It never ceases to amaze me that in a college atmosphere, where individuals are generally considered to be enlightened, people like Christopher L. Tynes (Don't Give Rights, March 22 The Daily Collegian) choose to pen letters to the editor that reveal such absolutely ignorant and blatantly homophobic attitudes.

These Happy Valley fascists attempt to justify their own self-righteous, narrow-minded reasons as to why gay men and lesbians don't deserve protection from discrimination, regardless of how off base their arguments really are.

They would like us to believe that they are, in fact, quite logical and sound in their assertions, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

In his letter, Tynes states that homosexuals are a behavioral group and goes on to imply that, as such, they are morally inferior to heterosexuals. However, upon inspection, we find that in no way does this argument hold true.

To begin, the idea of gays and lesbians as a group set apart from others by their behavior is disputable. For instance, a person who has an affectional orientation toward members of his/her own sex but who has never had any sexual activity with a same sex individual is still gay or lesbian.

In the same manner, a heterosexual who has never engaged in sexual activity is still heterosexual.

Quite simply, it isn't behavior that is the separating factor between a heterosexual and homosexual. Rather, it is one's attraction to (non-behavior) rather than sexual activity with (behavior) a person of the same sex that places one in the category of gay or lesbian.

Completely oblivious to the fact that he has already based his entire argument on a fallacy, Tynes then attempts to persuade us in believing that those gays and lesbians who do behave (yes, there are some) in actuality misbehave and are somehow morally suspicious.

In order to accomplish this feat, he takes us on a journey into what ought to be called The Bad Analogy Zone. Here Tynes attempts to equate people whose affectional orientation is gay or lesbian to people who commit adultery and people who steal.

Adultery and stealing, behaviors that involve lying, cheating, deceiving and exploiting others, cannot be likened to an orientation of attraction toward same sex members (again, NOT a behavior). It just does not make sense.

In a last-ditch effort to save his crumbling argument, Tynes attempts to force his analogy to work by vaguely hinting that the homosexual in his comparison is a child molester.

However, any educated person who is attempting to construct a logical argument knows that one cannot attribute the behavior of a small percentage of a group to the group as a whole.

The main objective of Tynes' far-fetched analogies is to obscure the fact that mature, consensual homosexual relationships are as valid as and "morally" equivalent to heterosexual relationships. When both are based on love, trust and the other characteristics that make a relationship special there is, in essence, no difference between the two.

All in all, Tynes' letter is a glaring example of prejudiced propaganda that reflects the pervasive anti-gay bigotry in our society. Bigotry that not only manifests itself in the form of homophobic letters to the editor, but also in the form of anti-gay harassment, violence and discrimination. These are the real reasons why gays and lesbians need to be protected by legislation.

Perhaps if Tynes would open his eyes to the reality of homophobic America he would see that it is the existence of closed-minded ignoramuses like himself that necessitate gay-affirmative protective measures like a fair housing ordinance.