To the editor:

I would like to start with a proverb. A wise Chinese man once said, “The greatest form of tolerance is to tolerate the intolerant.”

In keeping with the freedom of speech day that the Daily so greatly espouses, I felt I must write a letter.

The so-called defenders of liberty, the Iowa State Daily columnists, seem to think it their duty to remind all of us little people who call Iowa State our school that views of alleged mainstream variety are not to be challenged, because people who do are extreme haters or sexists, bigots, racists or, even worse, Republicans.

What brought about my banter was the discussion about homosexuals and the Daily’s coverage of the events of Awareness Week.

My philosophy on the gays is this: I don’t care. I do not have a hating bone in my body. It really does not matter to me that some people are gay, until they shove it in my face.

Don’t go into a Freudian in-depth analysis of this philosophy, because you really are not good at it. There is no underlying hate for a person here, just disgust for homosexual acts based on my moral and ethical beliefs.

I have never hated the person, just despised the actions that one does. The argument that homosexuals make is that it is a part of them and that disliking the gayness about them in turn means that you hate them.

I am sorry, but that argument is seriously flawed. Homosexuality is a choice. My proof for this is that as humans, we all have homosexual tendencies. Every single one of us does. Only homosexuals act on them. Many of us repress these urges by the Id and lead normal lives.

This said, I must go back to the idea of complete tolerance for every choice that humans decide, which is the apparent idea behind liberalism.

Complete tolerance is extremely wrong. We as a society can never tolerate certain acts, such as murder and rape. Not to put homosexuality in the same arena as these heinous crimes, but it is my belief that it, too, should not be tolerated.

This does not make me a hate-monger, but just a logical citizen expressing my beliefs. This belief is based on moral and ethical issues, which I will not discuss because that would be a tangent, and this letter is not about them.

There are many acts that should not be tolerated and people who support this intolerance should not be labeled and ostracized because they do not accept the “mainstream” liberal ideal.

What acts that would fall under society’s intolerance “principle” is a subject of debate, and I am not qualified to answer it, but I am extremely qualified to have an opinion about it. That qualification comes from being an American citizen, and I should not be attacked for having these beliefs. They are just as valid as the opposite.

I must commend James Long, Mark Davis and Nathan Swanson. They did not deserve the criticism and the judgment they received from Friday’s columnists just because they exercised their right.

The suggestion about substituting “black” for “homosexual” is completely unjust, because it insinuates that these men are racists.

My letter is an attack on no one, nor should it be interpreted that way. It is a careful criticism of the Daily columnists on Friday. They are certainly entitled to their opinion, and it’s their right to print it. I felt that it was my duty to do my part and to defend what I believe are the “correct” beliefs from intolerance and hatred.

Vic Amoroso

Freshman

History