Editor:

I am writing concerning John Keisling's April 10 column, "Incest perverts ideal of love." After reading the second paragraph, I expected the column to be a satire, albeit one in very poor taste. Surely this subject was going to be broached to demonize some bigoted group. To my dismay and confusion, the entire article seemed genuinely concerned with the menacing threat "incestuous rights" pose to our society. Perhaps I'm merely naive, but I don't see the wildfire here.

Personally, something about the concept of incest makes me uneasy, as it probably does many people. Nonetheless, I uphold the right of people with these feelings to act upon them if it is that which they truly desire.

While I agree that certain elements of incest can be seen as repulsive, I fail to see how it contaminates Mr. Keisling and the world at large. One could just as easily complain that interracial love contaminates the gene pool. This is partially why I found Mr. Keisling's column so appalling.

Quite frankly, I don't understand what Mr. Keisling means when he says, "And by the way, we can indeed judge incest without being incestuous, as we can judge pedophilia." As far as I can tell, no one asked Mr. Keisling or anyone else to pass judgement on any group.

I am just so delighted to hear that Mr. Keisling will try his best to treat incestuous partners with compassion, and I understand his difficulty dealing with the "proudly incestuous." Not a day goes by that I don't see them picketing the Mall and actively trying to convert others to their evil ways. Also, I am frightened by the Gestapo tactics that these people use to force us to accept their ways.

Using rape as an analogy was extremely misguided. Rape is a violent crime; the ultimate violation of the individual. Practicing consensual sex in any form does not come close to violating personal rights, other than by irritating people like Mr. Keisling. I don't see how the existence of ideas forms any sort of violation of rights.

Regardless of feelings on the subject of incest, it should be clear to readers that Mr. Keisling is merely expounding upon the views of bigots everywhere. One could easily substitute for incestuous, homosexual, female, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Asian, black, American Indian, Hispanic, etc. The article would remain the same; bigotry rampant, substance lacking.

Thomas O'Reilly
psychology junior