Monday, September 06, 2010

Moral Survey, Part Two

An email to Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the United States, an organization that claims to defend "traditional values" or something like that. They sent me an email thanking me for participating in their survey (see last post), and here is my reply.

Some people would say this was a waste of time. With respect, I disagree. How much time are these folks spending spreading misinformation and hatred? I feel compelled to say something (and after all I type pretty quickly).


Dear Mr. Delgaudio,

Since I am a "pro-family" citizen (being a married father myself), I completed your online survey today with some difficulty. The difficulty had to do with the questions and their basic premises.

To begin with, equality under the law is not a "special right" -- it is a fundamental right under our Constitution, as applicable to homosexuals as any American citizen. The premise that homosexuals are up to something dastardly by asking for equal treatment under our laws is false and prejudiced.

The first question on your survey was whether employers should be "forced" to hire homosexuals or allow them to advance. What you are asking is whether employment-discrimination laws should protect homosexual citizens. My answer to that is yes. You can think of that as coercive and unfair if you like, but I don't see it that way.

The second question was whether I favor public money being spent to educate the public about AIDS and "homosexual research grants." I have no idea what "homosexual research grants" you are referring to, and would enjoy being educated about them if you know of any. As for AIDS, yes, I advocate good scientific information about this serious disease being shared with the public. Among other things, science shows us that the HIV virus does not have any sexual preference: it is not a "gay disease."

The third question promulgates the myth that homosexuality is being "promoted" in the schools. At the very most, I would wager that some teachers have advocated treating homosexuals with respect and dignity -- but this does not constitute a promotion of homosexuality. Real sex education does not get into the business of promoting ANY sexual behavior: the point of it is to curb the spread of teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. Young people are educated about the human reproductive system and the RISKS of sexual behavior. Such a program was very effective in my own high school, resulting in higher rates of abstinence. Not just "safe sex," but actual abstinence. What do you think of that?

The fourth question is based on a fantastic premise: "Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn traditional marriage between one man and one woman?" The obvious answer to this is no, because they can't. What they can do -- and there is no guarantee they will -- is permit homosexuals to marry. This does hot harm my own "traditional" marriage to any degree. And if you are a believer in the stabilizing effect of monogamous marriage and settled domestic life, you will be hard-pressed to show how society does not BENEFIT from homosexual marriage.

I hope you find some clarity on these issues. It is not a matter of "special" or "preferential" treatment for anyone, it is a matter of equality and dignity. Please give this some thought and back away from this campaign of bigotry.

Sincerely yours,

Algernon D'Ammassa
Deming, New Mexico


Sabio Lantz said...

Every letter helps. Every effort is a small ripple which my find resonance. Well done.

Hal Johnson said...