RANTS AND REACTIONS

*

The Oshkosh Northworstern has printed several reactions to my recent letter. The most complete one is at the URL below. Here is my response to it:

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060813/OSH06/608130374/1191/OSHopinion

At least two writers, and the editor (with his title to my original letter) accused me of wanting to "deny charity, mercy, and compassion to homosexuals".

That's simply not true. I only pointed out the hypocrisy of allowing homosexuals to have their desires codified with allowing other deviants to have their vices recognized by the State.

If we want to recognize sodomite marriage, why not recognize adultery, bestiality, adult-child marriage, or rape as State-approved alternate lifestyles?

Mike S. is right that Jesus died for my sins, and the sins of others, including homosexuals. The proper response is to forsake and discourage those sins, not embrace them with legal sanction.

A committed marriage relationship, and sex within the bond of marriage is indeed the height of morality. However, homosexuals cannot truly have sex. To put it politely, the plumbing is improper. They can perform certain perverted acts, but they cannot have sex. They cannot be married, by the long-standing meaning of the word, no matter how the amendment vote goes. They might live together. They might love each other. But they cannot be married, no matter what they want to call their relationship.

I lived with my brother for a while (as adults). I loved him dearly. But that didn't constitute a marriage or mean I wanted to perform unnatural acts with him.

I also lived with my best friend for a few years. I was best man at his wedding, and he at mine. I loved him much like David loved Jonathan. But I never performed any perverted acts with him and our relationship could not be a marriage.

Two men (or two women) can live together, and even love one another. But they cannot have sex or be married. Not unless they pervert the dictionary as well as sex and marriage.

AD HOMINEM

*

Some schlock named Schlack had this printed in the Oshkosh Northworstern:

Renouncing Christianity affirmed by letter

Teno Groppi gives me affirmation for my renouncement of ChristiNanity (sic) as a false religion.

Edward J. Schlack Neenah

Actually, the schlock isn't Schlack. The real schlock is the editor for printing his letter.

Not that I get upset when people say nasty things to me. I have a parade of evolutionists, sodomites, atheists, gun-grabbers, New World Order lackeys, executive editors, and such like, standing in line to hurl their invectives at me. I don't lose a wink of sleep over it.

The problem with this though, was that it was a purely personal attack. Had Mr. Schlack pointed out something in my previous letter that turned him the wrong way, that's fine, even if I disagree with him. But all he did was make a smear at me personally. An editor worthy of working for the National Enquirer should never have let that stand. Such ad hominem has no place in a respectable newspaper (but I guess it might be appropriate in the Northworstern).

Had I send in a short ad hominem attack on one of our local sodomites, like "Michael Kahl isn't half as manly as Michael Jackson", do you think the editor would print it? Do you think he should print it? I don't.

But, it's just another example of how Stew Rieckman will take any cheap opportunity to slam those opposed to queer marriage and give another wink and plug to the sodomites.

Merriam Webster:

schlock: evil, nuisance, literally, blow: of low quality or value

P.S. In an unusual irony, the National Enquirer is threatening to sue me for libel for comparing them to the Oshkosh Northworstern. I offer them my sincerest apologies for that egregious insult.