Another Week, Another E-Mail of the Weak
To the editors of Delco Times:So this is gymstar's idea of "respectfully" disagreeing with me, by calling me and my opinions vile, homophobic, ignorant, bigoted, and hateful. And also by asking my editors to censor and silence me and my "hateful rants." Gee, "gymstar," thanks for the respect.
I am writing to express how extremely disappointed I was with the
Sunday Feb 13 2011 edition of Delco Times because of Gil Spencer's
bigoted and ignorant article. I am normally a proud Delco resident and
avid reader of the Delco Times, but Spencer's column made me embarassed (sic)
to even live in the same area as Mr. Spencer and also made me
reevaluate purchasing this newspaper. I am not going to spend money on
or support a newspaper that allows Mr. Spencer to write not one but two
full-page articles in which he spews his ignorant, homophobic, and
downright vile opinions. I am all for free speech, but Mr. Spencer has
clearly crossed a line when his articles defend pedophiles and lump
them in the same category as homosexuals. In the Feb 13 edition, he
mentions that he has received other letters from readers who are
appalled at what he has wrote, but he does not address WHY those
readers were upset. Instead, he belittles the person for a spelling
mistake. Mr. Spencer is ignorant enough to not know the definition of
"sexual orientation", as he believes that could include pedophiles, so
why didn't anyone just give this guy a dictionary or some education
instead of letting him write 2 articles about it?? This is not simply a
matter of not agreeing with someone. Of course I, and many other
people, completely disagree with Mr. Spencer's beliefs that it is fine
to discriminate against homosexuals and that ordinances making this
kind of discrimination illegal are "unnecessary" and "agenda-driven".
It is clear Mr. Spencer is uneducated and homophobic, and I
respectfully disagree with him, however any respect I would have for
him was thrown out the window when he started defending pedophiles,
belittling readers, and comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. In the
future, if you'd like to keep readers and remain a respectable and
unbiased newspaper, please do not allow Mr. Spencer to continue such
ignorant and hateful rants! Myself, my friends, and my family will not
support a paper that runs hate speech.
For the record, I did not compare pedophiles to homosexuals. I compared them to heterosexuals. Read the original column.
I did not "belittle" an anonymous reader and commenter for a spelling mistake, although I did find it amusing that someone who accused me of being homophobic confused pediophilia (the sexual attraction to dolls) with pedophilia.
Furthermore, I do not think "it is fine to discriminate against homosexuals..." I just don't believe such discrimination to the extent that it exists should be criminalized. And because Haverford is hardly a bastion of anti-gay hatred what's the point? (I explain the point here.)
As for my "ignorance" in not knowing the definition of sexual orientation, I still contend the issue is far from settled in behavioral psychology and/or etymology. The definitions of terms change all the time. I freely admitted to having overlooked the definition of "sexual orientation" buried down in the Haverford ordinance. It still, however, amazes (and amuses) me that in criticizing my column,the Haverford commissioners failed to clearly state the language of their own ordinance in defense of it.
At least when the Haverford Five respectfully misrepresented my position, calling it vile, bizarre, ignorant and warped, they had the guts to sign their names. In pointing this out, I respectfully acknowledge gymstar's right to feel "belittled."