effect that you are not going to argue for or against his specific interpretation of Christian views.

Although there is still debate on the issue, it is clear that there is some biological component to homosexual behavior.

Are you saying that there is debate on whether or not there is a biological component to human homosexual behavior? Or are you saying that there is debate on the extent to which biology influences human homosexual behavior, but we know that there is definitely some influence? I think it's the latter, but I'm not sure. Or are you saying that we know about the biological component in animal homosexual behavior, but we don't know if that can be extended to human behavior?

It would probably make a stronger argument if you could cite studies that were made of humans (any DNA info, or brain wave info, or whatever?) because Christians will come back at you and claim that man is higher than the animals, but if you don't have those studies then you can't cite them.

Instead, they are supporting the equal rights of homosexual couples granted by the government to married heterosexual couples, which as of this writing number greater than 1000. Those rights range from the convenience of filing a single tax return, to being allowed to have parental rights over stepchildren, and being allowed to visit a partner in the hospital.

Picky, but in your first sentence here it's not clear whether the rights or the heterosexual couples number greater than 1,000. Common sense, of course, makes it clear, but I'd say it this way:
Instead, they are supporting the equal rights of homosexual couples granted by the government to married heterosexual couples. Those rights, which presently number over 1,000, range from the convenience of filing a single tax return, to being allowed to have parental rights over stepchildren, and being allowed to visit a partner in the hospital.

I don't think your statement is too long at all. I looked at the link you provided and found that most of the letters to the editor are pretty long, and Mr. Morscheck's was quite long. I think yours gets to the point nicely, has just the slightly casual tone that's characteristic of a campus newspaper, and makes good points.

Ya done good, kiddo!

[Ediacara]

10. Thanks!

I would not put it quite that way. Mentioning the idea of arguing for or against the "merits of Christianity" could put Christians on the defensive. I think that Christian thought is far from monolithic on the subject of homosexuality, and Mr. Morscheck speaks about only one of a number of Christian views, so I would say something to the effect that you are not going to argue for or against his specific interpretation of Christian views.

I will clarify this. Again, when I started writing this, I was still pretty steamed about his letter, so ya...

Are you saying that there is debate on whether or not there is a biological component to human homosexual behavior? Or are you saying that there is debate on the extent to which biology influences human homosexual behavior, but we know that there is definitely some influence? I think it's the latter, but I'm not sure. Or are you saying that we know about the biological component in animal homosexual behavior, but we don't know if that can be extended to human behavior?

I will clarify. What I am trying to say is that there is a debate on the degree of biological influence, but it seems clear that biological influence is certainly present.

It would probably make a stronger argument if you could cite studies that were made of humans (any DNA info, or brain wave info, or whatever?) because Christians will come back at you and claim that man is higher than the animals, but if you don't have those studies then you can't cite them.

I am not sure if a letter to the editor is the appropriate place to cite these sort of things. You are correct in noting that some Christians will come back not only claiming Humans are a higher form of animal, but not even animals at all. I am not sure what I can do to counter that sort of thinking, because it's essentially a made up mind :shrug:

Picky, but in your first sentence here it's not clear whether the rights or the heterosexual couples number greater than 1,000. Common sense, of course, makes it clear, but I'd say it this way:
Instead, they are supporting the equal rights of homosexual couples granted by the government to married heterosexual couples. Those rights, which presently number over 1,000, range from the convenience of filing a single tax return, to being allowed to have parental rights over stepchildren, and being allowed to visit a partner in the hospital.

You know, that's why I posted it here asking for suggested improvements :-)

I don't think your statement is too long at all. I looked at the link you provided and found that most of the letters to the editor are pretty long, and Mr. Morscheck's was quite long. I think yours gets to the point nicely, has just the slightly casual tone that's characteristic of a campus newspaper, and makes good points.

Surprisingly, the Exponent has a 300 word limit on LTTE, but as you said, most of today's letters CLEARLY exceed that limit, so I think at around 450 words, I'll be ok.

Ya done good, kiddo!

Thanks again for the suggestions. You rock!

[Ediacara]

11. Revised letter

I tried to encorporate all of the fantastic suggestions from my fellow DUers. How does this look:

---------------------

This letter is in response to a letter to the editor by Luke Morscheck (Writer mischaracterizes Christians in argument for gay marriage, 04 March 2004). I am not going to attempt to argue for or against Mr. Morscheck’s views of Christian thought, but to correct several factually errors and logical missteps he makes.

