Letters: Saturday

Dogma about homosexuals

A letter by David Noebel in the Nov. 3rd Gazette titled “Science backs Dobson” actually proves the contrary. Noebel’s “science” is taken from the website of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The organization is true to its name. NARTH does not do independent scientific studies of the biological causes of sexual orientation. It is devoted to changing homosexuals through psychotherapy and the propagation of fundamentalist dogma. The only evidence acceptable to NARTH is that which supports its preexisting theories. And believe me, they have no doubt that those theories are absolutely correct, the facts notwithstanding.

NARTH’s “study” was done to support NARTH’S contention, presented in evidence in an Arkansas case, that homosexuals should not have the right to adopt children. The goal of the study was to prove what NARTH already believed, not to explore all the evidence and come to a science based conclusion. The Arkansas court agreed with NARTH — not surprising. That, however, does not make the study scientific.

Mr. Dobson’s legacy is tarnished because it is mean, ignorant and without scientific foundation. What Mr. Dobson and his friends view as appropriate cultural behavior is not to be foisted on the rest of society merely because it’s what they believe. Unlike Mr. Dobson, Christian people don’t subscribe to dehumanizing a large segment of the population.

Mr. Noebel’s arguments against a biological basis for the existence of homosexuality can all be turned back on him: 1) If there is no hormonal difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, a contention which hasn’t been proved, then Gore Vidal is right to say that sexuality is a continuum not an either-or proposition. 2) If certain evidence is lacking, that is not an indication that no evidence exists, only that it has not yet been discovered. Perhaps one day it will be proved that Christian Fundamentalism is an aberration of the brain chemistry which can be cured by a special serum.

Dr. Satinover, also mentioned by Mr. Noebel in his letter, is a member of NARTH as well. He is quoted on the NARTH webite as saying, “Sexual orientation is a fiction, and it is ludicrous to allow civil rights for a group of people whose condition does not exist.”

I rest my case.

Jo Ann Nieman, Colorado Springs

An irrational conclusion

In response to John Horner’s opinion column in the Nov. 19 edition of The Gazette: Horner states that, “A hundred years ago, most people might have reasonably assumed that science played little or no role in their lives.” Then he cites the lowly farmer as the prime example of this ridiculous notion. There is probably no industry in the country that benefited more from, or embraced more enthusiastically, the scientific advancements of the 20th century than agriculture.

Advancements in plant sciences created better varieties of crops, increasing yields and the nutritional value of those crops. Advancements in chemistry produced better fertilizers, and pesticides that protected crops and the consumers of those crops, from insects and diseases. Innovations in mechanized equipment allowed the farmer to efficiently farm more land with less labor. The list goes on and on, but I’m talking about actual scientific discoveries that have been successfully proven and implemented. These are scientific advancements that have served to improve the human condition, and benefit mankind.

Mr. Horner is talking about why a person does or does not embrace widely held scientific theories that in most cases have not, or cannot, be verified through scientific methodology. Like it or not, acceptance of these theories requires an element of faith. Contrary to Mr. Horner’s belief, the jury is still out on many of these issues, and theory remains theory until verified and replicated. That’s why only a fool would have bought stock in cold fusion back in the 1990’s as Mr. Horner correctly implies. Mr. Horner concludes that there are only two intellectually honest routes for those who do not hold to his beliefs, “become a scientist, and test that knowledge for yourself, or give up all the benefits you’ve accrued from humanity’s ever-expanding scientific knowledge.” No one but the most jaded ideologue would reduce an argument, or worse, a scientific hypothesis, to such an irrational either-or conclusion.

John Mayer, Colorado Springs

City can’t manage money

No amount of tax increase can help City Council build the city of Colorado Springs because they do not know how to budget or manage money. They don’t know what priorities are. Let’s see a print out each month in the newspaper of our tax money at work in Colorado Springs.

Deborah Lane, Colorado Springs

Is it a judicial scam?

Forgive me for having a non-legally trained mind, but some things are sure hard to understand. The Attorney General says we need to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a domestic, not a military court to show the world our superior and fair justice system. Then he says that “failure [presumably to convict] is not an option” which sounds like the verdict is predetermined. Is this a case of “Bring in the guilty rascal so we can give him a fair trial before we hang him”? What kind of message does this send the world about our impartial justice system? What a circus such a trial could be.

From KSM’s confession and statements he masterminded a terrible attack on the U.S. homeland, as part of a foreign group dedicated to the destruction of America and the West. Why is this a civilian court matter? It wasn’t like a domestic criminal act; wouldn’t it seem to call for a military trial of a prisoner of war who admitted to purposely attacking civilians and the Defense Department inside the U.S.?

What are our President and Attorney General thinking?

Thomas Couzens, Colorado Springs

The USOC is a waste
Wow, I am so glad the City Council was able to get $13 million to give to the USOC. I can think of much better places that money could have gone – like the Police Department, the Fire Department, and maybe Parks and Recreation! And now the City Council wants to do fundraising for Park and Recreation? I can only hope the USOC is first in line to offer donations! I guess I just don’t understand why City Council will fight tooth and nail for the USOC, but not for the basic needs of our city?

I can’t wait for elections to replace the folks in City Council, maybe we can find people that care about the things that REALLY matter in our city!

Karen Gentzel, Colorado Springs