Why I Love the /Cedar City Daily News/
Today (Friday 20th May 2005) in "Letters to the Editor":
Homosexuality harms society
In view of the recent event that has transpired in England, I guess we should all follow suit and do as the British have done. Why not?
We should all accept homosexual marriage as the normal marriage(1). In fact, we should even go one step farther(2) and pass a law where it is illegal to have a heterosexual marriage(3). We should all have to become homosexual(4).
Just think of the problems it would solve(5). I wonder what the thoughts of the last remaining person on Earth would be.(6)
Homosexuals want society to protect them(7), but homosexuality is the very thing that would destroy society(8). If everyone was(9) a homosexual there would eventually be no society(10).
Washington City, Utah
What is wrong with this letter
(1) Homosexual marriage is not being presented as the "normal" marriage; homosexuals are what those of us who understand mathematics like to call a "minority".
(2) Farther: tangible - physical distance. Further: abstract - degree or time.
(3) Allowing gays to marry poses no threat to the long-established tradition of heterosexual matrimony, which is instinctively endorsed by heterosexual couples (the "majority" (this means there are more of them)).
(4) Gay marriage puts no pressure on heterosexuals to alter their fundamental psyche and "become homosexual"; it is merely a formalisation of a relationship which is already accepted. If this were a question of the legalisation of homosexuality, the argument might have some logical grounding.
(5) Homosexuality does not purport to solve any "problems". Is there a claim or policy in mind here, or is it just brain-dead, cut-and-paste rhetoric? (Having said that, I can think of at least one problem that homosexuality could help prevent, particularly with the spread of Catholicism and Mormonism: overpopulation.)
(6) Rhetorical questions with... no question marks?
(7) There is a difference between "protection" and the cessation of persecution.
(8) What an extremely clever paradox! Logical grounding please?
(9) Conditional, therefore "were" rather than "was".
(10) I assume this is the logic behind assertion (8); i.e. (though this is not made explicit) that gays can't make babies. Please note point (1) where I describe homosexuals as a "minority": approx. proportion of gay men in the USA is 6%, lesbians 5.5%, with figures being greater in the city and smaller in rural regions (source). So although the point is valid, it is unrealistic to imagine that gay marriage will lead to an end in sexual reproduction. Surely homosexuals were not reproducing sexually anyway? Just because gay marriage did not exist, does not mean that a) they did not have homosexual relationships or b) they chose to reporoduce with a member of the opposite sex.
It warms my heart to see that freedom of speech is being kept alive.