Columnist just plain wrong

There are so many things that are wrong-headed about Stephen Dick’s article on Bert Chapman on Thursday’s editorial page it is difficult to know where to start. Chapman, it may be recalled, is the Purdue professor who wrote in his blog on the economic costs of homosexuality. Here is a partial list:

1) Dick calls Chapman’s blog “anti-Christian.” Christians have argued for the sexual standard of faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness. This is not the affirmation of a few but of all Christians (except for a very few) of all ages in all places. Dick’s problem really then is with all of Christianity, and of cultures influenced by Christianity. What “Christians” is Dick making his appeal to?

2) Dick calls Chapman’s blog “anti-U.S. Constitution.” The Constitution in no way prohibits the country from enacting laws for the common good (such as marriage as between a man and a woman). The Constitution protects the civil rights of all persons, homosexual or otherwise, and Chapman never questions that. So what is Dick’s problem? He evidently wants to argue that equal protection prohibits all persons from criticizing any aspect of homosexual life. If not let him clarify himself. What denial of equal protection is Chapman arguing for that Dick is so upset about?

3) Dick assumes that Chapman believes homosexuality is chosen. Dick, on the other hand, suggests it is a biological characteristic, not learned behavior. Chapman has not told us what he believes, but Dick is simply wrong to believe that it is scientifically established that homosexuality is “biological” and that it is encoded in the DNA. The jury is still out on the complex causes of homosexual orientation.

4) Dick uses the following language to refer to Chapman: “bigotry,” “feels superior,” “uses religion to clobber people he disapproves of,” “hate,” “anti-gay rant.” This kind of language implies a knowledge of motives and is out of place in civil discourse. If there is a “rant” or “bigotry” involved it is in Dick’s article. If Chapman is wrong about the economic consequences of homosexuality, then let the case by made rationally. This is not Dick’s approach. He wants the Purdue students to “be ceaseless in their hammering of Chapman’s bigotry.”

Articles like Dick’s are not a hopeful sign in a nation which seems more and more to unable to engage in civil discourse.

Riley B. Case

Kokomo

Marriage should be open to all people

I wish to congratulate the people of the state of Washington for supporting the right of its gay and lesbian citizens to enter into domestic partnerships.

Unfortunately as in most parts of the nation they can’t enter into marriages with who they love. Some take the view that this is fine, that marriage is being protected by keeping two men or two women who love each other from getting married.

Well, what is the point of marriage?

It is in part to ensure stability in the raising of children and ensure a mutual relationship with the teeth of law. Advantages to marriage for the children of gays and lesbians includes such issues as the inheritance of property, of the ability to see one of their parents in a hospital, etc. Indeed, in far too many places not only can gay couples not marry but they are barred from adoption.

Tens of thousands of children are forced into foster homes (some abusive) because of our attitudes toward gay and lesbian couples.

Well, what about tradition?

Tradition is not and never was a reason for injustice and discrimination. America’s ideals are not about lesser status for some of its Americans. When interracial bans in the U.S. were revoked, this was an example of Americans furthering and ensuring the rights of its citizens to marry someone they loved who might not have had the same color skin as themselves, but who they loved dearly.

Today, few folks state that interracial couples should be barred from marriage but for some reason we choose to extend this ban to same sex couples. If same sex marriage is legalized, I will not run out and marry someone of the same sex because I am not attracted to someone of the same sex.

If you are not gay, I figure you won’t either. If you don’t like the idea of two gay men or women marrying, you could ignore them. You could not attend their wedding (even if they are your nephew or cousin) and even look away when they walk down the street. That is your choice but the government has no such choice because the government serves everyone.

Everyone is equal under the law and everyone deserves the same rights as everyone else.

Robert Snipes

Kokomo