Dear Editor:

 

As many people have come to realize, our mainstream media leans very liberal. TV, radio, movies, books, and even the Internet tend to carry one set of views that is repeatedly played to the masses. While liberal leanings are often idolized and expounded upon by our media, conservative views are frequently demonized and pushed under the rug. Knowing that this heavy liberal bias exists, we tend to gather our news from organizations that report the facts instead of spin the facts.

 

Unfortunately, we can no longer count on The Andalusia Star-News to simply report the facts. Upon reading Mrs. Gerlach’s column in Saturday’s paper, we were taken aback that a local editor would use her position of power to push such a one-sided view of a particular subject. Now, it must be said that Mrs. Gerlach has always been cordial to our family when we have met her, and we do not know much about her life aside from the fact that she is married and that she attends a local church. Furthermore, we are acquainted with several individuals that do not hold our view on this subject, and we still treat them with the same love and kindness that we give to everyone else. Therefore, we do not intend to make this a personal attack; instead, we want to issue a constructive, respectful, and straightforward response to Mrs. Gerlach’s column.

 

First and foremost, when one makes an argument concerning biblical and early church matters, it is always wise to cite particular verses and sources. How does the author define “biblical times”? Which verses describe women as only being “chattel who were bought and sold”? Where in the Scriptures is marriage only described as “being controlled by a husband for whom one worked”? When did the early Christian church only “espouse celibacy”? When one does not reveal the verses and sources of one’s argument, it may indicate one’s lack of familiarity with the subject matter. In addition, it may show an author’s odd expectation that the readership will not question one’s research and authority on the topic.

 

Second, the assertion that “By any other name, would [gay marriage] matter so much?” is absurdly nonchalant in such a contentious discussion. When one makes such a lackadaisical statement, it curses the Scriptures and spits in the face of the church fathers who fought and suffered for the Christian faith. The assertion that gay marriage would not matter that much opens the floodgates to the justification of all sexual immorality. Simply put, one cannot support homosexuality without supporting incest, bestiality, and adultery; they are all spoken against in Leviticus 18 and in modern society. Therefore, why is the ban on homosexuality singled out as the only “unjust” law? Why can’t fathers marry their daughters? Why can’t farm animals and humans be joined in unholy matrimony? Why can’t a married woman be sexually involved with someone besides her spouse? Regarding the issue of sexual immorality, one must either accept all forms or deny every form; there is no room to pick and choose.

 

Third, one does not have to be a Christian, or even a believer in God, to understand the biological and anatomical differences between males and females. Men and women are both equipped with unique parts that enable the reproduction of the human race. From a biological and anatomical standpoint, a sexual relationship between a man and a woman is the only thing that makes sense. For the vast majority of the global population, this acknowledgment of “man+woman=baby” is enough to set the standard of sexual relationships as being exclusively between a man and a woman. Supporting this standard of sexual relationships does not make one closed-minded, intolerant, or a bigot; it makes one rational!

 

Fourth, the author’s claim that she “[doesn’t] know anyone who is homosexual because he or she chose to be” is faulty at best. One does not truly become anything until one chooses to act upon certain thoughts and impulses, whether good or bad. One does not become a thief until one actually steals something; one may have contemplated the idea prior to the act, but ultimately the act of stealing is what defines one as a thief. Likewise, one does not become a college graduate until one chooses to enroll in a university and take the necessary steps towards graduation. To claim that homosexuality is not a choice is to ignore an individual’s personal choice to act upon such impulses and thus become a homosexual.

 

Finally, why should laws be changed to accommodate the few that choose to go against the standard of sexual relationships? The police aren’t going to stop issuing speeding tickets because a few citizens choose to egregiously break the speed limit. The governor isn’t going to abolish all laws regarding murder and sexual assault because a few people deeply enjoy committing such atrocities. Likewise, the choice of a few people to go against the standard of sexual relationships should not affect the legal definition of marriage for those that follow the standard.

 

The issue of gay marriage is extremely controversial, and it is unfortunate that the liberal media attempts to drown out the conservative viewpoint. We sincerely hope that The Andalusia Star-News will not allow personal biases to detract from a balanced, honest, and educated discussion on such topics.

God bless!!

-Madison and Robert Copeland

Editor’s note: The aforementioned opinion appeared on the Commentary page and reflected the opinion of the author, just as the Copelands’ letter does.