Writing an editorial to the newspaper...

[DPDarkPrimus]

... in response to one which I found absolutely rediculous. The editorial in question is as follows.

(Heading: 'Paper should promote family values')

The March 4 Gazette editorial criticizes Sen. Kenneth Veenstra for defining the family unit as headed by a man and a woman. Then, it criticizes him for having Christain principles. This is just another example of a Gazette editorial with anti-Judeo-Christan bias.

The editorial promotes adoption or foster parenting by homosexuals. The Gazette obviously promotes its values upon other Iowans who disagree. The Gazette uses the power and freedom of the press to do its bidding.

Homosexuals cannot propagate, so they need converts to their form of behavior. Thus, The Gazette promotes allowing homosexuals access to the younger generation for converts. Wil you enjoy it when homosexuals prey upon our children and grandchildren?

Quite frankly, I would like to see Gazette editorials promote positive family values rather than forcing gutter values upon us.

-Gary C. Young
Cedar Rapids

This is the first draft of my editorial in response.

Mr. Young’s March 14 editorial berates the Gazette for publishing an editorial that criticized Sen. Veenstra for defining a family unit as ‘headed by a man and a woman’. Following Mr. Young’s method of reasoning, the publication of his editorial is an obvious example of the Gazette promoting its anti-homosexual values upon other Iowans who disagree.

The way young phrases adoption by homosexuals, he makes it to be that they would only adopt a child to ‘pervert’ them and make them a homosexual as well, or to “prey upon” (his exact words) them, implying that homosexuals are also pedophiles. How is this viewpoint better than one that is accepting of lifestyles different from one’s own?

So, Mr. Young, you want positive family morals to be promoted? Then perhaps you would be interested to know that I would prefer to be raised by a homosexual couple than by you, and have your bigoted views pressed upon me.

I intend to email my editorial to the Gazette tomorrow around 4 PM CST. Any suggestions on how to improve it before that time are greatly appreciated. There is a 300-word limit on editorials.

[DPDarkPrimus]

*listens to a pin drop*

I'd have thought that at least one person would have responded to this...

[Wicked Pilot]

The last sentence is good, but overall I find your letter weak.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry I didn't notice this thread earlier. I would rewrite the whole thing to point out the glaring logical fallacies in the letter to which you are replying, including:

1) Leap in logic: if they are homosexuals, then their desire for children must stem solely from their desire to win "converts" to their "lifestyle", and not from millions of years of human evolution which cause us to instinctively want to raise and mentor children.

2) Naturalistic fallacy: the fact that homosexuals cannot have children through natural means is presumed to mean that it is somehow wrong for them to do so through other means. At no point is it explained why that which is natural must also be moral; perhaps this person has never watched a National Geographic show on the way animals interact with each other; nature is NOT moral.

3) Ad-hominem fallacy: attacking the Gazette for a perceived "anti-Judeo-Christian bias" while making no effort to show facts which have been suppressed or distorted, in an obvious attempt to characterize anything the Gazette says as immoral and wrong in one fell swoop.

The letter fairly drips with hypocrisy and psychological projection: the so-called "Family Values" right-wingers are well-known for attempting to convert people, so he assumes that homosexuals are out to "convert" people as well.

And finally, the letter ends with utterly contemptible rhetorical mud-slinging, accusing of homosexual would-be parents of trying to "prey" upon children (ie- claiming without a shred of evidence that all of them are pedophiles) and then characterizing his own values as "positive family values" while characterizing more inclusive policies as "gutter values", again without a shred of justification.

Notice how he makes no attempt whatsoever to support any of his claims or explain WHY he has the right to call his values "positive family values"; is one normally allowed to self-declare that one's values are positive without letting anyone else chime on? In reality, his values would REDUCE the number of families by prohibiting certain configurations thereof, so are arguably ANTI-family values, and in no way positive.