Reader finds Boyd’s letter perplexing
Email
Print
Letter to Editor
Share
I am writing with regard to Neil Boyd’s letter last week equating tolerance for gay marriage and acceptance of artificial turf. I find it extremely puzzling that such a well respected academic would choose to make such a poorly reasoned argument public. I have previously held Mr. Boyd’s opinions, especially those concerning drug prohibition, in high regard, but I must say that I find this particular offering of his confusing to say the least. In my opinion Mr. Boyd’s choosing to make this public has displayed an error in judgement that brings dishonour to his position as an academic.
Mr Boyd’s analogy falls apart when he implies that being gay is a choice, in the same way that choosing AT is a choice. At this point, scientific concensus would seem to indicate that being gay is kind of natural. A certain part of the population always seems to skew that way, and always has. There is no amount of advertising by any gay rights group that is going to increase their numbers. You’re either born gay, or you’re not. Period. Artificial turf, on the other hand, is entirely about choice. Unlike homosexuality, artificial turf is a crime against nature and should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form.
Robert Bailey
v2
