Dear Editor: Your Guide to Answering Media Disinformation on Homosexuality

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
You can use these ten letters to answer liberal pundits in the media!
You can use these ten letters to answer liberal pundits in the media!

Have you ever read an article on homosexuality in the media and wanted to answer it? Have you found you didn’t have the right arguments?

Here are ten letters to the editor you can adapt so that the next time an article comes out favoring the homosexual agenda you can give them the right answer back! Of course, we recommend all letters be written in a polite style since the TFP does not condone improper or inflammatory language.

1. How To Answer Articles Which Compare Homosexual “Marriage” with Interracial Marriage

Dear Editor:

I read your article and could not disagree more. You insult every minority by comparing homosexual “marriage” with interracial marriage. I was surprised that you would resort to such simplistic comparisons.

This contention is completely false. First of all, one cannot compare two essentially different realities. A man and a woman of different races are not comparable to two men or two women.

A man and a women wanting to marry may be completely different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; one learned, the other not; one tall, the other short; or one maybe famous , the other unknown. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, eruditions or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

There is simply no analogy between interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior.

Sincerely yours,

2. How To Answer Articles Which Say There Are 6-10 Million Children with Homosexual Parents

Dear Editor,

I was surprised to read about your reference to children with homosexual parents. I think you need to get your numbers right!

When you say that estimates of the number of children with homosexual parents range from 6-10 million, do you realize what that means?

According to the 2000 census there are about 659,000 same-sex couples nationwide or less than 1 percent of all households.

If 659,000 same-sex couples have between 6 and 10 million children that means the average such couple has between nine and fifteen children – quite a feat for couples who are unable to engage in generative relations! The 2000 census also reports that the total number of Americans under 18 years was 72.3 million so that means between 8 % and 13.8 % of all American children have homosexual parents! Get a grip on reality.

Please set the record straight in your next article.

Sincerely yours,

3. How to Answer Articles Which Say Counties or Cities Can Define Marriage Any Way They Want

Dear Editor,

I must disagree with your article where you claim any government body can define marriage as it pleases. Nothing could be more farther from truth.

What you are actually saying is that simply put, the government creates civil marriage.

However, civil government does not create civil marriage for the simple reason that it does not create marriage. Marriage is a social reality that predates the state and therefore cannot originate from it. Without marriage, there would be no family, and without the family, no society would be formed.

What the government does in so-called civil marriage is to recognize the civil effects of marriage. But this recognition must respect the nature of the institution and the end for which it exists.

By the very fact that the civil government is not the author of marriage (the author is nature itself and, through nature, the Creator), it can alter neither the essence nor appearance of marriage.

Marriage can assume a religious character and be regulated by civil law. However, its essence is always the same: a bilateral contract between a man and a woman whereby they give themselves to each other and mutually receive the use of each other’s body to perform those actions which, by their very nature, are destined to the procreation of offspring.

Sincerely yours,

4. How to Reply to Articles that Say that Homosexual “Marriage” Does not Destroy Traditional Marriage

Dear Editor,

To say that redefining marriage by giving married status to homosexual unions does not harm heterosexual marriage, is to deny the social nature and the public aspect of this institution.

Marriage is a permanent sacred bond uniting a man and a woman who desire to constitute a family and face life’s trials together.

Redefining marriage as simply a union between two people regardless of sex defeats the very purpose of marriage – the perpetuation of the species – and therefore destroys the very idea of the institution of marriage.

This new idea of “marriage” reduces and degrades all marriage to a more or less stable cohabitation of two people.

Thus, when traditional marriage is lumped together with same-sex “marriage,” it prostitutes the term and empties it of content.

My marriage certainly means more than simple cohabitation and I am offended by anyone who would seek to reduce it to that!

Sincerely yours,

5. How to Reply to Articles that Say Homosexual “Couples” Deserve the Same Benefits as Married Couples

Dear Editor,

I take offense at your suggestion that so-called homosexual couples deserve the same benefits as married couples.

The only reason the state grants special privileges to married couples is to defend the common good.

Traditional marriage promotes the common good by guaranteeing the perpetuation of the species and providing a proper climate for the raising of offspring. The state has everything to gain by such an arrangement and thus, has every interest in extending benefits and promoting the stable and committed union between a man and a woman which has as its primary purpose the fulfillment of these noble goals.

