Proposition 8
November 25, 2008
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
By John Fay
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
Few issues of cultural importance in America long escape the gaze of a Simpsons’ episode.
In the episode titled “There’s Something About Marrying,” the city of Springfield legalizes gay marriage, prompting Homer Simpson to become an Episcopal priest in order to reap lucrative benefits for conducting such unions.
Homer very quickly realizes that he could make even more money in nuptials if he is less discriminating, and by the end of the episode he’s proceeding to marry the Sea Captain to the mermaid-shaped masthead of his ship.
We laugh about scenes like this and say they could never happen; of course, that’s what our grandparents were saying about gay marriage a generation ago.
Now, I realize the gay marriage issue surrounding the California voters’ decision on Proposition 8 is extremely emotional for a lot of people, and I respect their difference of opinion, but let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis.
The decision of California’s Supreme Court in May to legalize gay marriage, which Prop. 8 overturned, was extremely rash. There is nothing constitutional about gay marriage on a state or federal level. For gay marriage to even fit within the court’s jurisdiction, it must have some basis in constitutionality.
Yet the court argued that forbidding marriage rights to gays is discrimination, “like a person’s race or gender.” Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.
Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied.
Now, there are several major problems with legalizing gay marriage. Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?
Also, the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America. Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.
There’s also a social consideration. The potential of open homosexuality for creating social dysfunction has been made manifest in the protests against Prop 8 since Nov. 4.
Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs.
This sad reaction illustrates the danger of gay marriage. Now, this is not to suggest that all or even most supporters of gay marriage have acted inappropriately.
Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others.
It’s hard to tell someone they should respect basic social rules — such as not harassing people for honest disagreement — when they already reject other customs, such as traditional marriage.
So, let’s think long and hard about this before overturning a tradition that has been in place for 2,000 years.
If traditional marriage is overturned, it won’t be the last tradition to be abolished by our government, and some of those will be ones none of us want to lose.
Reach columnist John Fay at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Proposition 8 disappointing
By Sarah Gaither
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Proposition 8 disappointing
It is difficult for me to express how profound a disappointment the passage of Proposition 8 is.
Approved on Nov. 4, Prop. 8 stripped homosexual California couples of their right to marry, defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. As a contrast to the unprecedented election of a black man to the U.S. presidency, the proposition’s passage is a reminder of how much progress in civil rights there is left to be made.
While it is sad to learn that 52 percent of Californians view homosexual love as inherently inferior to heterosexual love, it is outraging and continually baffling that the proposition’s backers see enshrining this prejudice in law as just.
The arguments used to defend the proposition are feeble at best. The argument that marriages are intended for the production of children belies the reality that many heterosexual couples are childless. Are they to be denied the right of marriage too?
The reasoning that heterosexual marriages are the fundamental unit of society and thus deserving of “protection” from untraditional forms of family, is unfounded. Not only does it rely on normative gender assumptions, but it assumes that it is the government’s role to both determine what forms of love and family are acceptable and to enforce them.
A recent parody of this logic has been used in an anti-Prop. 8 ad, which calls to protect traditional marriage by outlawing divorce. With divorce having garnered no such ire from the traditional marriage establishment, the hypocrisy is plain.
Other arguments that claim gay marriage is outside the historical norms of society make the mistake of assuming that the longevity of norms indicates their legitimacy. As Keith Olbermann remarked in his moving commentary on gay marriage, in 16 states interracial marriage remained illegal up until 1967. Only until the United States “redefined” marriage did it become legal for people of different races to wed.
Then, as now, discrimination against individuals stepping outside the norms of society supports the unjust withholding of rights granted to other citizens. In this light, snide comments made by Prop. 8 supporters that “everyone has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex” are especially off base. I can imagine someone 50 years ago arguing that “everyone has the equal right to marry members of their own race.”
Perhaps most significantly, the exclusion of homosexuals from the right of marriage wholly breaches the division between church and state by allowing religious beliefs to determine state policy, however unconstitutional they may be.
And those who argue that Prop. 8 is justified because it passed with a democratic majority should Google “tyranny of the majority” and consider that a majority of Americans once opposed the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the desegregation of schools.
It’s apparent, given the logical irrationality of the common arguments made against gay marriage, that the support of Prop. 8 is driven not by reason, but by emotion. The sooner that anti-Prop. 8 organizers realize this, the sooner they will rally voters to their cause.
In the anti-Prop. 8 ads aired prior to Election Day, there was a remarkable absence of gay couples. By not emphasizing the common commitment, humanness and love of homosexual couples, organizers missed a key opportunity.
It is easy to forget in a relatively open-minded city like Seattle that the vast majority of people have little to no contact with same sex partners.
Thus, their conception of gay relationships are composed almost entirely of conjecture.
For this reason, it’s key that pro-same-sex-marriage efforts, in tandem with battling this discrimination in the courts, encourage understanding. They must emphasize an emotionally-based understanding of these couples’ experiences.
That is what this is about — the universal human quest for love unbounded by gender and unhindered by law.
Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@dailyuw.com.
654 Comments
This is sad drivel from a newspaper that is tops in the nation. For a christian, you sure will be spending a long time in hell.
Homosexuality, despite your unsubstantiated claims, is not an emotional condition. It is becoming increasingly clear that homosexuality may be linked to many factors including: genetics, brain structure and social and prenatal environments. Linking homosexuality to emotional conditions is an obvious attempt to discredit homosexuality as being deviant behavior and therefore ineligible for the serious inquiry necessary to argue against discriminatory marriage laws. It seems your opinion is an emotional condition and something that needs to be dealt with through an extensive education on scientific research methods. In summation: your comments, sir, are ignorant.
Traditional Christian values are the only thing keeping me from off the sheep.
If The Lord Jesus Christ didn't ride about ancient Rome on a dinosaur preaching about how we should eat his dead body in the form of a cracker and drink his blood in the form of dried grapes, I would suddenly feel attracted to sheep. Because it's completely natural for the human organism to want to boink sheep; it's just that the spirit suppresses that desire.
This is disgraceful. This column makes me ashamed to have wrote for the Daily.
The rally is on Friday.
We should put this too a vote, a third.... a fourth? Keep voting until we reach our conclusion and re-vote when we need to again. So many responses that I imagine people have pointed out the changing face of marriage from 1967 to today, so many responses that don't change the fact that this 'initiative' is not legal.
