Reader disagrees with columnist on gays

From time to time, columnist Leonard Pitts expresses good ideas. However, his Wednesday column was possibly emotionally appealing to some, but lacking in rationality.

The fact something “is” seldom justifies what it “ought” to be. There is corruption in politics, but I strongly deny it ought to be that way. There is immorality in some teen dating, but I deny it ought to be that way. There is inequity in the Federal Tax Code, but I deny it ought to be that way. There is beef from mad cows, but I deny it ought to be sold or consumed!

Mr. Pitts makes a strong case for homosexuals to be honest about what they are. “Honesty” has nothing to do with whether they “ought” to be homosexual. (A crook can be brazenly honest about being a thief. Yet, he and his way are still bad for society.) Honesty may minimize one character issue involved, but it does not justify anything else which is wrong or immoral.

Actually, Mr. Pitts’ argument is a form of the old “might makes right” argument. Yet, just because most of society turns against the Jews in Hitler’s Germany does not make it right. Just because society might turn toward the homosexual in Mr. Pitts’ America does not make it right.

Mr. Pitts’ apparent view of homosexuality as irreversible is a pessimistic view of society. Unfortunately, he encourages accepting and endorsing that same pessimistic view. Should we become pessimists because of his emotional tirade?

I have seen folk down in dumpsters, but have helped them out. I am glad alcoholics in my family have changed to sobriety. I am glad some sexually immoral teens become moral, exemplary parents. I am glad homosexuals can be changed and become honest, responsible citizens. I am optimistic about what can happen to reverse certain social trends!

So, the immorality of a few, whether privates or generals, has little to do with what this country can become — or ought to do. On the other hand, a surrender to such pessimism dooms us to wallowing in the same mire. I am too optimistic to surrender to this view.

Jim Gammon

Clovis

This is in response to Shirley Rollinson’s guest column (“To rewrite Bible is to spread deception”) in Sunday’s CNJ:

In order to understand what scripture says or doesn’t say you have to start where God starts. He starts in Genesis 9 with Cham seeing his father’s nakedness. This is a Hebrewism for sexual intercourse. Cham had sex with his father to worship the god of wine. He introduced the worship of gods through sex.

You see his descendants in Genesis 11 and 19 engaging in this unnatural worship of gods. In Leviticus 18 it refers to this sexual worship by heterosexuals to pagan deities.

In the New Testament the worship of Cham has gone into the Roman and Greek cultures. This exchanging the natural worship of God for the unnatural worship of gods is what all the verses are speaking about. It is heterosexual activity, not homosexual that is being spoken against.

The Messiah never said a word nor did he confront the homosexuals living in the land of Israel. He knew they were there and where they were, but he left them alone. Their homosexuality was not an issue to him. God is silent on this issue.

All of Christianity’s doctrine on homosexuality comes from scientific racism and evolution. It is the words of Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin that Christians quote.

We have left-handed people in our society and we accept that they were born left-handed. There is no left-handed gene.

UCLA researchers did a study on left-handedness and found it is due to a lack of a right-handed gene. Since people are born left-handed without a left-handed gene then people are born gay due to a lack of a heterosexual gene.

God knows it is inborn and that is why he is totally silent on this issue. To say it is choice is a deception. To say what God never does is the ultimate deception.

J. Jay Sanders

Clovis

Regarding the Dec. 28 “60 Minutes” segment on the progress Coalition forces are making toward turning the policing of Iraq over the Iraqis:

Why do we not provide the Iraqi cops with guns? Or police cars? or body armor? Or radios? Or helicopters? Or doors and windows in their police stations? Or pay them more than starvation wages? Aren’t we told that we’re in Iraq to make them like America, including a police force equipped exactly like ours?

I’ll answer my own question.

Bush wants the Iraqi police force to fail in order to manufacture the TV excuse that “We can’t leave Iraq ... we must stay the course. For as long as it takes.”

As I recall, “For as long as it takes” took eight years to lose Vietnam.

Dan True

Clovis