Letters

Religion used to promote intolerance

Mr. Garrett's arrogant assertion that there is only one "absolute truth" and that he knows it (Sept. 25), that his opinion is also God's opinion, should strike fear into the hearts not only of the "depraved" creatures his article excoriates, but also of everyone at Emory who is not a fundamentalist Christian. After all, according to Mr. Garrett, only "immutable attributes" and not "alterable behavior" should be protected under non-discrimination policies. His argument makes no provision for freedom of religion -- the freedom on which the United States was founded -- since religious beliefs are clearly a matter of conscious choice and not "immutable." I suppose Emory should remove from its Equal Opportunity Statement its pledge not to discriminate on the basis of religion. Then Garrett can tell us all what we must believe, and how we must act, in order to be worthy of equal treatment.

Let's suppose for a minute that Mr. Garrett's only concern is with God's and Jesus' dictates, as revealed in the Bible. Jesus, interestingly enough, never speaks about homosexual behavior. He does, however, say that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 20:24), and counsel his disciples, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth" (Matthew 7:19). So no equal treatment for rich people, right? Earning lots of money is surely a mutable behavior.

Perhaps Mr. Garrett is aware that although "men lying with men" is described in one Old Testament passage as an abomination, eating shellfish is denounced seven separate times in the Old Testament as, again, "an abomination." What are Garrett and his like going to do to save society from shellfish-eaters?

If anything is a perversion, surely it is this use of "religion" to promote intolerance. I was raised in a devout Southern Baptist household, and while I value many things about my religious heritage, I learned while I was still a teenager, attending a racially segregated church, that there is a difference between morality and religiosity, righteousness and self-righteousness.

There is thus no need for any individual or institution to "legitimize" me, or for that matter, any person or relationship. What we all do need is simply the assurance that we will be able to work and study in an atmosphere that is free from discrimination, harassment or intimidation. Religious bigotry helps create the atmosphere within which gay/lesbian/bisexual people are taunted, ostracized, estranged from their families, beaten up, fired from jobs in which their sexual orientation has absolutely no bearing on job performance and even murdered. All in the name of God.

Saralyn Chestnut
Office of Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Life

Publishing Garrett's editorial shows poor judgment

I have just finished reading Gerald Garrett's opinion in Emory Report (Sept. 25). I cannot remember a time when I have been this upset. That there are narrow minded homophobic people like Gerald Garrett is no surprise. That Emory Report would give this person a forum for what amounts to hate speech is totally disgusting. If he had stated that in his opinion the policy was inconsistent with his beliefs as a Christian, that would have been fine, but to allow him to use this paper to present lies and misleading information is inexcusable. Perhaps if Mr. Garrett would read something other than the Bible, he might find out that a number of researchers now believe that sexual orientation may be genetic. And AIDS is not threatening to bankrupt the medical system; gays in a monogamous relationship face no more threat of AIDS than their monogamous heterosexual counterparts. Lesbians are the least affected group, and I happen to know quite a few lesbian couples who have children despite "their obvious inability to procreate."

Would the Report have published this article if it had been about Jews or other religious minority? If his quote had been, "To be prejudicial against others in terms of aspects that can change (benevolent discrimination), such as behavior, is appropriate. Jews can change, and indeed many have." I think not.

Perhaps you were confused because Mr. Garrett started off by saying that his editorial was not pugnacious, that his intent was to oppose opposite-sex partners receiving benefits. Yet in his next paragraph he states that if you believe that the issue is about giving homosexual partners benefits, you are either naive or ignorant. This should have been your clue that this article was not about benefits. He then goes on to try and justify discrimination, blame society's ills on gays, forecast the demise of Emory and attempt to read a dead man's mind.

Emory Report should apologize for publishing this repulsive garbage, and perhaps Mr. Garrett should read Matthew 7:1-2.

Rick Coleman
Emory College Office

Domestic partner benefits a positive move for community

The First Person editorial written by Mr. Garrett (Sept. 25) was offensive and disheartening. He showed his obvious lack of knowledge of what it means to grow up and live as a homosexual in a heterosexual society, where the ostracism begins early and continues in the guise of moral superiority.

