Initial email #1.  From:  Mr. H,

 

Even though I grew up in an ultra-conservative fundamentalist environment where those around me believed it was a sin for a black person and a white person to be romantically involved much less two people of the same sex to love each other, ignorance and narrow-mindedness such as yours never ceases to amaze and appall me.  How typical.

 

I have a question:  Have you ever had a close friend that you later found out was gay?  After reading your little article, I'm guessing the answer is a big "no".  Having someone in your life that you know intimately that you discover is gay will open your eyes to the fact that this person isn't some sicko that you hear about in the news or some juicy news piece or statistic in the newspaper.  You will discover that they are normal individuals with feelings and opinions...good American citizens who deserve to be respected and to be granted all of their basic human rights - one of which is to marry the person they love no matter what gender they may be.
    
Before you write an article that bashes gays, maybe you should consider gaining some first-hand knowledge of them by befriending one.  Or is this too much to ask?  I'm sorry that you feel compelled to write such hate-filled material, and I hope that one day your eyes are opened and you see who you are hurting with your words.

 

Response to email#1.  

 

Dear Mr. H,

 

Thank you for you email.  I assume you are referring to the article "homosexuality is not normal.".  I have known a number of people who may have been homosexual.  Those that I have met and dealt with both on a personal and business level never openly declared their orientation and I never asked about it.  As far as I was concerned they were just like all the other people with whom I came in contact who could have had their own private inclinations of a heterosexual or homosexual nature.  It was none of my business.

 

It becomes my business when an effort is being made to educate future generations that homosexuality is normal when it is not. When I say that I am dealing with the act not the person.  The simple reason that it cannot be normal is that men and women have complementary sex organs.  It is obvious, it is a fact, it cannot be denied. It is not only my view, but that of many others, that people of the same sex who wish to co-habitate, whether it be for sexual reasons or not, should have all the legal rights and privileges of married people with the exception of the name.  Their unions should be called something like Civil. Why is that so objectionable to you?

 

I think you would agree that people should respect the rights of others to raise their families as they wish, providing it doesn't infringe on the right to live their own respective desired life styles.  It follows then that those homosexuals desiring to have their unions be given the name "marriage" want to force society to approve their way of life at the expense of the way of life of others.  Is this fair?

 

Perhaps I should add here that if one in my family were to declare themselves a homosexual I would still adhere to what I have stated.  Since it would be of a personal nature I certainly would provide other words of advice.

 

I respect the rights of others to live their way of life and sincerely hope that they can find happiness with it.  All I ask is that they do not actively support the attempt to alter the way of life that others wish to live.

 

Why is it that people give the term "hate-filled" to opinions to which they don't agree?  Reread my article.

Email #2.  From Mr. H,

 

Thank you for your reply.  I was indeed referring to your article entitled "Homosexuality Is Not Normal".  I do not wish to get into an e-mail battle with you here, but I have backed down for years when dealing with people as yourself and I cannot bring myself to do so in this instance.

 

There is a serious flaw in your thinking.  Homosexuality is not a behavior, a lifestyle, a choice, a private inclination, or any sort of "desired lifestyle" as you called it.  Homosexuality is who a person is, period.  When I see someone who is heterosexual, the first thing that comes to my mind is not how they have sex or what turns them on sexually, but this seems to be the case with how many people view homosexuals.  Your e-mail and your article clearly bear out this ignorant view.  It's not about having complimentary sex organs, but about who a person is attracted to and who they love on many levels beyond just physically.

 

Why should homosexuals be given the right to have the title of "marriage" when they join with someone they love?  I don't know if you are married or single, but imagine that if you were single and were wanting to marry the girl of your dreams only to be informed that it was against the law because the love you felt for your girlfriend was not "normal".  Everyone else in the world was afforded this simple right, but you were not.  How would that make you feel?  Would you want to settle for a "civil union"?  You would still be granted most of the same rights as married couples, but you wouldn't really be married...it would just be a civil union.  It's just not the same is it?  It's actually a bit of an insult...a pacifier for a whining baby.

