Page 6
Letter to
the editors
Dear Editors,
We are writing in response to
"Homosexuality is immoral."
We feel the piece portrays a
disrespect for human rights.
This article is badly written and
logically inconsistent.
Rossomardo begins with a
melodrama, followed by an
analysis of the word
`homophobia,' a shortened form
of 'homosexual-phobia.' He
sets up a 'straw-man' to attack.
Rossomardo informs us that
homosexuality has a biological
component. This has not been
proven. These studies are still
being disputed by researchers.
For now, let's humor him.
The author believes in Natural
Law, which states that all which
is good reflects goodness and all
which is evil reflects evil.
Natural Law calls the natural
result of sin: death, the natural
result of good: wellness. All
things love themselves.
Diseases and deformities are
caused by sin.
For the sake of Rossomardo's
argument, let us subscribe to
Natural Law and genetics. (This
is inconsistent). Observe: Non
human animals aren't capable of
making moral decisions. The
actions of animals stem from
biological drives. Some
mammals display homosexual
behavior. According to
Rossomardo, "the sole purpose
of the sex drive is reproduction."
Why then would animals display
homosexual behavior? The
author contradicts himself.
Rossomardo's assessment of
sexual intercourse is a slap to
the face of any Christian. He
defines intercourse as
reproduction but marriage as a
sacred covenant among man,
woman and God. We find this
absurd.
In Natural Law, no rational
being harms itself. Why would
homosexuals risk ostracization,
excommunication, or death? To
satisfy biological urges endowed
by a God who punished
homosexuality with death and
disinheritment?
For love, John Rossomardo,
for love. Why can you not
fathom that two men--or two
women--might have a physical
and spiritual love so deep that
they would risk anything to
consummate such love?
We respect Rossomardo's
religious standpoint. But that
standpoint is hardly logical. Our
constitution demands separation
of church and state. The science
of 1793 is obsolete. So is
Natural Law. Human rights,
however, still include life,
liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness--whether or not
Christendom acccepts
homosexuality.
Amber and I .do not find
homosexuality immoral. We
empathize, rather, with those
among us who live in a
homophobic (we clarify this to
mean biased against, and afraid
of, homosexuals) society but we
do not live immoral lives.
Rather, we live within a
morality which demands
tolerance and empathy--as well
as strick attention to the rights
of all.
Amber Palmer
6th Semester
Biology Major
Jeremy Sloan
6th Semester
English Major
„.•
DytinfoiNtb:
ORzseimoiN=..—
Editorial Cartoons
01016E54W
Nigk 1411'4. r. •
;1 I y 4
Thursday, September 30, 1993
D I E M
twt.HCV
wff YCUR
HUS&VID,
CUKIDN?!...