The state has absolutely no interest in defending the simple union of two people of the same sex. The state accrues no benefits from an association where the primary purpose is the personal gratification of two parties whose union is sterile by nature.

This redefinition of marriage is so far removed from the fundamental requirement of ensuring the common good, the very reason for state protection of this “marriage” ceases to exist.

In this case, benefits become unearned privileges. I protest against such an abuse.

Sincerely yours,

6. How to Reply to Articles that Say Homosexuals Make up Ten Percent of the Population

Dear Editor,

I was surprised to see a reference without citing a source using the 10 percent (or another figure) as the number of homosexuals in the United States.

The ten percent figure has no basis in reality. That figure is originally based on a 1948 study — yes 1948 – 56 years ago by one Alfred Kinsey, a zoologist. The study is so riddled with methodological errors that nobody takes it seriously. It was however extremely useful in conveying the idea that homosexuals were everywhere.

The real figures show that 2.8 percent of males and 1.4 percent of females report SOME level of homosexual or bisexual activity. The homosexual movement itself has abandoned ten percent and used the above figures when filing its brief in the 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas hearings.

I think one day it will be written that never have so many been intimidated so much by so few.

Sincerely yours,

7. How to Reply to Articles that Say Homosexuality is Genetic

Dear Editor

I was surprised to read the article where it is claimed that homosexuality is genetic or innate. I do not see how you can say they are born that way.

As much as scientists have tried, nobody, I repeat, nobody has been able to prove in any conclusive study that homosexuality is genetic. No one has found a homosexual gene. In fact, most studies have found exactly the contrary – there is no scientific evidence for innate homosexuality.

You do the community a great disservice by perpetuating the myth that homosexuals are born that way. You should report the facts not shoddy pop science.

Sincerely yours,

8 . How to Reply to Aricles that Say Homosexual “Marriage” is Good for Society and Marriage

Dear Editor

I was disturbed to see your one-sided portrayal of homosexual “marriage.” We need more than just sentimental depictions. We need to face the tragic reality that such “marriages” are disasters waiting to happen. You think the traditional family is in bad shape. You haven’t seen anything yet.

From every point of view, the homosexual lifestyle disqualifies them from marriage and healthy family life. The sterility of their relationships makes it impossible for them to carry out marriage’s primary end: procreation.

The homosexual part of the populations records disproportionably higher incidents of health problems, infectious social diseases, mental health problems, alcoholism, drug use, suicide rates, domestic abuse, child abuse and pedophilia.

These are the things that are not portrayed in the media. This is not the stuff of which families are made. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

Sincerely yours,

9. How to Reply to Articles that Say the Church Does not Oppose Homosexual “Marriage”

Dear Editor,

I could not believe it when I saw the article which insinuated that the Catholic Church in any way accepted homosexual “marriage.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Church has 2000 years of consistent Catholic teaching on this matter. Dating all the way back to the Apostles, until our very days, the Church has continuously taught against homosexuality.

To resolve any doubt, last year, in 2003, the Holy See published the document: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, which makes special mention of the obligation of Bishops and politicians to oppose any type of recognition of homosexual unions.

It states: “There are absolutely no grounds for the considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against natural law.”

It is undeniable that the Catholic Church has condemned homosexuality always and everywhere. To deny this truth is to cease to be Catholic. Please correct this in your paper.

Sincerely yours,

10. How to Reply to Article that Say Homosexual “Marriage” is Mandated by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Dear Editor,

I read your article justifying homosexual “marriage” based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing could be farther from the original intention of the amendment’s writers.

The clause was designed to prevent freed slaves from becoming second-class citizens and, in fact, prevented the possible formation of different classes of citizens. That was the intention of the Equal Protection Clause.

The clause applied to basic human rights not inclinations. It has nothing to do with idiosyncratic tendencies represented by homosexuals. When people have such dispositions or any changeable behavior, we can do our best to be kind and help them overcome the obstacles they face. However, one cannot make this a constitutional norm for society.

Sincerely yours,

Do you have another question you would like to have answered? Do you have suggestions for other letters? Please send us your questions and comments. Click here to get in touch.

If your letter is published, please send us a copy or a link at [email protected] or fax it to us at 717 225-7382

Related Articles: