Good article. I'm glad this ran in The Daily.

I agree with Brian.

Good job, Casey. This reads a lot better than the Times story, which seems really choppy for some reason.

I'm proud to have worked at The Daily this past quarter, and I'll miss you guys!

With all due respect, most of John Fay's argumentation is *not* valid. "Why not bestiality (as a form of marriage)" he asks.

Uh, John, how about the fact that an animal can't say "I do" or comprehend the concept of marriage? The rest of his argument pretty much falls into the same fallacious reasoning.

I think we all agree censorship is wrong. The newspaper, however, has an obligation to only allow opinions that have some basic measure of intelligence and reason. Unfortunately Fay's commentary had neither.

I think the daily's editorial staff really missed the point and paid for it. They allowed their paper, OUR paper, for a moment, to become a mouth-piece, a promotion of some of the oldest stereotypes of homosexuality: it being a psychological disorder, it being a precursor to deviant and unnatural unions. I wonder if the staff would have allowed an opinion piece regarding the educational inferiority of African-Americans or the inability of cultural integration by Latinos in the US. These two are equally offensive stereotypes and have been used to marginalize groups of people who have not fit the model of what it means to be the "standard": White, male, Christian, middle-class, and HETEROSEXUAL. I'm proud of our Senate and agree with their resolution demanding an apology from the Daily's editorial staff. They really blew it.

ps....Tyrone... Gays and Christians aren't mutually exclusive, let's remember that.

Brian,
As Kyle clearly said in his speech, we are not demanding an apology. And as for "sensorship [sic] plain and simple" - we're not asking for it. Nor are we asking for Censorship, if you're wondering. Engaging in an intelligent dialogue is exactly what we want.

Also, do you honestly think any of us are worried about "losing the debate" on gay marriage to a columnist whose idea of a logical argument is-
"Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment."
Seriously?! Give me a break. The reasoning in that column was about as intellectually intimidating as that of the average 3rd-grader.

I can only presume that John Fay had an oppressive, religious upbringing in which sex is dirty and bad, and gay sex is even nastier (as it cannot be for procreation). If anyone needs therapy, it is not the happy gay and lesbian couples he fears, but people like Mr. F. who obsess about the sex lives of others. As far as I am concerned, between consenting adults, I don't give a diddly damn who you sleep with, as long as you don't sleep with my husband. Let gays and lesbians make love and marry to their heart's content and quit obsessing about their private lives - it doesn't affect you at all. It is none of your business.

arla's leaving? 1 down, 12 to go.

Students for a Hate-Free Daily is a stupid idea because while you're out having a bunch of feel good rallies and patting each other on the back, the amount of times you're going to hear Sarah Jeglum apologize remains the same: 0.

She patiently sat up in her office with her sneering condescension and told every one at that rally that she doesn't give a fuck what you think. She doesn't give a fuck what anybody on campus thinks. She's going to keep right on pulling the same shit's she's pulled this quarter for the next 6 months. So while you guys keep defending your high minded idealism and your abhorrence of censorship, we still have a lunatic in control of our newspaper who still does not, nor will she ever, give a shit what you think.

Thank you.

Yes, there are many ignorant standpoints out there about civil rights issues, but a proposition didn't just pass that takes away rights from those groups. It would obviously do no service to the community to bring up offensive arguments for no reason, but proposition 8 passing shows that there is still much divisiveness on the issue. Thanks to the article running an organized response has occurred, and education on the issue is now a top priority on campus. I wouldn't assumes the decision to publish the piece was thoughtless and reckless. Even if it was, the overall result has been highly beneficial and positive. I think the way this article talked about the rally is proof of that (assuming that's what actually happened and there's no journalistic slant occurring here.)

Blame the editors.

The John Fay article was just another in a series of poorly written, offensive and badly argumentated articles published by the Daily. Free speech is one thing, but if a piece does not articulate its point clearly, the editors are not doing their job. The Fay article was full of flawed reasoning, and good journalism, no matter the view expressed, should be based on some rational line of thought. I wish such a principle drove the Daily editors in their work.

The Daily relies heavily upon columnists for its appeal; columnists that have significant restriction upon the length of their articles, with no real space to develop a complex argument. The entire model encourages blurbism, and the editor is using this fact to generate controversy as a substitute for legitimate interest.

This is not to say that what happened is not a "real story", but there are news stories that need to be pursued now - a catastrophic shortfall in public money available for Public School and Higher Ed - and a host of ethical, political and economic issues associated with it. Who is going to lose out....let me guess, the marginalized, underrepresented plebs? How about that? Who, What, How, When, and, most importantly, Why? Remember? journalism? What about the endowment? What is going on in Olympia?

The Daily should be a laboratory for students to develop these skills which are more necessary now, in the age of blogs and anonymous venting. Lose half your column-inches in the opinion pages and sent your folks out to ferret out stories that exist below the surface.

(Polite applause)

Btw, it was an OPINION piece. This whole fake outrage over The Daily publishing it is a bunch of BS.

Tolerance is truly a one way street I guess.

12/06/08

There is no place for hatred against anyone and that means for the Disabled, L.G.B.T. Community or anyone of any Race, Color, Creed or Sex. It is way over due to think it makes you a bigger person for the lack of self worth to be allowed to hate someone else for their ignorance towards their fellow person. I have had published a quote of mine and anyone is welcome to use my quote anytime they want to.

"Emperor George W. Bush and his Dick as in shoot your best friend in the face Cheney have and continue to cause the 'Daily' Suffering and Deaths of the American Poor, Disabled, L.G.B.T. Community, Senior Citizens, Children, Veterans and the Unemployed by Economic Deprivation. It leaves no finger prints at the crime scene." Quote by: Retired National Outreach Chairperson Officer Thomas A. Porter D.P.O. MED. RET. A.P.V. National Paralyzed and Disabled Law Enforcement Association.

Hatred is a huge waste of time but one that is learned at home when growing up and not something taught in school. Unless you go to a private school thats agenda is founded on hatred It is way over do to stop the hatred and denying anyone the right to marry who they are in love with. We have many misguided Americans that are members of Cult Religions and Hate Groups. They have been brainwashed to think in a negative direction and not by a democracy ruled as a true republic. As a person of Faith I find only Love and not Hatred to live by in this journey and is the foundation of any great Faith. To have any other type of thought against another human life in my book is criminal. That is why I have been and continue to support a 'Real Hate Crimes Bill' in all 50 States and by our Federal Government for the Disabled and the L.G.B.T. Community in America. I also support the right for any Man and Woman to marry and any Man and Man to marry and any Woman and Woman to Marry. With 50% of all Hetrosexual Marriages in America failing for decades I do not feel their is any agenda to show Hetrosexual Marriages have a patent on Marriage. I also realize there is no Institution of Marriage in America. If anyone knows where this Institution is I would like to know their address. Nor do I feel it is anyones right to deny anyone from marrying the one they love in this part of the joruney. If anyone who hates would take that energy to care and love your fellow person you would have an amazing life to enjoy. The rewards would be priceless.

@28

Jai, the gay equality argument was run on the same page as the offensive one. It was a point-counterpoint with both the supporting position and the anti position.

So many people state that "they should have run a positive article too"... The Daily did, no one cares that they published a pro argument though, all they see is that The Daily is clearly homophobic.

People see what they want.

Rice's quote does not seem to fit with the rest of the article:
“We do not promote censorship. Our group believes that the public should be informed of all sides of issues..."

What better way to allow the public to be informed about "all sides of the issue" than by letting different views be written in a section of the paper marked "Opinion"?

And wait a second. What exactly was the point of this rally, if not to shut up John Fay, and people who hold similar views about homosexuality?

Oh, and one final point: can a piece as emotionally invocative as John's truly fall into the category of "badly written"? Personally, I think not.

There are no counter arguments.

It was bigoted, non-factual, illogical, fallacious, and poorly written.

And the lack of a good editor or sound judgment at the Daily showed.

But, that's the opinion of this Lifetime Alumni.

Will:
Alumnus*

The actual counter arguments have been presented over and over again in letters and comments. Here's a summary:

1.The slippery slope argument. Fay argues when we become more permissive of A (homosexuality) we then become more permissive of B (sex with animals and children). This argument ignores issues of consent and the interests of all parties involved. Homosexual adults are capable of consent. Inherent in pedophilia and bestiality is harm as one party exerts considerably more power over the other. It is not an issue of legality, it is an issue of avoiding exploitation and suffering. We tolerate consensual heterosexual sex, but not rape for the same reason.

Socially we have little reason to believe the slippery slope argument as well. Alcohol is a drug of addiction that is legal and culturally celebrated. But its legalization and acceptance hasn't lead to the legalization and cultural acceptance of other drugs of addiction like heroin, meth, or crack.

2.Fay argues that marriage is a christian institution and that the state must defer to the church definition when defining civil marriage. The argument against that is that civil marriage exists independently of the church. One doesn't need to be married in a church or by clergy. Furthermore, the state allows divorce, has no laws against adultery, and recognizes marriages conducted in faiths other than Christianity-- including paganism and satanism, faiths that are antithetical to Christianity. Marriage does not enjoy a special position in civil law that is defined by any one church.

