After reading Julia Hinckley's letter, "Reader says perversions don't belong in classroom," (Oct. 24) I was put off by the way she presented her point.

If Hinckley wanted to seem credible in her support of the Religious Right, it seems a poor choice to offer an argument riddled with fallacy. Stating that Jen Winberry's aspiration in life is to corrupt children failed to make any valid point.

Hinckley labels homosexuality a perversion and brands homosexuals as having a "fallen nature," yet she is quick to declare herself as not being hateful. I wonder whether Hinckley is aware of the definition of "hate." Ultimately this argument should deal with equality but has turned into a battle of one-upmanship held in a mudslinging arena. Attempting to teach children about the world around them promotes tolerance, instead of advocating hate or acceptance. Tolerance is what the United States is supposed to be based on.

It's ironic to read things where one claims to "know what's right, natural, and godly" and in the same breath instruct a certain population to quit forcing their views on others. Directing people of various religious and political beliefs to adhere to so-called Christian values is in essence forcing the views of one group on others as well.

Hinckley has undeniably strong feelings on the matter, but unfortunately they muddied her argument. I'd suggest making an attempt to base conservative arguments in fact, not the Bible. And to look up the definitions of "hate" and "irony." Maybe throw "tolerance" in there too.