Letters
Garrett's language damages community
We must not ignore the damage done to the University community by
language of
the kind Mr. Garrett deploys. Invoking a "nefarious agenda," calling
one's
colleagues "perverts," flinging about accusations of "depravity" and
"dissipation" does not, after all, advance rational discussion. Mr.
Garrett has
a perfect right to express his views-and could undoubtedly find many a
bully
pulpit in the United States at the moment. Nonetheless, one would think
that a
university publication might require a minimum standard of civility of
its
contributors.
Mr. Garrett anticipates "divine judgment"; I myself would settle for
human
justice. We both may be in for a long wait.
Amy Schrager Lang
Institute of the Liberal Arts
Issues of faith not relevant to questions about benefits
Mr. Gerald Garrett (Sept. 25) and I are both employees of Emory
University.
Until Emory makes adherence to Mr. Garrett's belief in the teachings of
Mr.
Garrett's God a condition of employment, that faith is not relevant to
the
question of whether or not I am entitled to the same kinds of
remuneration for
my work as Mr. Garrett receives for his. Mr. Garrett quotes the Bible. I
would
like to quote James Baldwin, a preacher's son who preached himself. Mr.
Garrett
asserts that "the illegitimacy of homosexuality is rooted in the word of
God
and their obvious inability to procreate." In a 1949 essay on social
hostility
to homosexuality, Baldwin observed that "God...is man's most intense
creation."
Mr. Garrett's hyperbole certainly supports that point. On the question of
procreating Baldwin continues, "after all, I take it that no one can be
seriously disturbed about the birth-rate; when the race commits suicide,
it
will not be in Sodom."
Julie L. Abraham
English and Women's Studies
Need to hate act, not the person
I wanted to take an opportunity to voice my support for Gerald Garrett
and the
stand that he has taken against the domestic partner benefits, which has
been
approved by Emory. I, too, believe homosexuality to be morally wrong and
completely opposite to God's plan for love, marriage and the family. For
that
matter, so is divorce, which is so widely accepted in today's society. I
do
believe that in the case of either of these issues or in so many of
today's
other major issues, we as born-again Christians must remember one crucial
point: We must hate the act, but not hate the person committing the act.
Jesus
did not ostracize the sinners of his day, but rather ate meals with them,
spent
time with them and most of all, showed them that he truly cared. He never
condoned their actions, but was always ready and willing to forgive and
love
them.
I do not believe that Mr. Garrett intended to convey hatred for the
homosexual
person. I understand the prejudice and ugliness that can come with being
outside the norm in the Christian church, because I went through a
divorce
eight years ago. At the time I was told that I would go to hell. God does
not
condone divorce any more than he condones homosexuality, but he never
stopped
loving me, nor does he stop loving the homosexual. He is always willing
to
forgive and move on. It is time that Christians remember that the best
witness
is a loving, caring attitude toward those they believe to be living in a
manner
contrary to God's design. This never means that Christians must condone
those
actions, but simply remember that the person is one whom God loves and
cares
for, just as he does all of mankind.
Leah Colwell Adams
Emory Lipid Clinic
Garrett is `absolutely' right
I applaud the Emory Report's decision to print Mr. Garrett's
editorial.
Certainly we would all defend his First Amendment rights as our own. The
content of Mr. Garrett's editorial does bring to light several issues.
Not the
least of these is that vocabulary should never be used as a means for
measuring
intelligence.
Moreover, Mr. Garrett is absolutely right. This may be a little hard to
swallow, unless of course you believe in an absolute right. Mr. Garrett
stated
his opinion and then backed it up with absolutely the right passages from
the
Bible. As far as Mr. Garrett is concerned, there is absolutely no room
for
intelligent argument here.
Evidently not gay, Mr. Garrett appears wise beyond all others when he
states
absolutely that homosexuality is an alterable behavior. Well of course it
is.
It's the lifestyle. Being discriminated against, (malevolently or
benevolently), being kicked out of the military, losing your job, being
chastised by your family, or beaten up by some redneck, who could give
that up?
The truly scary part in all this is not that Mr. Garrett had the courage
to
publish his opinion (and God's), but that it is probably not his own.
Seldom
does this type of closed-minded hate-mongering originate from one of the
flock,
but is more often disseminated from the pulpits of those who wish to
control
the thoughts of others to their own ends. There's nothing like a little
scape-goating to really fill the collection plate.
David A. Tate
Planning and Estimating
Hysterical propaganda hard to respond to
I read Gerald Garrett's article several items and shared it with my
husband and
friends. We all reacted with disgust, infuriation and sadness. What is
the
point of attempting to write an educated, objective, opinionated article
when
the writer quotes Bible verses and pontificates about Jesus? It is
pathetic
that Mr. Garrett had to use so many eloquent words (profligacy,
exculpation,
nefarious) to justify the fact that he is homophobic. If he wants to make
an
argument for or against domestic partners benefits, I encourage him to
research
facts, and not quote emblazoned, hysterical propaganda.
Kristine Allouchery
Graduate School