Character assassination has always been the preferred method of scapegoating homosexuals. Mr. Garrett tries to compare homosexuality to a "depraved behavior." He also tries to distinguish a malevolent discrimination versus a benevolent discrimination. Within these parameters, he tries to create the assumption that homosexuals are more immoral and less valued than heterosexuals. It is just this kind of demagoguery that is incompatible with democratic ideals and strikes fear and dismay in me.

I would hope that I would not feel threatened for my personal safety or my fiscal security when my inalienable rights are challenged on such a presumptive morally superior platform. But I do feel threatened, because Mr.Garrett isn't the only one who would attempt to deny me equal rights. There are many others who would condemn and segregate me without ever knowing me. That's discrimination.

The Board of Trustees has taken a positive and encouraging step for equality within the Emory community by approving the domestic partner benefits. Maybe Emory can be an example for a more perfect world where all humans can be valued for their contributions.

Joseph Cribb
Candler Library Resource Center

Editorial doesn't build community

It has taken me a day or so to calm down before I decided to write you back to voice my opinion on the domestic partner benefits editorial in the Sept. 25 edition of Emory Report. First of all, I understand that the article, or the "hate editorial," was written from the point of view of one member of the Emory community, and hopefully does not reflect the opinions of Emory Report. However, as managing editor, I would suspect you have some control over what is published in your magazine. If I sent you a similar article condemning another minority group here at Emory and spouting off with 50 cent words to somehow impress and try to legitimize the real hatred intended, would you print it? I doubt it.

Do you think it makes me or the many other gay, lesbian and bisexual students, faculty and staff feel good to be compared to "psychopaths" and called "perverted" people who practice "depraved behavior?" Do you think these statements are going to somehow help build a sense of togetherness between different people here at Emory? I doubt it.

Everyone who is a member of the Emory family should take a moment and look around them. More likely than not, someone who is your friend, your co-worker, your mentor, or your boss is also a homosexual. Bottom line is -- he/she is still a fine person. Hopefully, the staff members at Emory Report will think a little longer before publishing a piece of writing that will offend a large number of people trying to make Emory the best it can be.

Rick Kern
Association of Emory Alumni

Garrett's letter based on misinterpretation of Bible

Gerald Garrett's "First Person" opinion piece in today's (Sept. 25) Emory Report makes me feel ashamed to be a Christian. In condemning homosexuality, Mr. Garrett is not only seeking to propagate his own twisted interpretation of what the Bible really says, he's also spewing lies and misinformation about the lives of gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

Mr. Garrett would have you believe that gay, lesbian and bisexual folks choose their homosexuality and that they can change it whenever they please. You don't need a direct line to God, which Mr. Garrett seems to think he has, to realize that this line of reasoning is totally specious. In reality, studies have shown over and over again that sexual orientation is generally fixed at a very early age and that it does not change over time.

Many GLB folks--and I'm one of them--go through a period in which they engage in heterosexual activity, chiefly as a means of trying to fit in with society at large. And they sometimes even claim to have been "cured." But it is almost always the case that these "cures" are accompanied by a high degree of religious or social pressue to conform and that they don't last--it turns out that even when same sex activity stops, same sex feelings remain.

The converse is also true. Over the years, there have been many studies of people in gender segregated environments. When there are no opportunities to engage in opposite sex activity, many people whose orientation is heterosexual engage in same sex activity. Engaging in same sex activity doesn't change their sexual orientation. The bottom line is that sexual orientation is just as immutable as race, national origin, gender or even right vs. left-handedness.

Ultimately, Mr. Garrett's objections rest solely on his misconstrued reading of the Bible. Thank heavens we live in a democratic republic, and not a theocracy, or Mr. Garrett would be free to apply his prejudices without restraint.

Richard P. Jasper
Acquisitions Department, General Libraries

Concerning love and behavior

Re: Love
I think that love is a matter between souls, not bodies. I think that I'd rather work with my openly gay colleagues than those who espouse Mr. Garrett's beliefs. I think that Emory would be a better place if there were fewer prejudiced people so all can be treated with love and fairness.

Re: Behavior
I think that senseless violence is illicit, illegal and immoral, and those who support it in all its forms are depraved. I think that we should worry about the rising costs of health care due to behaviors which lead to heart disease and lung cancer.

Sincerely and straight,

Mary Parks
Emory College Office