Response to: "A Letter to Men"

At first, when I read Jon Henry's "Letter to Men," I thought nothing of the apparent transition of themes from that letter to Rhatican's letter. I began to wonder why I would automatically assume that Henry's view of being gay had anything to do with Rhatican's view of women and dress.

While I will provide no comment to the latter, I thought it ironic that Jon Henry attempted to satirize behavior that was satirical in the first place, such as straight men acting as gay men.

Nevermind that he felt compelled to change the subject toward driving a stake between the "gay" and "straight" communities with a provocative piece apparently aimed at telling straight men they were being too gay. Of course, this is old news. Everyone knows that all of those straight people are really just faking.

Being genuinely straight is a thing of the past as people's "sexual orientation" is perpetually called into question: "Are you sure you're not gay?"

I don't know what the gay movement is about, really, but it seems that those involved intentionally stack the deck in their favor. Dissenting opinions get filed under the "homophobe" label. Consider for a moment, though, whether these people are really scared of being gay, or if they just disagree.

You see, part of being tolerant is tolerating opposing viewpoints and I feel the gay community needs to recognize the fact that many people genuinely disagree with the lifestyle without being oppressive or wishing ill toward the gay community.

Anyone who wishes to help those who may want to escape the gay lifestyle are condemned for their practices, or worse, accused of being gay themselves.

Since when is it okay for gays to assume that people who oppose the gay community are closeted?

In doing so, they classify straight men as a part of their ranks, thus nullifying their dissent.

I, personally, have nothing against gays. However, I severely disagree with the concept that gays must color themselves oppressed and then demand more representation while actively calling the sexual orientation of others into question and labeling opposing viewpoints as "homophobic."

This behavior isn't the mark of an oppressed people. I see absolutely no relationship to the Civil Rights movement, where people's rights were being arbitrarily taken away.

In the case of the gay rights movement, while I disagree with the government's involvement, I also disagree with the notion that we do not have equal rights. Both gay and straight people are subject to the same rules in society. A straight man can't marry a man, just as a gay man can't.

Equality isn't meant for value judgments by separating people into groups and then arbitrarily favoring one while opposing the other.

Equality is the idea that everyone has a fair shake and can make of their own situation what they will. Manipulating the public opinion is simply another way of changing the face of society in their own favor.

I, for one, respect many in the LGBTQ (any more letters I forgot?) community and have friends who consider themselves a part of it. I, however, do not wish to be a target of this one-sided "activism" and instead wish to have my view presented with equal weight as any other.

This isn't a call for a dramatic upheaval of the social order. This is a call that says, "Enough already! I disagree, and that's alright"