A prominent factual error that Mr. Morscheck makes is that homosexuality is not genetic or biological in origin. Although there is still debate on the degree of biological influence, it is generally agreed upon that there is a biological component to homosexual behavior. In addition, there is extensive data demonstrating that homosexuality is a widespread and common behavior not just in humans, but also among non-human animals. For those interested, Dr. Bruce Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance, documents quite thoroughly hundreds of instances of non-human homosexuality citing primary research throughout.

To support his claim, Morscheck refers to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH is an organization that supports the psychological “curing” of homosexuals and pushes an agenda that refers to homosexuality as a pathology of the mind. This is in disagreement with the opinions of the United States’ most trusted professional medical and psychological organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics; which all view the scientific basis of homosexual “curing” as dubious at best, and a dangerous and ultimately unsuccessful process for the patient.

However, let’s take a step back from the debate on the causes of homosexuality, and get back to the issue of marriage. Marriage is an institution that has two meanings, one legal, and one religious. No proponents of same-sex marriages are attempting to force clergy to perform a religious marriage ceremony on people whom the clergyman does not wish to marry. Instead, they are supporting the equal rights of homosexual couples granted by the government to married heterosexual couples. Those rights, which presently number over 1,000, range from the convenience of filing a single tax return, to being allowed to have parental rights over stepchildren, and being allowed to visit a partner in the hospital.

No argument made against same-sex marriage can ever be separated from a religious argument. That’s ok though, as I said before, no one is urging the state to force clergy uncomfortable with homosexuals to perform same-sex marriages. The only thing the proponents of same-sex marriage are suggesting is that the legal definition of marriage, which is what grants married couples extraordinary rights and privileges, be expanded to include same sex couples. A denial of civil rights for married interracial couples based on sectarian religious arguments would never be accepted, and denial of rights to same-sex couples should be rejected just as whole-heartedly.

[Ediacara]

13. Second Revision

Thanks again to everyone for their constructive criticisms, especially to a certain writer from the south :-) As always, additional comments are more than welcome.

---------

Luke Morscheck makes several factual errors and logical missteps in his letter to the editor (Writer mischaracterizes Christians in argument for gay marriage, 04 March 2004).

Mr. Morscheck states that homosexuality is not genetic or biological in origin and uses research from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) to support this claim. Although there is still debate with the scientific community on the degree of biological influence, it is generally agreed upon that there is a biological component to homosexual behavior. In addition, there is extensive data demonstrating that homosexuality is a widespread and common behavior not just in humans, but also among non-human animals. For those interested, Dr. Bruce Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance, documents quite thoroughly hundreds of instances of non-human homosexuality citing primary research throughout.

NARTH, the organization who’s research Mr. Morscheck cites in his letter, supports the psychological “curing” of homosexuals, and pushes an agenda that refers to homosexuality as a pathology of the mind. This is in disagreement with the opinions of the country’s most trusted professional medical and psychological organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Each of these organizations view the scientific basis of homosexual “curing” as dubious at best, and a dangerous and ultimately unsuccessful process for the patient.


However, the issue of what causes homosexuality is irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Marriage is an institution that has two meanings, one legal, and one religious. In the eyes of the law, marriage is nothing more than a civil contract.

As to the religious idea of marriage: it is a sacrament before God that is in no danger from same-sex couples. No proponents of same-sex marriages are attempting to force clergy to perform a religious marriage ceremony on people whom the clergyman does not wish to marry. Indeed, many clergy have their own requirements, such as attending pre-marital counseling, and are free to refuse to marry anyone who does not meet their requirements.

Instead, proponents of same-sex marriage believe that simple fairness dictates that civil rights must be extended to homosexual couples equal to those granted by the government to married heterosexual couples. Those rights, which presently number over 1,000, range from the convenience of filing a single tax return, to being allowed to have parental rights over stepchildren, or being allowed to visit a partner in the hospital.

The only thing the proponents of same-sex marriage are suggesting is that the legal definition of marriage, which is what grants married couples extraordinary rights and privileges, be expanded to include same sex couples. A denial of civil rights for married interracial couples based on sectarian religious arguments would never be accepted in 2004, although such arguments were made loudly as recently as 40 years ago. The progress of American society toward true liberty and justice for all is undeniable and inevitable. Extending marriage rights to all Americans is the next logical and important step.