Dear Editor: Two letters (Oct. 3) are wrongheaded. Mildred Burke supports her view of “infallible science” sanctioning homosexuality by citing science v. religion narratives that never really occurred historically except in mythologized forms encouraged by popular anti-religious hatred. Referring to science as authoritative ignores the deep divisions, fraudulent findings, and ideology that have always existed among scientists, and fails to even recognize how studying the physical universe says nothing about value judgments.
With submissiveness to ideology, there are scientists today too dimwitted to apply sufficient common sense to recognize that the lower rates of offspring among homosexuals imply the impossibility of there being a genetically determined trait as it would, over time, being eliminated from the gene pool.
Scientists who deviate from ideologies accepted dominant social elitists, such as those promoting cultural homosexualism, inevitably suffer from hate, intolerance, and persecution. Recently, a noted physician, D. Paul Church, was expelled from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston on the grounds that he had violated BIDMC’s “established standards of professional conduct” by communicating views about homosexuality that were “offensive to BIDMC staff.”
The obvious truths he stated were: “The evidence is irrefutable that behaviors common within the homosexual community are unhealthy with high risk for a host of serious medical consequences…”
Unquestioning faith in science is no substitute for humility in religion.
Letter writer Selvin Gootar creates a false moral equivalency in citing a just SCOTUS decision regarding interracial marriage with the ridiculous decision that the Supreme Court is unqualified to make creating a fictional institution of same-sex marriage and inferred we all must respect and comply with this evil. Should we purge our memory of past stupid and evil Court decisions that declared the sub-humanity of blacks and pre-born life?
Ms. Burke also suggests that the heroic Kim Davis is motivated by self-adulation for resisting the consequence from justices accommodating social demands. As dissenting opinions unconstitutional decisions have consistently pointed out, through their legislatures, get to decide.
Neither government clerks nor business owners have any moral obligation to recognize fictional institutions, and out of control governments have no right to impoverish businesses by confiscating their entire assets, as they have, for heroically refusing to bake a cake with a message of endorsement.
JOHN LICAUSE, MD
Forest Hills