I do not believe that homosexuals are ready for marriage; my beliefs are based on themselves, the majority made a decision, another majority took that decision away.
My views piss alot of my friends off, they are given when asked, but above all I know that two wrong people are better then one right me.
Checks and balances yes, but please try to focus on the fact that the will of the majority (although misguided) was quashed by the wanting aspects of the few.
This article is an emabarrassment to the Daily, the University of Washington, and most importantly to the students and alumni of the University of Washington! This blatanat display of disregard for the rights of a group of people should not be tolerated. As has been stated by many, it is grossly appalling.
"Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others."
Thank goodness that this is the case! This is probably the most "hopeful" sentence in this entire ridiculous article. I will only be repeating everyone else I'm sure if i begin to express my disgust with this article, so I will just say that equality under law and between citizens will never occur if differences like sexual preference is allowed to be perceived as social deviance.
Please please please continue to break "social norms" to fight oppression.
"Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition...."
Two points:
1. "Race" is arbitrarily defined based on cultural norms. Australian aborigines are black as is Tiger Woods as was Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. They don't share phenotype or ethnicity, but are "black" in their respective countries. In fact, many "black" people in the U.S. today would have been "mulatto," "quadroon" or "octaroon," at various points in history. Race has changed as a definition. Why can't or shouldn't the definition of marriage?
2. If you do believe (homo)sexuality, is "an emotional condition" -- something we have control over and a say in -- why should we offer legal protection against religious discrimination or parenthood? It's illegal to fire someone because they are Christian or Jewish. It's illegal to refuse to hire a woman for being a mother. And yet, those are both identities that we can choose not to have.
Not buying your arguments against gay marriage.
#407,
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Anyone else understand?
There is quite alot of anger comments to this post - isn't the world meant to be tolerant of each other? ( Glad some people picked up the hypocrisy in all of this) All i see is a personal attack on John Fay for his views... don't we all have the right to be open about our views and not be slandered and abused for it? Sometimes i feel its the pro-gays that are intolerant of anyone else's opnion and will immediatly abuse whoever does not agree with their views...
I agree with John Fays view. There i said it. *runs away quickly from throwing stones*
To all the opponents of gay marriage who use the argument that marriage should not include homosexuals because it never has before. Or another way some people put it: Marriage has 'always' been defined as one man and one woman. Since when does the mere existence of something justify that it must stay that way. Read the CASC ruling In Re: Marriages. If this were the case, nothing in this world would ever change, we'd be living in the stone age. Even if "Prop 8" doesn't get overturned (which it will) the 18,000 marriages already performed will definately remain valid. So primarily, it will be a 'test run' for gay marriage in this state. People will see how these 36,000 people will have no detrimental effects on human life here in CA. Once this is demonstrated, there will be no logical argument against gay marriage. I agree that not ALL of those who voted for Prop 8 are bigots, but quite a few of them are. Those who still oppose gay marriage after this "test run" will then be underscored as the true bigots and they will be the minority. Capische?
To Kay C -
I'm just going to copy and past what I wrote before because I think it sums up the problem with "all you (you as in Kay C) see". excuse the harsh tone in it, it was directed towards others.
To all the pro John Fayers who are lashing back at the original backlash against John Fay's article:
The themes I see are roughly all the same, something about arguing for anit-prop 8s to open their minds and try to accept more than one point of view, and something about being happy with what we have. This is ridiculous, you're making an argument that our argument for having an open mind is close minded! Hypocrisy at it's worst.
Religion is a choice, and apparently to all you folks, so is homosexuality, right? Apparently you're dismissing the science.. So why should the US gov't give a damn one over the other? Because we were founded on Christianity? We were also founded on slave-holders and a voting system that excluded women. Goddamn, you are the ones who should open your minds. I thought Fay's article was bad enough, but the counter-argument to provoked anger is even worse.
"If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?"
Is this a joke? Do you actually believe the trash you're spewing? This entire article reads as if it were written by a 7th grader going through a stage of teenage angst.
fags are gay
Sheepshaggers unite!
This opinion piece may not be the view of everyone (clearly), but that is the point; to express his opinion! I hope all who dissigree with his views write to the Daily, the PI, the Seattle Times...
A bit of my opinion. I think the government should stay out of marriage for everyone. Why did it get involved ever? Why not have the state (government) give out civil unions to all. Leave the marriages to religion!
First, I disagree with Fay's thesis. I am not persuaded by his arguments, which I believe are factually flawed.
However, he has a right to this opinion, however tortured I think his arguments might be.
I agree with TreeBeard that "marriage" should be left to the church.
And I'm saddened to read many of the comments in this thread. I don't automatically assume that someone who disagrees with me is being "hateful."
For the record, the President-elect of the United States does not support gay marriage, either. Does that make him a hate-monger? (Note: neither does he support DOMA.)
YOU ARE BEING SUCH A FAGGOT!
My main issue with this is not that you're obviously a bigot, but that for a argumentative reporter, you got your facts wrong.
Ask any biologist, and they will tell you that race is not a "biological state" as you suggested. In the previous turn of the century, the American government used so-called "scientific race theory" to pass discriminatory laws, but the scientific consensus now agrees that there is nothing scientific about race.
I disagree with you, but I can respect a well-versed argument. Yours is not one that I can respect.
Hi! My name's Norman. I'm normal. I'm a good christian boy who slips up sometimes and (oops) beats the shit out of my girlfriend. But I give a dollar to the real change vender outside of safeway (even though he talks about change a little too much for my liking.) I feel REALLY bad whenever I walk by the Nickelodeons... and at least I'm not actively destroying society, like gay people are. whoops. I meant gays. Let's dehumanize them a little more.
Anyway, I gotta go watch Chris Hansen catch a pedophile. It helps normalize all the shit I do and make me feel good. Thank god there's someone with the courage to stand up and empower christian, heterosexual men. And God bless the Daily for printing this piece and enabling all the really important maintanence of the status quo.
Anyway, I just hackezored onto Mcsweeneys.net and found a copy of the gay agenda. It's really disturbing stuff.
The Gay Agenda.
By L.
