The Right Way to Debate Politics

There's a great letter from David R. Carlin, a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, in this morning's Providence Journal. It concerns a letter that Dr. Michelle Cretella wrote to the Journal on homosexuality being a developed trait. I think that much of today's experimentation with homosexuality is developed by social pressures, much of it coming from the gay community, but I have friends who are gay who were gay from the time they became aware of their sexuality - I and they believe they were born gay. So you could say I disagree with Dr. Cretella. But after Dr. Cretella's letter the ProJo published the usual histrionic replies from the gay community that caused me to question if I even wanted to be associated with their views, even as I agreed with what their premise was - that real homosexuality (not experimentation) is genetic.

Enter Carlin's letter, which we all should listen to. It concerns debating in a way that actually helps your case, rather than hurts it. And it is relevant in every issue we are discussing today, from sexuality to gas prices:

"It is not my habit to offer advice on political strategy to the gay movement, but if it were, I would recommend that they abstain from personal attacks, like the ones recently made in these pages on Dr. Michelle Cretella. Instead of vicious personal attacks, they should engage, if they can, in courteous and reasoned refutation.

For her arguments, present counter-arguments; for her evidence, present counter-evidence. Mere personal abuse might be very gratifying for the abuser and his friends, but it does little to persuade neutral observers. If anything, it tends to convince neutrals that the abusers have no rational defense to offer for their views.

DAVID R. CARLIN

Newport"