KAHL & STEW DOUBLE-TEAM

*

The last time "gay man" Michael Kahl sent a letter to the Oshkosh Northwestern, the editor, Stew Rieckman, gave him the last word and then nixed the topic (see 1-12 entry).

Somehow the moratorium was lifted and Kahl got another pro-queer letter printed the very next month (see 2-23 entry).

Since writers are only allowed one letter per month, this amounted to giving Kahl two free shots in a row, while censoring all opposition.

Now that the ban has been lifted, my letter is certain to get printed, since Rieckman insists he is fair and unbiased (wink, wink).

I really wanted to write a letter about Dean Zimmerman's "Clergy Letter" mixing evolution and religion (on a gov't website!), but the sodomy matter is more pressing in Wisconsin right now. I didn't expect Kahl to be allowed a letter like this so soon.

Here is my submission:

I never thought the day would come when I'd see a letter by Michael Kahl that I agreed with (2-23-06).

I agree that it's "inappropriate" to have political protests on any issue at funerals (though I disagree that the Fred Phelps group is representative of those opposed to homosexual unions). I also largely agree with his comments that "hate is hate", and that often "hate doesn't come any less tolerable", depending on who is spewing it (although I do believe it is right to hate things that are evil or wrong).

The problem is, in his previous letter (1-12-06), self-professed "gay man" and "Queer on the Water" Kahl proclaimed publicly that he would not "in any way, shape or form would ever condone incest, pedophilia or bestiality".

Why should one alternate sexual orientation (homosexuality) be exempt from intolerance, but the others aren't? Why is it okay for Kahl to be intolerant and hateful if two homosexual men happen to be brothers - and consenting adults? Why does he want laws to protect his sexual preference but not that of pedophiles?

He also referred to "sex between a father and daughter, a man and a boy, a woman and a dog" as "perverted". By what standard does Kahl determine that those are perverted, but men having anal or oral sex with other men is not perverted?

Kahl's tolerance for his own sexual deviation, but intolerance for other "perverted" behaviors highlights the hypocrisy of those trying to justify same-sex marriage. The Bible says that all sexual relations outside of a marriage of one man to one woman is sin. Without God's word, we have no set standard for right and wrong.

2-23-06 http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060223/OSH06/602230376/1191/OSHopinion

1-12-06 http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060112/OSH06/601120365/1191/OSHopinion

I was about to send this to Stew, when I got a call from the Northworstern (only a few minutes after emailing the letter). That usually means they are going to print the letter. So I will cut them some slack and give them some credit. At least he is printing letters from conservatives again. Maybe only one to every five from the opposition, but all truth needs is exposure, and the five falsities fall to defeat.

1-12-06 "Editor's note: This will be the last letter on the gay marriage/civil union referendum for this go around."

It didn't take long to let Michael Kahl violate this edict - his very next letter (2-23-06) dealt with the subject.

Since writers are only allowed one letter per month, this amounted to giving Kahl two free shots in a row, while censoring all opposition.

Now that the ban has been lifted, my letter is certain to get printed, since you insist you are fair and unbiased.

Things like giving the pro-homosexual side the first and last word of each "go around" (that you arbitrarily divide), and a five-to-one ratio of replies in between, certainly give the appearance that you are indeed biased and your bias affects your editing. I wish you would at least do a better job of pretending to be fair if you are going to claim that attribute.

In case you want to claim that Kahl's letter was not dealing with the "gay marriage/civil union referendum", here are a few lines from his letter that prove it is:

{{ then this same body of legislators introduces a bill to ban civil unions and same sex marriage. Hate is hate. }}

{{ The hate ... is just as inappropriate as the introduction of hateful legislation like the constitutional amendment to ban civil unions and gay marriage. }}

{{The hate doesn't come any less tolerable just because it's preached by the legislature while wearing suits instead of ... }}

{{ whom the legislators rallied against }}

{{ next November when they support the discriminatory amendment to our constitution. }}