- - - -
7:45 a.m. Alarm rings
8:00 a.m.-8:10 a.m. Take shower
8:15 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Dress and put items into briefcase
8:35 a.m. Leave house
8:45 a.m. Starbucks
9:00 a.m. Arrive at job
12:00 p.m. Lunch with a co-worker. Perhaps Chili's?
12:45 p.m. Return to job
1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Meeting
5:00 p.m. Leave work
5:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. Work out in gym
7:00 p.m. Return home
7:20 p.m. Prepare and eat dinner
8:00 p.m. Watch Law & Order on TNT
11:00 p.m. Go to sleep
- - - -
"Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied."
I absolutely CANNOT BELIEVE that the author of this piece has referred to being homosexual as a "problem."
Being homosexual is not a problem. It is not a choice. Research (not to mention my own personal experience) supports these conclusions.
I am all in favor of presenting an opinion piece, including a piece that dissents on gay marriage. I am NOT, however, in favor of an opinion piece that is clearly divisive, strongly inflammatory, and unabashedly prejudice.
Shame on Mr. Kay and shame on the editors that condone (and, in fact, have defended) such bigotry.
Intolerance is intolerable.
You know what's funny. All you who bash Fay's argument and then bash Fay. ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about making arguments knows that you don't make ad hominem attacks. "Moron", "Religious Fanatic", "bigot" all qualify as ad hominem attacks. At least that's what I learned from my classes here.
You know what's ironic? All those people who believe that we should not force our opinion on other people and should allow for basic freedoms such as marriage...then attack John Fay for even giving an OPINION. Apparently "freedom of speech" only applies when you AGREE with what's being said. By the way, have fun expressing your OPINION and exercising your FREEDOM OF SPEECH at the protest tomorrow. Lucky for you, last time I checked we are still a country that allows FREEDOM OF SPEECH...oh wait, according to many of you, no Freedom of Speech unless you agree with it, right? (My point is that John Fay is repeatedly being attacked AND threatened on this blog for just EXPRESSING HIS OPINION).
You know what's sad? Looking at these blogs and seeing people who are all about tolerance, yet they can't tolerate people who are different from them. That's sad!
I came to UW expecting educated people who share their opinions without FEAR of persecution. I leave UW seeing that at this school we aren't much different from the communist country my parents escaped from so that they could exercise their basic freedoms. Yeah "freedom of speech" was allowed in that country, as long as the government agreed with you. Sound familiar?
Please stop the hatred and allow people to express their opinions.
Feel free to comment!
you're a bigot sir, plain and simple.
Everyone keeps discussing how "Appalling" this article is. What I find appalling is the name calling, use of obscene language, and threats.
This is an OPINION. If you read any real world newspaper like the Seattle Times, PI, New York Times, etc. you will often find several controversial articles in the OPINION sections. I have read a few that could even be considered racist.
The opinion sections of newspapers are there to reflect the opinions of all sorts of people, not just people with the same point of view as the reader. They are also there to encourage people to think about different issues.
I don't agree with a lot the article says, but I'm not angered by it. It didn't call anyone or group of people obscene names like several of the people commenting. If you are angered by it, why not write a rebuttal with supporting facts to the Daily and ask them to publish it?
Also, I don't believe that gays or anyone else should need a certificate to feel they are committed. Have the ceremony. Make the vows. If it is all about love, why do you need the paper?
I think this issue has more to do with the rights given to married couples than anything because a committment doesn't need a law to happen.
If gays truly want the same rights as heterosexual couples who are legally married, then instead of asking for gay marriage to be legalized, as for the right given to married couples as life partners. Who need labels anyways? And besides, the only thing the law gives married people is those rights anyways.
I think that route would be much more successful. Marriage, though it has evolved, has long been a union between a man and a woman with committments before God, and people are going to be very protective of that.
I think that "Marriage" should not even appear in the law books. There should instead be one category... "Civil Union" that includes all people and let people call their committment whatever they want to.
And one request for all of the people making these horrific comments to the writer.... Please define "Freedom of Speech" and where it excludes people whose point of view or opinion might be a bit extreme or different from yours.
thank you
Jen:
I could not have expressed my feelings better than what you said in your comment
Are there really people out there who are so retarded that this needs to be explained to them? All right then, here we go.
Governments get to discriminate against certain groups if there is a legitimate reason for doing so. To cite obvious examples, the government discriminates against blind people because the DMV won't give blind people a driver's license, and the government discriminates against convicted felons in their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The goverment would say there are legimate governmental and societal interests that are served by such discrimination, so it's permissible.
Now, with respect to discrimination against certain groups in marriage:
Why it's permissible to discriminate against polygamists: A primary civil purpose of marriage to promote order in personal legal affairs, such as having one person who can make health decisions for you if you become incapacitated, one person who inherits your property if you die without a will, one person who is equally responsible for your debts and assets as community property, etc., etc. The entire purpose is frustrated when there are competing claims to these rights arising from multiple spouses.
Why it's permissible to discriminate against incestuous relationships: If anybody has every been to Kentucky or taken a look at the British Royal Family, you will understand that incestuous relationships can create some really messed up mutant inbred offspring. The government has a legitimate interest in discouraging the production of such inbred mutants, especially since the government often winds up having to take care of them.
Why it's permissible to discriminate against sheep fuckers: This is just retarded. Marriage is a legally binding contract. Animals don't have the legal capacity to enter into contracts. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Why it's permissible to discriminate against kiddie fuckers: Why the government has a legitimate interest in preventing this should be obvious to anybody with two or more functioning brain cells. But even more fundamentally, see above: Kids don't have the legal capacity to enter into legally binding contracts. To the extent minors get married, such as in the Bristol Palin scenario, the parent or guardian must essentially enter into the contract on the minor's behalf by giving their explicit approval.
Now then, unlike the situations above, can anybody answer this question for me, which I've asked those who oppose same-sex marriage a zillion times and have never had answered:
What legitimate, non-religion-based GOVERNMENT justification does the GOVERNMENT have for discriminating between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in being allowed to marry?
Hint: It doesn't have one.
To #412: the point is that his opinions are ill-informed, poorly worded, and offensive at times. is this the type of article that we want in our newspaper?
He could have easily presented his arguments against gay marriage in a more intelligent and respectful manner. I have much higher standards than this for people who write for newspapers and refuse to believe that everyone's off-the wall/cuff opinions are worthy of being published.
