The slippery rhetoric of bigotry and extreme views often incorporates specious arguments and Nathan Giede's opinion piece (Unable to fully embrace, July 15) is a perfect example of this. To claim that a particular question has not 'been settled' in order to support an argument is just sly obfuscation. In this case the issue is matters of sexual identity, but you could easily substitute global warming, the benefits of vaccination, evolution, etc.
It's easy to see through Giede's dissembling: what he is really saying is that the issue of whether or not we should discriminate against any member of the LGBTQ community should still be on the table. Seriously?
Giede worries that managing editor Neil Godbout may fire him for this piece; I worry that he won't. The Citizen is too good a paper to provide an outlet for such benighted viewpoints.
Kenneth Ogilvie
Prince George
