Editor:
I am writing in response to John Keisling's latest editorial, "No middle ground in gay right's debate" (Oct. 11). While I agree that issues such as abortion and gay-rights encourage passionate viewpoints, I vehemently disagree with his assertion that there is no "middle ground." The issue to me is not "whether gayness is morally acceptable," but is whether we should be allowed to judge others' lifestyles.
His judgment of homosexuals and his consequent membership in the "compassionate opposers" category implies his own moral superiority. I don't believe, although I could be wrong, that any homosexuals have ever approached him and begged for his help in overcoming their sinful behavior. What an arrogant view! Do I sense a God complex here? Since he obviously holds his religious ideology in such high esteem, wouldn't you think he would leave any necessary judgment up to God?
I think that there is a neutral position, and one that is more politically and socially feasible than Mr. Keisling's ultraconservative position. He implies that people must rush to choose a side: "Either homosexuality is acceptable, normal and natural, or is it unacceptable, abnormal and unnatural . " You know what? I don't think that I have the authority to decide such a thing. I think that, although I am not gay and this issue in particular does not affect me personally, the ignorance and fear that cause such discriminatory laws and actions is representative of the intolerance responsible for many of our country's social problems today.
Amber Wittig
Anthropology Junior