I am not angry at him because he and I disagree on an issue. I am angry because words are meaningful, powerful agents of influence and representation and this kind of ridiculous, bombastic whining DOES NOT represent me as a UW college student.
It's a call for understanding as well as higher standards, #412. And if you read the mission of the group for a "hate-free daily" on facebook, you will see that their mission is respectful--100 times more so than that of this article.
John-
Thank you for exercising your right to free speech. Don't listen to all those that are trying to shut you up. I respect you for taking a stand against gay marriage.
I would recommend you go out more of your house, of your own self, and see different and beautiful things outside our circle of knowledge and comfort, and talk to people, and taste and try things you haven't before. And please refrain us from your writing till you reach somewhere else in this life.
John Fay is doing a great service for all of you who believe in tolerance above all else.
He is allowing you to practice what you preach. Tolerance.
You must be tolerant of his "alternative lifestyle choice" of believing there is something wrong with gay marriage.
You should thank him for the service he is providing to the community.
Wow. This article seriously calls into question the caliber of critical thinking skills taught at the University of Washington!
I go to SPU and even I'm pissed. I'm sorry, but emotional tendencies? as for the "2,000 year old tradition," this tradition has brought divorce rates are at an all time high and they destroy families and negatively affect children of divorced parents. for the love of the family, shouldn't we outlaw divorce?
Being a Christian, i'm not ignorant of how this country was built on prehistoric protestant notions that have become more and more out of date. The goal of a melting pot like American democracy is to integrate people of shapes and sizes. Granted, there are obvious limitations to freedom of sexual expression (such a man-boy relationships), but is the relationship reciprocal? can the second half of the relationship speak for him or her (or it) self?
Are you simply limited marriage to a union created for the purpose of reproduction? has it become so mechanical that you are only thinking efficiency? Obviously, two homosexuals are unable to reproduce but, for God's sake, is that the one and only reason why marriage exists?
i like the comic, by the way, very tastefully offensive. next time, pick a comic that helps the article's point (no matter how bad the point may be), not hurts it.
sad, sad, sad.. parents don't work their entire lives, save money to send their kids to college to get more stupid!....
Nothing hateful with having a religous view on traditional marriage. Calling it hate speech is ridiculous.
Everyone has already commented on the most offensive parts of this article, but since I expected all of that, let me just point out something from the conclusion:
"If traditional marriage is overturned, it won’t be the last tradition to be abolished by our government, and some of those will be ones none of us want to lose."
This kind of conclusion forgoes any logic that Fay appeals to in the beginning of the article. Yes, things change. But in this country, an issue like gay marriage will change by the will of the people. So will any other changes to "tradition" when we begin to recognize something that we don't like in our own history. Being traditional or historical has never been a change-inhibiting factor in the long run, because our ancestors and predecessors weren't perfect, and as time marches on and social climate changes, we are able to see history with more perspective. (abolition of slavery, civil rights, women's rights, anyone?) Fay's final statement is as untrue as it is disempowering to the American people. If "NONE" of us really want to lose these traditions-- they won't be lost. What I think desperate Fay is coping with in this last line is the possibility that maybe--just maybe--people *do* want to see this tradition, along with all other bigoted traditions, abolished. And that's a possibility he doesn't want to acknowledge.
I am quite saddened by the fact that this fellow, allegedly an adult attending an institute of higher learning, hasn't figured out the difference between "consenting" and "non-consenting", as well as the simple legal principles associated with those terms. U of W should be ashamed of their poor teaching practices.
Are you seriously so daft to think that the constitution stops with the 10th amendment? The 14th and 5th amendment pretty clearly spell out a constitutional case of marriage for gays and lesbians. Just because you think it's an emotional "problem" doesn't make it so, and unfortunately your opinion is not shared by the preeminent scientific minds on this topic.
Further, you do realize the California Supreme Court decides based on the California Constitution. The Bill of Rights is in the US Constitution.
The sheer idiocy of your arguments is astounding. I would say you're being sophist with your inane slippery slope argument, but even worse than that you spend most of the article in the realm of simply making things up. Your one and only reference is a Simpson's episode. You show no understanding of the constitutional review process that you unjustly criticize. You ignore the basic tenant of our contractual law system that enforces informed consent. You fail to show any understanding of what constitutes a compelling state interest that would preempt polygamy arguments under the same rational that marriage for gay and lesbians are argued.
I hope you enjoy your long and promising career as a conservative radio pundit. For that is all you're qualified for after producing this drivel.
I had put UW on my short list of schools to apply for grad school. However, if this is the way me and my husband will be treated there I will have to reconsider.
Thank you for publishing this article before the application deadline! You might have saved me some money.
Just so you know Steve, I think you will find the vast majority of people at the UW are very open and tolerant, and in most cases supportive, of equal rights for all people. Don't let a few people cause you to change your mind.
I would recommend taking some remedial High School level English composition classes before attending any grad school
Try "if this is the way my husband and I will be treated" instead of "if this is the way me and my husband will be treated".
I'm just saying that to help you out. Most graduate level professors will expect you to be able to construct a proper sentence.
God Bless.
I thought (hoped) this article was a joke because the person writing it just couldn't be that ridiculous, trying to correlate really weird stuff to Gay Marraige, which wont even seem like a weird concept 10 years from now, when it IS legal. Stop the hate. And to the writer of this article: Go make some homosexual friends. You'd be surprised how bad you feel about yourself when you're basically comparing them to proliferators of beastiality. Although to make it far enough to write an article like this, you probably cant have a conscience. Sad.
Bro, if you do not like girls, like what the fuck bro? This kind of writing would never happen at my school. Stupid Dawgs. HAHA. They like to talk about gays and stuff. In Pullman, were all about that poontang, bro.
Let's stop and think about this. Marriage was around way earlier than the Bible was written and way earlier than the emmergence of Christianity. Why does Christianity get to deem what constitutes a marriage?
Now I'm a smooth-ass playa, ok? I mean, my name is Spoonie Luv...so don't get it twisted...I like women.
But to say Gays cant marry is like saying people from Brazil cannot marry...but see, I like Brazilian women, which would make it not fair to me.
And Mr. John Fay, your name sounds like Gay.
