The Cincinnati Enquirer |
Editorial Page
|
Oct. 25, 1998 |
| Regarding The Cincinnati Enquirer’s editorial "Cincinnati’s opinion is ratified by courts" [Oct. 18], I found it quite contradictory. You end it by saying "Discrimination against gays is wrong," but also state that voters cannot be bullied by government "to tolerate, accept, or protect a sexual lifestyle that most Americans believe is immoral."
I grew up in Kentucky during the ‘60s when the debate was about race. I was taught by my parents to believe that persons should not face discrimination based on race, but in reality saw a different scene. The reality was that as long as blacks stayed in their place, there was no discrimination. In other words, they were OK as long as they did not want "special rights." The view was that it was "immoral" or improper for races to mix or like each other. Does this sound familiar? The attitude was that whites (the majority) knew better than blacks. Today, it’s heterosexuals that know better than the homosexuals. |
The general attitude is gays are sick and inferior and cannot properly distinguish real discrimination. Gays need the help of the heterosexuals (the majority) who know what is best for them. In the ‘60s, blacks needed the whites to determine this.
You end the editorial stating, "But there are ample remedies to protect their equal rights - without creating special rights." Please enlighten us to what those remedies are.
Earl Apel, College Hill
|
 |
 |
