Reader finds Wakefield's letter offensive

I read the letter by Kirk Wakefield in the Sept. 26 DM and nearly lost my dinner. To think that there is still such close-mindedness in the year 2000! What century are we living in again?

In particular, I was offended to his comparison of homosexuality being on the same level of murder, abuse, stealing, slander and adultery. Although some may find all of these activities linked through immorality, don't forget one thing: Murder, abuse, stealing, etc. hurts other people. We have laws against them because they infringe on other people's rights. Homosexuality, despite being offensive to some, does not infringe on the legal rights of other people.

Here is a comparable situation to a homosexual relationship: an interracial couple. Some people still find the idea of an interracial couple offensive or immoral; however, there are no longer laws against interracial marriage, sex, etc. No one would dare pose any laws anymore against interracial dating or marriage because that would be discrimination. Why should homosexuality be treated any differently?

I also disliked Wakefield's implications that homosexuals must come from dysfunctional families and disadvantaged backgrounds. I'd like to be convinced that there aren't plenty of dysfunctional families for all of the straight people too. I also found his statement that "the majority of Americans still believe that homosexuality is morally wrong" very interesting. I'd easily believe such a thing, but simply stating what the majority of Americans believe without any source or statistic seems rather presumptuous to me.

Wakefield has every right to find homosexuality morally offensive, but in my view, other people's bedside manner and relationship choices are personal and not a right to be infringed upon. Homosexuals, though controversial, are people just like any other minority group and deserve the equal rights expressed in Brandon Niemeyer's article last week.

Jennifer Panhorst
Freshman
Oxford