Despite what you might think, removing the hetero restrictions would not leave marriage requirements at just; "that people love each other".
Love has nothing to do with the legal state that is marriage.
You've managed to get attention. And, I suppose in the world of college news, thats enough.
However, not only is your logic deeply flawed, your writing is suspect.
Dont include this in your clippings. Trust me.
I can say it, I have a Hearst.
Aaron, thanks, that is re-assuring. I will probably not remove the school from my list but this article did cause me to re-evaluate!
#441, sorry your pedantic grammar nazism won't work on me. I am well aware of the grammar "rules" and chose to formulate the sentence in that order for effect.
It is amusing how an articulate and educated essay can illicit such an ignorant, close-minded, and hate-filled response. The replies to this article prove once again how liberal bigotry desires to crush even the mention of conservative ideals. Mr. Fay, your article is certainly not the best defense of the institution of marriage, nor does it present a complete case for why gay marriage should not be institutionalized or why the gay lifestyle is wrong; however, I do applaud you for voicing a summary of the conservative perspective on this matter in the face of a world which despises you for it.
I am going to discriminate against you based upon your "emotional condition" of being a christian. Go ahead and change your religion to get your rights back. After all, it's not like being a follower of Christ is a "biological state," right?
Im a junior and since I first started school here the Daily has published many articles on homosexuality and gay marriage. All of them were supporting of homosexuality. This is the first one that goes against it. What is up with you people? Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. What John Fay said has nothing to do with hate. Just an opinion. Most of you that commented here do not sound like University students. The stuff that has been said is embarrassing and I can't believe that I go to school with these kinds of people. I don't see any logic in the responses, just pure hate and foolishness. It's really dumb to accuse a person just because he has a different opinion than you do.
And yes, Im also against gay marriage but I dont go bashing everyone that supports it.
WTF? So we are the ignorant closed minded, hate fillend people?!? We never said homosexuality was a problem...
#450, you just did bash everyone who supports it...
Good lord, John! After reading this, I must come to the conclusion that you are actually more retarded than you are! And that doesn't even make sense (much like your op-ed.)
Oregon State Alum,
Dismissing homosexuality as "a problem that needs to be dealt with" is neither articulate nor educated. Furthermore, please explain how believing in equal rights to all individuals can be viewed as "ignorant, close-minded, and hate-filled."
There are no scientific studies by any qualified, non-religious-backed, research groups that would classify all homosexuality cases as being an "emotional state," nor have any said research groups proved a legalization of gay marriage will lead to social dysfunction.
Considering there is not a single fact-supported argument in this article (nor can a fact be found to support any arguments) I fail to see how you can call this an articulate and educated. I also cannot see how an argument can be made that discrimination is educated and acceptance is ignorant. It sickens me to the core how you and people who share your beliefs are so blatantly ignorant yet you cannot see it.
For all the conservatives preaching false tolerance, I have to ask, would you be in favor of a bill proposing the stripping of Catholics rights.
Because, as you know, Catholicism is a choice, and an emotional "problem" that needs fixed according to many in the reformation.
I vote that we strip the rights of Catholics to marry, as they honor an extra-governmental body that certifies their marriages. If we don't, then next we will be forced to offer marriages to two foreigners, or even to extra terrestrials!
If you had any problems with my post here, but you defended being "tolerant" of the intolerance of the original article, then I must point out that you are anti-gay. It may not mean that you're homophobic, and you may not hate gay people. Yet, you still support anti-gay worldviews and promote policies that would remove rights from gay people.
No that's not true..Im not calling any of you close minded and ignorant..it's not my fault you dont read between the lines correctly...What i'm trying to say is all opinions should be respected...it's okay to tell John Fay that you disagree with him but it's just wrong to accuse him with names and say the things people have said here....thats dumb
Those of you supporting this piece as opinion and responding to those opposing it with calls of are own intolerance of Mr.Fay and his opinions need to think more about your claims.
Know that tolerance of intolerance is itself intolerance. Got it?
However, those of you who do have opposition to this hateful opinion, please don't just react to it with snide remarks; it's degrading to many of us who oppose this type of bigotry.
I got two BAs from UW in 2001 and recently returned for continued study. The Daily staff during my undergrad work would not have allowed this piece to be published, and there were several conservative peeps on the staff then.
I'm very surprised to see this printed by my own University's publication, but intolerance in general is not all that uncommon, unfortunately...
"The replies to this article prove once again how liberal bigotry desires to crush even the mention of conservative ideals."
Projection from the so-called 'Conservative' Right in this country has been elevated to a national pastime.
An entire group of people have had their rights stripped with the help of a massive infusion of cash from the Mormon Church and a few others.
(Incidentally, when the concept of marriage between one man and one woman comes to mind, how can one not think about the Mormon Church?)
And when they take to the streets in protest, they are the bigots. At times I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I hear some of the specious logic that wafts from the political right.
A simple logic check: replace the word 'Gay' with any other group. Black, Jew, Harelip, Short People. The bigotry and hatred jump out at you.
American Christians are the biggest whiners in the entire world. As long as everything happens their way, and they get to decide who is worthy of marriage, or a tax break, or gets to have a radio show things are hunky-dory. Let any one of these things get reversed on them, though... say, an atheist plaque at the courthouse instead of the 10 commandments and the poor, persecuted dears can go from zero to apoplectic in nothing flat.
It's not a difference of opinion, you see. The heathens want to destroy America. They don't disagree about foreign policy, they want to surrender to maniacs because they hate the military and are filled with treasonous hatred of all things good and decent.
And so it is with the gay issues. Everyone knows that most marriages end in divorce. Everyone knows that marriage is a state sanctioned contract that has more to do with divisions of property and the tax code than it ever did about god.
What sticks in the christians' craw is that someone other than them has asserted their right to exist and be happy without the express, written permission of Jeebus.
I have a news flash for #445 and others like him: Leave It To Beaver was just a TV show. Real life was never like that. And it never will be, no matter how hard you wish it were so.
HAHAHA!
...seriously? You're concerned that recognizing gay unions as marriages will cause non-Christians to reject social norms?
The government will never be able to stop people from sinning. Slapping the label "married" on a gay couple will not change anything at all. Jesus gave us marriage- passionate, life-long, heterosexual marriage, as a good and perfect gift. Which, as Kierkegaard pointed out, would not have been such a good and perfect gift at all if it turned out to be destructive and damaging to the recipient. Christian marriages will always be special, because they ARE special, not because the American government is or is not biased in our favor. If this by the people, for the people government chooses to recognize gay unions as marriages, that will certainly be no worse than marrying any other two unrepentant sinners to one another.
To #426,
Yes, there's no need for a marriage certificate if love is there. But have you ever thought about the benefits that piece of paper brings?
The most obvious one would be tax breaks. A gay couple who live together have all the same expenses as a straight couple, yet they can't claim tax benefits because they aren't married (and no, civil union is not the same because the IRS only gives out tax breaks for "married couple").
It would be great if love is all we need. But there are very practical reasons for gay marriage besides all the idealist talks.
There is a reason a boy has a penis and a girl has a vagina. Gay people are disgusting and should suck it up and take whatever it thrown their way. Or with gay people finally admit that they themselves are anti-opinion. My opinion that they are disgusting would be met with rage in the gay community. Go about your disgusting ways, but until you become OK with other opinions then your opinions about my opinion are just as bigoted as anything else.
#454 Duncan, you're obviously an idiot.
"Everyone" already HAS "equal marriage rights".
Find a new stance if indeed your absurd wish is to defend the indefensible, illogical idea of "gay marriage".
NO, #461, YOUR COMMENTS ARE BIGOTRY; AN OPINION THAT IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST OTHERS. IT SHOULD BE SPOKEN AGAINST.
DISGUSTING INTOLERANCE.
#463: Too bad you spew hate speech along with all other pro-gay people. Opinions against something that is biological and not a choice is bigotry. Opinions against something that is a choice: the Huskies not firing Ty last year or why you are a hateful person or why being gay is the most disgusting I have had to see in my life, are opinions and nothing that can be right or wrong.
#426 there is a radical difference between an unpopular view and comparing a class of people to animals.
Perhaps you wouldn't have an objection to an "opinion" piece comparing black people to monkeys. After all, it would be just an opinion, and an exercise of free speech. The fact it creates a hostile environment for black people is irrelevant.
not tolerating intolerance by calling it disgusting is not "hate speech." i don't hate you or assume that your ignorance makes you a bad person. but you are discriminating, and that can't be good a good thing...
#462 by your own argument my opinion that you're church is not valid is just an opinion and "nothing that can be right or wrong." Churches are not biological, and your membership is your choice. I am of course free to discriminate against you based on religion without being called a bigot?
Did you think your argument through at all...
Sorry, the previous comment was at #464, I must have typoed.
#467 Steve:
You are another who has clearly established before all otherse that you, too, are an undereducated dimwit.
My point of fact was that "everyone" already HAS "equal marriage rights".
I do not have a "church", and certainly never suggested that I did.
"Did you think your (statement) through" one bit?
I didn't reply to your statement, because I find no point in defending a position that has already been thoroughly trounced in the Loving vs. Virginia decision by the SCOTUS. You did not present a valid legal theory, and it did not deserve a reply.
I made a typo and instead meant to #464.
anyway, jennifer,
what is your point exactly?
I would have to agree with most of your article. Putting the religious aspect aside, one must still ask where it will stop. 50 years ago was homosexuality not considered a mental disease to be treated in an asylum? But then science and medicine learned there are certain developmental conditions that may cause one to experience biological changes making them more likely to choose a homosexual lifestyle. So it is not all a matter of emotion or choice. But, if we constantly allow subtle change then eventually what is normal one day may be considered outdated later. For some things this is a good move. But in other situations what may be perverse today could be considered appropriate years from now. During the prop 8 campaign I heard the argument anyone should be allowed to marry whoever they choose. If gay activist are given their way then why not give polygamist their choice? And those who would choose incest, should they not be allowed to marry their sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, or whoever as long as the youngest is of legal age? Wait, legal age? Now we are discriminating against pedophiles, eventually they may also have a case. When one removes the flood gates the flood will eventually come. Maybe next year, maybe 50 years. Everyone must remember must remember the world does not rotate around any one group and consider how our wants may effect activities years from now. And remember, the best thing may not be what we want.
Validation and verification of same sex love has a rich history of sneaky suppression by breeders (straights) who seem to have a queer fascination for queers, and the determination to try to keep us in our place of submission. The breeders fascination for queers and their need to be in control of a political process that banishes gays to a submissive state of being has to do with a fear that a great many of breeder marriages end in failure and that perhaps gays have a great many lessons to teach breeders in how to maintain healthful relationships. The sexologist, Master and Johnson, have pointed this out in several of their studies. As a queer person I’ve decided many years ago not to be beholding to breeders to understand my uniqueness. Most breeders do not have the capacity, sensitivity, or intelligence to understand my life experiences as a queer person. This article written by John Fay, and supported by the editor of the Daily are prime example of what I am writing about. You are wicked. As a former Univ. of WA Alumni, who was getting ready to renew my membership with the Alumni Association, I say, “Forget it!” I will not support wicked and stupid people who profess homophobia. I believe the end result of your negative depiction of gay marriage will create needless polarization in our community and untold hate crimes against gay people.
"I believe the end result of your negative depiction of gay marriage will create needless polarization in our community and untold hate crimes against gay people."
the truest and most saddening response to this whole piece...
One thing you need to keep in mind is that every instance of "gay" or "homosexual" in the article could be replaced with "interracial" and you would see the same arguments as 40 years ago. Would you say that interracial marriage has led to man and sheep weddings, as well?
How is it that John does not realize that it is the purpose of the CA Supreme Court to decide what the CA Constitution means?
If marriage were a strictly religious institution, why are civil servants allowed to marry people outside of any religious context? Why are atheists allow to marry?
If homosexuality is just an emotional condition, then I suppose heterosexuality must be also. Yet we do have laws condoning heterosexuality, which really isn't such a great idea in a world already overpopulated and running short of natural resources. We shouldn't be encouraging people to breed.
Of course, no one seriously believes that homosexuality or heterosexuality is an emotional condition. Even John wouldn't think that if were to give it any serious thought, which he apparently hasn't.
John speaks of "the Christian concept of marriage." He must have meant to say "the current Christian concept of marriage," since the concept of marriage has evolved considerably.
