Letter to the Editor

Disparity healthy

Tuesday, June 8, 2004

Dear Editor:

I figured it would happen, and sho' nuff' it did. I am writing this letter to respond to a Mr. Levi Rogers opine printed in Fridays edition of the Gazette. Mr. Rogers took issue with my previous letter, which was a response to an article written by Mr. Mike Hendricks that appeared in the Memorial Day Weekend edition of your fine paper.

I knew when I wrote the original letter that someone would interpret it as an attack on Mr. Hendricks. I can assure you that was not my intent. A personal affront to Mr. Hendricks, Mr. Rogers, would have been to attack the man himself, and not his ideas. Just as this letter is not an attack on you, but a response to some points of your view. And just because Mr. Hendricks happens to be a prominent member of our society, does not mean that I cannot take umbrage with some of his statements. I think Mr. Hendricks would agree with me that disparity can be a healthy thing.

You were correct by restating my words that gay marriage degrades our society. Any time you take a stable element and add an unstable or unknown element, you contaminate or degrade, if you will, the original element. You can try this at home by stirring in just one drop of food coloring to a pitcher of clear water. You see? You can't get the clear water back can you?

This was one point with the sixties "free love" reference. It degraded marriage, and as Mr. Hendricks pointed out, marriage suffered, and hasn't been the same.

The other point I was making about the "free love" reference; was that it was a time of social experimentation. Not an original one, mind you, but a recent one that proved detrimental to our society. Just as homosexuality is detrimental to society, a point I'm sure Mr. Rogers ran across in his journey through the book of Leviticus. I never did find his assertion in that book that marriage was a Jewish procreational rite. You would not find in Leviticus that it was a Christian procreational rite either, as Christ was born at least 35 generations after the events in Leviticus took place. However, God does take issue with homosexuality in Leviticus. I reference chapters 18:22 and 20:13. You will note that it was not words of favor God spoke. Summarily, that homosexuality is detestable to the Lord. Oops, the cat's out of the bag. So according to Leviticus, and even Genesis for that matter; homosexuality is not a new and enlightened "alternative lifestyle," but a time old sin that continues today. And I'm convinced a historical homosexual census would not make it in any way different, despite Mr. Rogers' assumptions. And as far as how God deals with persons unrepentantly involved in that lifestyle, you may reference the book of Genesis, particularly the destruction of the twin cities Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now here is where I intend to take issue with one of Mr. Rogers' points. In his entire diatribe, he only once positively advocates for homosexual marriage, and then in meager fashion. He states "many children would be better off living with a gay couple than a degenerate family of abusive drug addicts who have children for tax, medical, and financial relief." Is this really a serious alternative? Why not pair a child with an incarcerated member of our society? Hey, three hots and a cot, and they would have a captive audience to see to their upbringing. P.S. I would love to see the statistics on abusive drug addicts who have children for tax, medical and financial relief.

I found it interesting that Mr. Rogers' quotes one of Mr. Noah Webster's fine works to help make his point. I will also quote Mr. Webster from a different work titled "History of the United States," published circa 1832.

"Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion -- The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother or sister and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."

You see Mr. Rogers, we citizens who advocate marriage between a man and a woman as sacred, don't want to change the law. I believe the law was created by God. And the law of our land holds for the protection of marriage between a man and a woman.

Even Mr. Hendricks stipulates to that principle. We want the law to protect us from something we don't want. The recognition of marriage between two men or two women. Gays can get married, that is their legal right. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. Equal rights, just like you and me. And it is still a free country.

Sincerely,

Michael Pochop

McCook

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: