Flawed letter

While I agree with Ms. Dilday’s position that the rights of homosexuals ought to be legally protected, her argument for that position is riddled with contradictions.

How can she declare that no one “has the right to tell any person or group of people what is or is not morally right for them,” and hold that individuals ought to “respect all human beings?” Hasn’t she just told everyone that to respect all human beings is morally right for them?

Further, she cautions us that we have “no right to judge another person’s morality.” Then, she goes on to use such a morally-loaded word as “atrocity” to define the moral offenses committed against homosexuals by those who do not support her position. So, which is it? May we judge or must we refrain from judging?

To end her letter she castigates those who oppose the rights of homosexuals by labelling them “moral policepersons.” In fact, however, she has just completed doing precisely what she accuses her opposition of doing, that is telling people that her judgment on the issue of homosexual rights is ensconced on the moral high ground while her opposition is nothing more than a bunch of base moral reactionaries.

Her position may be morally right, but her argument lacks any foundation in consistency. She contradicts herself by making excuses. It seems that we must now be convinced that it is all right to be “right.”

Thomas A. Elkins