In any event, not all Christians todays agree about same-sex marriage; so there isn't a single, universally agreed upon concept even today. Moreover, it is not the purpose of the Civil Government in the U.S. to implement any Christian's notions of what's right and wrong.
Gay people are just ordinary people who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. They deserve the same respect as anyone else and should not be discriminated against by the government in any way, not in marriage, not in serving in the military, not in having families, etc.
#460... I understand the benefits given to married couples, and I agree. I think all couples with strong committment together should receive these rights, but I also think the word "marriage" is such a strong word that a lot of people are sensitive about that it will be very difficult to receive those rights using that route. That is why I said that instead of gays asking for gay marriage to be legalized, they should ask for civil unions to have the same legal rights as married couples.... hell... strike "marriage" from all laws and replace with "civil union".
Gays are not the only ones discriminated against with this issue. I myself am in a similar situation. I've been in a relationship for four and a half years and we live together. We share expenses and belongings and have a life together and a very exciting future. Why should someone who marries within 3 months of meeting each other get all these legal rights when my boyfriend and I who have a very strong relationship get none.
I guess my point was that there is so much focus on the word "marriage" when what people should be focusing on is updating the law to give all civil unions the same rights that married couples get now. Couples shouldn't get tax breaks and certain rights simply because they sign a certificate.
And #465, Steve... I didn't think he was comparing a group of people to animals... what I read was him trying to make a point that his opinion, along with several others, feel that if you change marriage to include gay couples than there will be no stop to who can get married. I don't think he made the point very well, but he was reflecting an opinion of several people. That is NOT my opinion... I think it's a bit ridiculous when people think one logical change will cause a landslide of obviously illogical changes, but it is an opinion.
As far as the black comparison to monkey... don't even try to pull that on me as if I don't understand what it's like to be discriminated against and to be in a hostile environment. I am a woman in a management position and have had to deal with a lot of hostile environments. People tend to foget that women have had to struggle as well and still do. I've had to FIGHT my way up and work TWICE as hard as the men I work with... AND to top it all off, I get paid 2/3 of what a man in my position gets paid.
Honestly, I think anyone who discriminates against any group of people is ignorant and probably has self-esteem issues. I mean, seriously, how is a gay couple getting married going to effect this writer's life? However, as a logical human being, I understand that in the real world people often have extreme opinions that can be offensive to some and it is their right to voice it using any medium they choose. That does not give me the right to threaten them or call them obscene names.... that just makes me as bad as them anyways.
Not even necessarily a supporter of gay marriage myself, I find this article is despicable, appalling, and an embarrassment to the UW community, as well as The Daily. This is why people only read your newspaper for the Sudoku puzzles, then toss this garbage. John Fay, you're a scum bag. I hope you get fired.
#473 Tony... you honestly thing that one persons opinion in a college newspaper is going to cause polarization in our community and hate crimes against gays? You honestly think that people in our community are so retarded as to read one opinion article in the paper and change their minds about gay marriage or decide... "WAIT! Gay marriage IS bad... let's go beat up gays!"???
WOW... you really have a low opinion of the human race... maybe you should write an article about it and have the daily publish it.
Although I do not agree with the things John Fay has said he is entitled to his opinion and it makes me sad that he cannot express it without being hated on.
Obviously we are majority liberal school with majority support of gay marriage (including myself), but we have to agree to disagree sometimes.
The Daily posts op-ed peices just like any other newspaper to create discussion and flow of ideas. Also, for people to express their opinons.
There was a topic: Gay Marriage. There were two sides. They each wrote supporting their opinion. Because John disagrees with Gay Marriage he is attacked for it. I believe some of the things he said were out of line, yes, but to call him degrading names and to punish a newspaper trying to create a discussion is silly.
Not everyone will agree with you when you speak your opinion. John knew this, but he wrote an opinion to generate discussion (which succeed), not to generate hate. So let's discuss, but let's not lower ourselves to name calling and saying someone's OPINION is wrong. It's just an opinion.
Let's all be mature, and move on. Leave John and the Daily be, and focus your efforts on finals. There's more important things going on in the world than attacking someone for the freedom of speech in an opinion article.
The student body of the University of Washington is better than this.
Several people have said that using the sheep next to a man in the graphic was a slur on homosexuals.
I disagree. There is no indication the sheep was male. It might have been a male human and a female sheep, which would not be homosexuality.
Moreover, while many commented on the slur against (human) homosexuals, nobody on this column has had either the wisdom or the courage to stand up for the sheep. Is it not bestiality for a sheep to have sex with a human, just as it is bestiality for human to have sex with a sheep. I find it sad to note that in this enlightened age, we are only willing to stick up for those of our own species.
Finally, we should note that while the graphic was not homophobic, it was not only anti-sheepish, but racist as well: 100% of the sheep depicted were white.
Miles to go, before we sleep ..
Riley
God in Heaven, I just took another look at the graphic. Both man and sheep are BLACK, not white!
I am so ashamed ... how could I have failed to notice ...
Riley
We take the rights we have for granted:
- ~50 years ago, you are likely to be discriminated if you are dating someone of a different race and you can't ever marry that person.
- ~100 years ago, if you are born female, you can't vote and are unlikely to go to college.
- ~150 years ago, if you are not white AND male, you can't own land or vote.
People back then argue it was the TRADITION to denied rights to woman and blacks, it would be UNNATURAL for interracial marriage to occur. But in reality those were violations of the HUMAN RIGHTS. Denying any human being the rights because of their sexual orientation is also a violation of the human rights.
Those "old traditions" were broken and converted into "progression". Thus, we are not breaking the "traditional marriage" by allowing gays to marry, we are making progress in the fight for human equality.
Great article.
(I'm going to be honest and say I haven't read every entry.)
I think where the whole marriage issue has gone wrong is saying marriage is a right - for anyone. Of course we've all grown up thinking marriage is a right, be it only between a man and a woman, or any two people of age in love. But, having this issue on the front burner for a long time, and boiling over on the stove for over a month, I've realized marriage isn't a right. I don't have the right to marry anyone, as long as the state is concerned (and the state is where we get our rights). I DO have the right to love, act on that love, and be with the person I love forever.
