Speedkill

This isn’t really an uncommon event, but we have an idiotic letter about gay marriage in the Chronicle today:

Is Constitutional Initiative 96 a moral or a genetic issue?

“There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply ‘genetic.’ And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public” (Web site, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, March 9, 2004).

Studies reported to have established a genetic link have not been replicated. Dr. Joel Gelernter of Yale states, “… all (such studies) were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute” (Mann, C. “Genes and Behavior,” Science 264:1687-1994).

…

Homosexuality destroys the beauty of God’s design for a face-to-face personal encounter by impersonalizing it. Sadly, many heterosexual relationships are impersonal as well. Both are wrong.

Christ died to free us from sin, to forgive us and to give abundant life through faith in Him and seeking His forgiveness. Yes, I believe homosexuality is sin, but don’t confuse disagreement of beliefs with hatred. If disagreement equals hatred, then disagreeing that homosexuality is sin would make one a hateful heterophobic. Such vilification manipulates emotions and destroys our freedom to hold differing beliefs. This generates hatred. It is possible to love a person or a group of people without condoning their behavior or their beliefs.

And because I have nothing better to do, I responded. Hopefuly it gets printed:

In the October 24th issue of the Chronicle a letter by a Mr. Rowe discussed the marriage amendment, CI-96. Mr. Rowe is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he made several misleading claims that deserve correction.

Mr. Rowe set up gay marriage as genetic vs. moral. It appears he is attempting to set it up as chosen vs. ingrained. He is correct that there is little evidence that homosexuality is genetic, but he fails to note that this means relatively little. As the American Psychological Association notes, “sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.” In response to the question of whether it is a choice or not, the APA says, “[n]o, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight.” Mr. Rowe sets an arbitrary and irrelevent bar when he says that the lack of evidence for homosexuality being genetic makes it a moral issue.

Mr. Rowe also makes some odd remarks about homosexual relationships, calling them “impersonal.” What makes Mr. Rowe able to judge all homosexual relationships? He also states that some heterosexual relationships are impersonal. So Mr. Rowe is against gay marriage partially because the relationships fail some arbitrary standard of his? A fact that Mr. Rowe does not have the capacity to judge, no less.

He also dislikes people equating his views with hatred. He tries to turn this around by saying that by the same token those approving are hateful heterophobics. This is completely absurd and illustrates a disappointing fact about gay marriage opponents in this country. They see gay marriage as an attack on heterosexuality and traditional marriage, when in fact it will not affect heterosexuals and traditional marrige in any way. When people voice irrational reasons for oppressing a group, why are they surprised when their views are taken as hatred?