Volume 91, Issue 28

Friday, October 17, 1997

pigskin pummel


Subjective ineterpretation

Re: Modest proposal about immodest acts, Oct.9 and Interpretational ambiguity, Oct. 15

To the Editor:
When I read Professor Carroll's piece I quietly cheered (Amen!). His deft reversal of the rhetoric of scripture-based homophobia made my day a little brighter. Markus Foerster's vehement rebuttal was based solely on the premise that Professor Carroll truly believed what he wrote. Professor Carroll's message was clear: basing anti-gay sentiment on the Bible is absurd. The general consensus seems to be that it was heterosexual sex that got Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden – original sin. The Bible is also clear in condemning homosexual sex. Therefore, if King James didn't lie to me, sex of any kind is frowned upon, if not forbidden and is punished. I'm afraid that hasn't stopped a lot of people and it doesn't stop me.

I applaud Professor Carroll and agree wholeheartedly: don't shove your Bible in my face and condemn my actions, public or private, as judged by your morality. Your scriptural references fall on deaf ears. Morality (just like everything else) is subjective, no matter your religion (or lack thereof).

Brett McKenzie
English/History IV

To Contact The Letters Department: gazoped@julian.uwo.ca

Copyright The Gazette 1997