LETTERTO THE EDITOR

To the Editor:

Good parents often tell their children to stay away from those who may have a bad influence on their children. Moms and dads are likely to tell their teenage son to steer clear of drug addicts. But, one could argue that this goes against the whole idea of tolerance so prevalent in society today. After all, shouldn’t Mom and Dad respect the teenager’s decision to do drugs in a spirit of tolerance and acceptance? But then again, if it were a good thing, why would they tell their son to avoid it? To make matters worse, aren’t the parents going too far in actually judging the goodness or evil of the drug addicts? This all leads to a simple question: is the common societal attitude today of tolerance and acceptance really true?
For starters, it seems very clear that you never need to tolerate a good thing—for example: who among us finds that they must “tolerate” the gift of a scholarship for college? Additionally, the fact is often overlooked that being tolerant of one thing pre-supposes intolerance of its opposite. For example, people who think smoking must be tolerated will be intolerant of those who think smoking should not be tolerated. Quite simply, you cannot both support and oppose something while hoping to remain a person of integrity! (Thus, it is incorrect to suppose—as one individual wrote—that the Bible teaches a message of “tolerance,” since this is inconsistent with the life of integrity and virtue that Christ proclaimed).

Where does this leave us? We have an example of the societal attitude of tolerance and acceptance right here on campus, which is the LGTBQ Pride month currently taking place. During this month, we are asked to accept and celebrate homosexuality, along with numerous other inclinations or relations besides the natural heterosexual. First of all, we now know that we do not need to tolerate a good thing. But why then are we constantly told that we need to be tolerant of the actions and inclinations practiced and promoted by the LGTBQ community? As we saw before, this is intolerant of individuals who oppose LGBTQ activities. How can we resolve this self-contradiction of tolerance?
In short, the moral status of LGBTQ inclinations and actions needs to be evaluated. By simply looking at the way the reproductive organs fit together, and that the fact that the act itself is ordered toward the generation of children, these LGBTQ acts are unnatural—they depart from the natural order. Secondly, because these relations are unfruitful, they cannot form a self-sustaining society. Thus, LGBTQ relations are also wrong because they undermine society. Additionally, marriage itself is not simply a creation of society, or even the Catholic Church—as one reader stated—since it pre-existed both of these institutions. Thus it cannot be re-defined by either. Marriage has been established by God himself as the stable union of a freely consenting man and woman for the generation and education of children. Quite frankly, a society that seeks pleasure and emotional satisfaction as the primary goal of sex, rather than children, is a society of individuals turned in on themselves who can no longer appreciate the wisdom in nature nor the worth of children.

Look, this is my fourth year at NDSU, and I’ve followed the Spectrum all during that time. Not once have I found a fully correct and reasonable account in support of the culture of life and traditional families. I challenge you at the Spectrum to put into practice the open-mindedness that you profess, and actually publish this article as it stands.

Benjamin Whalen
Senior, mechanical engineering