 

How does my wanting to have the legal title of marriage placed on my union infringe on anyone elses rights?  How is this at "the expense of the way of life of others"?  Why are you threatened?  It really makes no sense whatsoever.  Are heterosexual marriages suddenly going to fall apart once homosexuals are legally allowed to marry?  I think not.  The only lives that we are "altering" are our own lives, not the lives of heterosexuals.  The whole concept of you and others being threatened by gay people wanting to marry is preposterous.  Whether you think so or not, your opinions on this subject are filled with hate.  It's sad and disturbing, because you think you merely have a different opinion than mine when in reality it is an opinion that is hurting and depriving so many good people in this country.  May you one day see where you went so very wrong.

 

Response to email#2.  

 

Dear Mr. H,

 

Let's cut to the chase.  Although homosexual couples would be receiving the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples by entering into a "civil union" you say that would be insufficient lacking the title of marriage. Let's examine the potential effect of providing this title to homosexual unions.

 

The most serious from my point of view is that youngsters could grow up believing something that is not factual.  That homosexual couples can conceive children in the same manner as heterosexual couples.  I assume that you would propose adoption as being the same as conception and this is also not factual.  It is not the truth.  There are already actions to place texts in public schools meant to indoctrinate youngsters at a very early age to believe that having two mommies or two daddies is normal, which it is not. In my opinion, this next generation would have more mental and emotional problems confronting them than has ever existed in the past as a result should this occur..

 

It is difficult to conceive why homosexual couples would want to be so selfish as to impose their desires on those others of us in society who wish to identify marriage as being between a male and female.  Since they would enjoy the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples why would they want to be so callous of the feelings of those who simply want to raise their children in a society that portrays the factual truth.  It seems to me that you are so concerned with your own feelings that you have neglected to view the feelings of others who would be affected by what you support.

 

Regarding love, it is a most mis-used term.  One can love another without marrying them.  There are many heterosexual couples living together, with children, that have not married and I would assume that most of them love each other.  Many that do get married do so to insure that they are covered by the law as to their rights and benefits.  I know of such couples and the title of marriage is not important to them. There is also love for members of one's family but we don't marry them.

It is also difficult to understand why most homosexuals apparently include themselves in the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender alliance, that by its nature supports various deviant behavior, if they feel as you do.  I do appreciate the fact that people are born with homosexual  tendencies to a greater or lesser degree.  In my life, I have known homosexuals, some known sooner and some known later, to have such tendencies but were able to marry a person of the opposite sex and conceive children.  Of recent experience, there is such a person I know who is a respected Judge, a father of two children, who has divorced and now lives with a person of the same sex. 

 

You must also recognize that youngsters, especially teenagers, have a strong  sexual drive which can lead them to sexual experimentation.  It is hard to not conceive of the occasion when some such youngsters, under the forced social acceptance of the social structure you advocate, would find it acceptable to enter into homosexual associations that would effect their later desire for heterosexual relationships.  It would tend to further deteriorate the moral and social structure that has been weakened by the trend towards sexual promiscuity of both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

To make it perfectly clear I will answer your specific questions. 1. How does my wanting to have the legal title of marriage placed on my union infringe on anyone else’s rights?  Answer: As I have previously said, because heterosexual couples will have the right for their children to be educated to understand the truth infringed upon.  I have already provided a detailed explanation in the second paragraph of this email. 2.  Would you want to settle for a "civil union"?  Answer:  Yes, whether a heterosexual or homosexual as long as my wife and I had the same legal benefits and rights of married people.  3. How is this at "the expense of the way of life of others"?  Why are you threatened? Answer: It has to do with what most heterosexuals want for their children and grand children that cannot be realized when their education both in and out of school is not based on the fact that it takes complementary sex organs to reproduce the species, that the core family is based on man, woman and children - and - there is a difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions because it is a fact.

 

Mr. H, you freely throw out terms like "flaw in your thinking" "ignorant".  I could also do this in regard to your comments but have not done so.  It is be better for me to say that I do not believe that those who agree with your position are thinking rationally and, in doing so, are selfishly disregarding the negative effects that it would have on our social structure.