Here's a link to the LTTE (of the
Washington Post) to which Mrs. V. responded yesterday:
"Tales of Tolerance" -- and here's the letter:
"In his March 14 Outlook article, "Tolerance Has Never Come Naturally," Ted Gup argued that the reason President Bush and others are opposed to gay marriage is that they haven't developed the tolerance to accept those who are different from themselves.
"Did it ever occur to Gup (or your editors) that some people believe homosexuality is morally wrong? Did Gup stop to consider that the three major world religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) condemn the practice as sinful? How about the possibility that homosexuality could be a psychological disorder of gender identity?
"I agree that it is wrong to treat people with disrespect and hatred because they are outside the societal norm. But it is possible to show respect for people as human beings while still disagreeing strongly with their point of view. Being opposed to homosexual marriage does not make one intolerant, as the author supposes.
"Homosexual marriage is an important issue in our culture and one that must be addressed. If your paper were interested in holding a serious discussion about it, in which all points of view were considered respectfully (which is, after all, what tolerance is), perhaps it could allow equal space for leaders of conservative groups to express their ideas on the subject. If your paper were really interested in tolerance, that is."And Mrs. Venation's response (MODS: this has not yet been published; no copyright issue here):
"Carolyn R. Keehan asserts in her letter published on March 20, 2004, that "some people believe homosexuality is morally wrong." I can assure Ms. Keehan that the proponents of same sex marriage fully understand that point. Those of us who believe that homosexual couples must have the right to civil marriage believe homosexuality is morally neutral, that is, no one is harmed by the existence of homosexual human beings.
"Ms. Keehan also asserts that "the three major world religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) condemn the practice as sinful." While it is true that some sects of each of these religious traditions hold this belief, I think it is misleading and rather a sweeping generalization to state as fact that the entirety of each of these religious traditions strictly conform to her statement. Furthermore, there are other religious traditions, including, but not limited to Unitarian Universalists, Reformed Judaism, and some Christian denominations that refute this dogma outright. Additionally, since the USA is not permitted to base its laws merely on religious tradition alone, this point is moot.
"Ms. Keehan's belief that "homosexuality could be a psychological disorder of gender identity" was refuted by the medical and scientific community in the USA more than thirty years ago; methinks Ms. Keehan needs to educate herself to the facts of this normal human orientation instead of simply repeating the rhetoric she has heard that led her to believe such outdated nonsense.
"Finally, Ms. Keehan complains that conservative groups haven't been afforded equal space to "express their ideas on the subject." Perhaps she has, once again, spoken out of turn. A great hue and cry has arisen in the USA simply because people who love each other and wish to legally affirm their loving relationship have gleefully come forward to take advantage of newly offered opportunities. I have certainly heard more of the dire predictions of doom for our society, for the family, for marriage and even for the United States as a whole, than I have heard of sane voices who support unequivocally the basic human right of one person's choice of a life mate.
"Ms. Keehan did not state this, but I have to wonder if she would have the civil rights of homosexual citizens of this country put to a vote. That is, after all, the demand being made by those people who so vocally criticize the "activist judges" who rightly fulfill their roles in interpreting the laws and the Constitution. If equality of the races had been put to referendum some forty years ago, I can assure your readers that the Civil Rights Act would never have been approved.
"It has been my experience that people who are intolerant do not like to have this pointed out to them. The essential point, though, is I am willing to have Ms. Keehan and those who agree with her to believe anything they wish; I would not ever try to deny them any of the freedoms we cherish so dearly in this country. She and her compatriots, however, would use their religious and "moral" high ground to deny a group of citizens the same rights and privileges she enjoys as a heterosexual citizen.
"That, my friends, is a perfect example of intolerance."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
