Discrimination and Homosexuality

The Los Angeles Times has long been a smug and pious defender of wrong ideas and narrow-minded people. Your editorial (“Pro-Family Initiative Rooted in Prejudice,” Jan. 15) supporting the homosexual rights ordinance of Irvine is further proof of this.

The Times calls me and my colleagues homophobes and guilty of “ignorant prejudice” because we happen to resoundingly support the heterosexual ethic, the traditional family. What we know is that mainstream, professional psychology, confirming the most fundamental of human instincts, views homosexuality as an acquired behavior and even “perverse” in the clinical sense.

The American Psychological Assn. does accept homosexuality as normal, something homosexuals will point out, but this view ignores the political aggression of homosexuals as they terrorized the APA into submission on this issue back in 1973.

Americans are discriminating people. We do care who we work with, we do care who lives next door to us, we do care who sits next to us on a bus, we do care what we eat, drink, watch on television, and what clothes we wear.

We recognize each of these concerns as legitimate because they fall within our realm of personal choice. On the other hand, Americans find discrimination based on race, sex, physical handicap, etc., as abhorrent because we are all born into these situations, we did not have a choice how we were to be born.

Homosexuality is a personal choice, and a deleterious choice at that. Americans have the right to “discriminate,” to wonder why they must be forced to legally and morally recognize one distasteful personal behavior when they are not obliged to do the same for other behaviors.

To deny housing to an avowed homosexual is similar to denying housing to an alcoholic or drug abuser. A landlord should have the discretion to protect the integrity of his or her property when harmful personal behavior is in question. If homosexual behavior is not a problem to a landlord, then so be it. But if it is, then an ordinance such as the Irvine law becomes an offense.

Homosexuality is but a symptom of the disease of moral decay that exists where citizenry deny God. Our fight to repeal the Irvine ordinance is really an appeal in support of traditional family values and the Judeo-Christian ethic.

America is a place where even persons who choose adverse life styles can petition a citizenry for support. This right, however, does not make the substance of the appeal morally proper or even constitutional. The Times is wrong once again to lend its seemingly undying support in favor of homosexuality.

The goal of the homosexual movement is to hop from small city to small city and from town to town promoting ordinances of the type in Irvine. One of my goals, and that of others, is to stop them in their political advance. This is my right as a citizen of the United States and I intend to exercise it.

If leaders in America, whether in business, news media, education, public health, or those in government, are unwilling to affirm the heterosexual ethic and the Judeo-Christian ethic, then we should be honest enough to recognize that homosexuals will succeed in tearing down the most fundamental values of Western civilization, our God-given heterosexual identities and our God-ordained traditional family unit.

WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER

Member of Congress

39th District