3. Marriage is reserved for couples who plan to begin a biological family. While its nice to encourage marriage when children are involved the state has no precedent to enshrine this into law. married couples may adopt children that aren't theirs biologically, infertile couples are permitted to marry, laws regrading obligations to biological children by their parents are not dependent on marriage, single people and unmarried people may have children or adopt and state marriage is in no way a contract with the state to have children.

Sarah R,
Thank you for responding with actual argument. I mean it.

Let's talk about your point 1. You object to bestiality and pedophilia because of the lack of consent. We all tend to accept that argument, but on what basis do you assert that a minor, say a 14 year old, isn't capable of consent? If a psychological test could show that a 14 year old girl possessed the capacity for consent, would you approve her decision to enter a sexual relationship with an adult male?

But that's an easy one. What about incest? Say a brother and a sister are overcome with sexual desire. Assume they are sterile so there is no chance of children. Do you disapprove of this relationship? Why?

I am not making a slippery slope argument. I am asking you to inspect your own moral judgments and see if there is perhaps something more than science behind them.

The promoters of same-sex marriage disallow any argument that isn't based on the principles of harm or fairness, which can be measured objectively. Arguments based on tradition are excluded categorically, and they are characterized as mere excuses for prejudice. But we use tradition, or more precisely in this case, a sense of purity, to make moral judgments all the time.

I acknowledge that science must inform our judgments. This is the case with miscegenation laws: there is no reason to prevent individuals of different races from marrying.

But when overturning several millenia of tradition, concerning an institution that is fundamental to the civilization, isn't fair for society to place the burden of proof on the plaintiffs?

Let's admit that same-sex marriage is a new notion, and one that has to be justified. The argument is that homosexuality is innate and immutable, therefore homosexuals are an identity group, and that group must have equal rights. There is some research that suggests that this is true. There is some research that suggests it is not. The burden of proof is on those who want to jettison tradition, and my opinion has not been swayed by the evidence.

I believe that this is a sound, principled reason to defend tradition, and calling me a bigot isn't going to change my mind.

Oh yeah, whether or not homosexality is innate (which I take to mean has a biological component) is irrelevant. Even if being homosexual was a choice, how would that be grounds to deny gay marriage? Religion is a choice, can we therefore make laws against marriages in religious institutions which aren't Christian (because gay marriage violates "christian" marriae, as has been argued here)? Outlaw Islamic, Hindu, or Satanist weddings?

Sarah,

We're making progress! First of all, thanks for recognizing that I'm not bigot. This article is about a rally against "homophobia and hate". I don't condone hate or bigotry, and I don't support same sex marriage. I hope you rembember this, because mobs like the subject of this article (and the vast majority of online commentators) tend not to recognize such nuances.

You make a good effort at logical consistency, but you are dodging. You assert that "Something is a moral issue when it has to do with suffering". You thus acknowledge that a consensual adult/child sexual relationship is "icky" but not immoral. So, will you go on the record now endorsing sexual relationships between a brother and a sister? Polyamory? Bestiality, if the animal initiates the activity?

Understand that I don't believe that you actually endorse these behaviors. I believe that there is more to your own moral judgment than simply avoiding suffering. I'm trying to get you to recognize that.

So are you OK with consensual incest? Why not?

"...morality cannot be reduced to arguments about avoiding harm. Our emotional moral responses to these ideas are part of what makes us human. They are valuable."

"Obviously the light of reason can inform our moral judgments. This is the case with racism, where our visceral distrust of "the other" can be overcome with better understanding."

How do you respond to the racist who opposes interracial marriage, claiming they don't want to socially endorse it says "this is how I feel and my emotional response is valid"?

If you want to try to paint me into a corner, fine. Any mutual sexual relationship where no one is hurt is moral. However, such an instance is virtually impossible with young children and most of the time with teens and adults. Because it isn't practical to evaluate every 16 year old girl with a 20 year guy relationship for exploitation, its illegal.

Beastiality can never be fairly examined because we can't talk to the animal involved.

I also don't think polygamy and incest are inherently immoral.

Happiness and suffering are tangible things which can be universalized for humans (and animals) so why not base morals on them? It sure would help us avoid the tragic, visceral reactions we have against people who look different than ourselves.

I'm uncomfortable with the argument against gay marriage because it erases gender distinctions. What exactly are the consequences of gender distinctions that our society would lose if we did in fact erase them? Also, how would a law ignorant of gender effect heterosexuals? I certainly don't check the municipal code before I kiss my boyfriend or go out wearing a dress.