Sept. 25 2013 09:13 AM

Our readers tell us what they think

A free country

Dear Mr. Peter ["Letters," Aug. 14]: You seem to have no idea that you are living in a secular democratic republic where your unalienable rights are assumed at birth (not conferred by law). These rights are (supposedly) protected by our government against the tyranny of the mob (or "majority"). The mob should not, for example, be able to take away someone else's freedom to enter a contract (which is what marriage actually is) or to live as they see fit (although California's awful proposition system makes a mockery of this sacred principle and promotes mob rule). Neither your discomfort nor the absurd beliefs of ancient desert tribes have anything to do with the matter—period.

If you don't like living in a free country with a secular government set up to ensure that everyone gets treated equally (at least in principle), regardless of what minority they may be in, then you might find Iran or one of those other desert regimes more to your liking—you know, the kind that still continues in your old "historical" tradition of crazy, fear-based control. Our founders had already experienced the nightmare of a religion-based government (which you seem to want back) and decided to try something better. Check it out.

And let me just mention that homosexuality is not unnatural, as animal species express sexuality in a spectrum of be haviors; nor is it a "lifestyle" that you can change like a hairdo. Its emotional content is inseparable from its sexual content. We also sometimes raise good kids (who are usually heterosexual!).

What people do with their own lives, bodies and minds (as long as they don't cause provable harm to others) is up to them—you know, like real adults, real Americans—instead of relying on an inhuman nanny-state of the worst kind: your kind.

Timothy Brittain, Chula Vista

Join us in the now

Wow, there is so many things wrong with Mark Peter's letter in the Aug. 14 issue that it's hard to know where to start.

Alright, let's start with the "gay people are some of my best friends" comment. I'm sorry, Mr. Peter, they may be your friends but you are certainly not theirs. If you were, you would not be describing who they are as deviant and wrong. As for the free-speech argument, just because someone has the right to free speech does not mean that they are immune from criticism.

Contrary to your argument, there has been homosexuality historically and in nature. As for usurping the will of the citizens of California, how about all of the out-of-state money that was behind Prop. 8? Additionally, we should not be voting on any citizen's civil rights. As for your friend who was molested, I would hope someone suggested counseling; molestation does not make you gay, any more than it makes someone straight.

Our society is becoming more accepting and, hopefully, less bigoted. I suggest you join us in the 21st century.

Lenora Dody, Hillcrest

Keep the engine running

There's no point in supporting neighborhood-oriented action if you kill the goose that lays the gold that you need to pay for it!

JFK knew that, which is why the agenda he left behind emphasized two big initiatives—one to strengthen civil rights, the other to cut taxes. He knew that unless the country was made strong for business, the revenue wouldn't come in to pay for all the programs he wanted to start. LBJ got Congress to pass both bills; the tax cut ushered in one of the biggest economic booms in all American history, and that enabled LBJ to do the Great Society (for good or ill—but that's another story).

So, for heaven's sake, CityBeat, don't do a number on Todd Gloria or Nathan Fletcher if they try to keep business strong in San Diego ["Editorial," Aug. 28].

It's not a win-lose proposition! Even Toni Atkins (at Voice of San Diego's Politifest event) noted that we have to take care of the "economic engine" (I believe those were her exact words) that generates the revenues we need to take care of the disadvantaged. If she can keep a level head on her shoulders, so can you!

Amy Roth, Cortez Hill

Defending Decker

I feel compelled to respond to Jean Loring's Aug. 28 letter about Edwin Decker:

Despite Mr. Decker's genesis from the local bar scene, he possesses keen powers of observation and a talent for turning a memorable phrase or putting together a forceful, cogent argument, not an easy feat to pull off. Whether he formally studied writing or this is a natural talent, his columns are always logical and well thought out, generally thought-provoking and not focused on piss, puke and poop, unlike some writers.

J. Frank Webster, El Cajon 

Send letters to


See all events on Wednesday, Dec 7