My letter got published, but I'm annoyed by my paper...

[Sephirstein]

They removed "Mr." every time I wrote it. I was trying to show respect to the letter writer I was rebutting, and the paper wouldn't let me.

"In his August 26, 2003 letter to the editor (“Canada would become the first country to redefine marriage), Mr. Patrick Meagher makes a number of assertations regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage that run the gamut from laughable to down-right insulting.

Mr. Meagher begins by comparing same-sex marriages to polygamy, to marrying children, and to incest, ignoring the fact that both polygamy and incest have reasons for being outlawed that go far beyond religious beliefs. In a society still possessing strong patriarchal elements, allowing polygamy would do little more than making it easier for women to be exploited. Similarly, marriage – in a secular sense – is viewed as a contract. Since children are not permitted to sign a contract, why should they be able to get married? Similarly, allowing incest would result in offspring with a far more narrow gene pool, greatly increasing the risk of children being born with genetic diseases and defects. Same-sex marriage possesses neither of these deficiencies, as the only secular objection to it can be found in its capability of producing offspring. To ban same-sex marriage without creating a double standard would require that we ban infertile heterosexuals from marrying, and I have yet to see anyone suggest something so absurd.

Mr. Meagher continues by falsely stating that “Canada will be the first country to change the definition of marriage and reduce marriage to a partnership that does not require commitment or sacrifice.” Canada is by no means the first nation to recognise same-sex marriages: Belgium has been recognising them since January 30, 2003 and the Netherlands, since April 1, 2001.. Perhaps Mr. Meagher believes that the world ends at North America’s coastlines. Furthermore, many jurisdictions in North America and Europe, including Quebec and Vermont, have legalized same-sex civil unions over the past few years

More insulting, however, is the second part of that statement, which Mr. Meagher expands on by arguing that “Homosexual couples, according to all studies, cannot last without promiscuity.” Aside from the obvious fact that Mr. Meagher fails to cite any of the “studies” he is referring to, I can say with confidence that same-sex couples are capable of long-term, monogamous relationships. I personally know a few myself, and I also know that, according to Statistics Canada, 36% of all heterosexual marriages that occurred between 1968 and 1998 ended in divorce.

Finally, Mr. Meagher unsuccessfully attempts to link homosexuality among males to the psychological consequences of a poor father-son relationship and concludes, based on that premise along with the premise that homosexuality is unacceptable, that homosexuality is nothing more than psychological flaw needing to be cured through religious “ex-gay” ministries. This viewpoint, while pleasing to the ears of many, has been flatly rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association. Their statements on the matter, backed up by citations, along with other information about “ex-gay” ministries can be found at http://www.hrc.org/publications/exgay_ministries/change.asp.

Mr. Meagher, like many others, immediately concludes that homosexuality is wrong and seeks to silence it, to change it, and to eliminate it. This approach to dealing with homosexuality is intellectually dishonest and places undue hardship on the backs of millions of loving people and noble citizens struggling to make a good life for themselves in an already-frustrating world. Perhaps a better approach would be to recognise homosexuality as a fact of life and work to accept homosexuals and to better understand homosexuality. Homosexuals are not just going to go away, and I see no reason why they should have to."

[MountainLaurel]

1. Don't worry

It's probably just a style/consistency issue. Most newspapers and other published works simply use the last name on a second reference, unless the subject is a doctor, reverend, or has some other sort of title. It eliminates any unintentional bias from reporting that someone is a Mr., Miss, Ms., or Mrs., which are normally irrelevant.

BTW, great letter. I can only hope that it adds some enlightenment to these bigots. Unfortunately, most of them don't want to listen to reason or facts.

[rucky]

2. Great Letter...

...I wouldn't worry about them dropping the "Mr." - if there were any space restrictions, "widows" or "orphans", that's the first thing that gets edited. Also, it fits with AP style. And if anyone thinks you're being disrespectful to that hate-spewing shell of a man, then BFD.

[roughsatori]

3. That was a well reasoned and written letter

Thanks for posting it.

[xchrom]

4. in the spirit that declares the pen

is mightier than the sword -- that was a hell of a sword.
good work.