I too am appalled with the now infamous letter. Yet, I find myself appalled for another reason. I believe most of the responses to Chris were united in one thing: a desire for tolerance and acceptance.

How can we preach tolerance and acceptance when we, including the administration, call Chris a close minded bigot intent on "deliberately berat(ing) and harm(ing) fellow students?"

The Collegian has allowed Chris the label of bigot, but the fact is that he speaks for thousands of student who do not want to be forced with the idea that homosexuality is innocent because you say it's OK.

Michael Royers' letter hit the nail on the head when he said "By attacking Mr. Kovalchick you have become exactly what you seek to eliminate: an intolerant bigot," although I would stress the word intolerant. And how do all these recent letters defend homosexuality?

By saying homosexuals are good and decent or honest people. What is good? What is decent?

Do you mean that they float through life working not too offend or hurt anyone else? Maybe it means they are friendly and accept everybody and everything, unless it conflicts with their own ideas.

I would agree with you then, and I would also add the vast majority of America to that list. Still, what is good? Who can define good?