Letters to the Editor

Removing emotion from constructive debate

I've been disappointed in the responses to Matt O'Brien's editorial on homosexuality. I vehemently disagree with Matt, whom I know personally, and we have clashed on this issue in the past. That said, however, I was impressed with the clarity of the message in his article: This is an issue about which discussion is quelled as soon as a non-politically correct opinion is voiced. Matt was disappointed that useful discourse usually degenerates into name-calling, and the respondents whose articles have been published have largely proved his point.

I know Matt as an intelligent, rational, witty person. The day his editorial appeared in the 'Prince.' I sent him an e-mail both logically disputing his arguments and applauding his effort to initiate constructive discussion about a taboo issue. I wrote, "In the case of people opposed to homosexuality, a large portion of our society (myself included) automatically makes assumptions that such people are bigots or unlearned. I will now be more careful not to make such an attribution."

Even if you disagree fundamentally with Matt's arguments, as I do, I would think that the opportunity to show how his arguments are unfounded would be a welcome one. It seems to me that it is a much stronger, more positive step toward acceptance of homosexuality to intellectually engage in such discussion; I was happy to read and learn many of the counterarguments presented in certain responses. It is too bad, however, that the majority of reactions were exactly the sort warned against by Matt in his article: emotion-filled, name-calling diatribes that did nothing to promote knowledge and discussion of an important issue. Andy Artz '03