Editor:

John Keisling is one clever fellow. That perfect balance of self-satisfied smirkiness and a knee-jerk intolerance for any people or behaviors the Pope has declared beyond the pale has me thinking he fancies himself a junior William F. Buckley. I could enjoy his juvenile musings on moral matters more if I wasn't so concerned about the effects of his intellectual dishonesty on the other, less sophisticated kids. Though an avowed advocate of logical thinking, Mr. Keisling returns to ridiculous lengths with speculative arabesques on his recurring subject - the slippery slope of moral decay. His latest "provocation" ("Incest perverts ideal of love," April 10) has us considering whether there's really any moral difference between incest and homosexual marriage. There is. Homosexual unions, like their heterosexual counterparts, are associations chosen for the sake of companionship, shared economics and sexual expression. Incestuous relationships are for the most part (thanks for those mythological examples to the contrary) imposed on a younger, weaker, usually female family member. It is a relationship of unequal power, founded on fear and enforced by threat. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between the two.

There's an expression for someone who subjects others to opinions unsupported by necessary life experience. It's "sophomoric" and applies to columnist John Keisling.

Steve Hahn
KUAT music coordinator