I think the solution to the problem is that all are given the state right to be with those they love - these we call civil unions. No matter what sexual orientation, the state should only be concerned with whether a couple is civily unified. If a couple does have a civil union, they have all the same right married couples have now.
Now, if a church wants to have marriage ON TOP OF CIVIL UNIONS, then of course they are protected to do so. And if they want to only allow heterosexual couples to be married within their religion, they have the right to do that, too.
I guess my arguement is the government is to blame for adopting marriage into a state "right" when clearly before it did this it was solely a religious practice. And maybe religious people in government are to blame for that adoption, but we can change that now.
Government = civil union
Religion = civil union + marriage
And you shouldn't be able to be married in the church and expect to get the rights that come with civil union.
Ok, I guess I'm done. Hopefully that makes sense. I'm not a very good arguerer.
Dear #479 ummm…okay…
Many years ago there was one person who wrote Mein Kampf that ultimately caused a holocaust killing millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian people. It is interesting how history repeats itself because of the ignorance of many.
#477 The article clearly states that allowing a gay man to marry another gay man is morally equivalent to allowing a man to marry a sheep. Comparing committed gay relationships is exactly the same as if someone were to say "If we allow interracial marriage what will stop people from marrying monkeys."
I am a bit tired of hearing people compare discrimination thought, and I don't see how your experiences as a woman in any way mitigate the comparison of loving committed relationships seeking the same rights and responsibilities as their straight counterparts to sheep lovers.
Good article.
#480 Holly, if there is one lesson we have learned from Obama it is that we can disagree without being disagreeable. I don't see why anyone should defend the "opinion" of a man who compares committed loving relationships between lesbians or gays with sheep love.
As I said earlier, would you also defend his right to express an opinion that black people resemble monkeys?
Dear #479 ummm…okay…
PS: WOW... you really have a high opinion of the human race...perhaps you should write an article about the blissful straight,and privileged world that you live in and have the dalily publish it. Do you have any gay friends?????
#489 I see where you're coming from and I agree to an extent. I'm not defending his opinion, I'm just defending his right to an opinion.
I'm going to turn your last question around and speak to race in general. When segregation was occuring in the U.S. A lot of people opposed it. I'm sure many opinion articles were published on if equal rights was a good thing or not.
From these articles, awareness and an encouraging debate and flow of ideas was etabslished. People formed opinions. Majority were in favor of equal rights. Today those opinions on both sides are historical and were important in the eventual abolishment of segregation
I KNOW that one day Gay marriage will be legalized. I support it, hope for it, and it will one day, hopefully soon.
But to discourage this flow of ideas and opinion on the subject is wrong. Sure John was forward and offended a lot of people including myself. But his opinon stirred a discussion and is leading to the greater acceptance of Gay rights and Gay marriages. I think it's important to not censor his opinons or scrutinze the Daily for publishing it, just because it isn't in the majority.
One day we can show our kids this article and say, "See this is how people thought. And this was the response to that. And that response grew so enormous that the government could ignore it no longer and that is why Gay Marriage is legalized all over the U.S. today."
I hope I can tell my kids that.
Holly, I apologize for my last post. I was too kind as I didn't realize who you were.
Are you seriously defending the position of publishing a vile, lie filled, hate mongering, offensive, poorly researched, and generally indefensible piece simply because it is an "opinion."
Even worse, you attempt to point out that you too face discrimination, so you apparently have some moral authority to discover "appropriate" hate speech that the rest of us lack. Even though 52% of the population is women, and most of the women on campus, who face the same discrimination you do, find this piece unethical.
An article was published comparing the relationships of gay and lesbian individuals to the relationships of beast lovers. Implicit in this comparison is the assertion that there is no moral distinction between same-gender love and bestiality. You are standing behind these reprehensible, offensive, and divisive claims because they are an "opinion." That is not enough.
In this piece there are so many attackable claims. I have tried to find a single point that I can defend this piece by, but I cannot. The author does not understand constitutional law, nor our system of government. The author does not understand basic liberties that our country was founded on, making his piece almost anti-American. The author does engages in hate speech when he refers to gays and lesbians as a "problem" emotion (one wonders if that means the author would support a final solution to the problem...). The author does not properly research this article, using as his one and only source a Simpsons episode.
Holly, it is cute that you would think that gay and lesbian individuals would accept being compared to sheep lovers without a fight. However, you have still not answered the question, would you also sanction an editorial proposing that black people resembled monkeys? After all, such a sentiment is of course just an "opinion" and "cannot be wrong."
You have fallen into the trap of thinking free speech entitles you to freedom with the presses. You forget that the press that you operate is a student run and student controlled press. The students have every right to set a basic standard of decency and respect for articles that run on their press. I find it appalling that you would attempt to curtail the free speech rights of those students by claiming that your free speech is more important.
You are not the god of the press. You have been entrusted to run the student press in a way that respects all students. You have failed in your duty, and you should be rightfully condemned for it.
You have my permission to publish this in your paper, if you have the courage.
Steve
I think there's a good debate going on here. I haven't read all of the 489 entries before this, but I think an important topic for this argument is whether homosexuality is a choice. If it is not a choice, which I firmly believe, then not allowing people to achieve married status is an injustice, because this is discrimination.
However, if it is a choice, there is room for debate over whether marriage is legal for gays or lesbians. Some studies have shown that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore not a choice. An example of this is studies that have shown that if one twin is homosexual, the other is more likely to be homosexual than the average person. I haven't heard any convincing evidence that homosexuality is a choice. I'm welcoming any relevant responses that would show actual evidence on these two possibilities, so people can take information into account and make informed decisions
Steve, the debate over choice is moot. There is significant research to show that at adulthood sexuality is mostly immutable, and that is more than enough for legal arguments.
However, I would point out, that even if being gay or lesbian were a choice, it would be a no less protected choice than any other religious choice a person may make that causes no harm to other people. If you wish to make immutability a requirement for constitutional protection of a group (while many protected classes such as religion are also a choice), you run down the dangerous path of transgressing on the religious freedoms our country holds so fundamental.
Good point Steve. I agree with you on all counts, but I do knoq that some people still believe that homosexuality is a choice. If homosexuality is not immutable, this doesn't mean that homosexual rights should be restricted. But I'd like to collect factual data and examples that people have just to make this overwhelming majority of evidence towards immutabiliy more visual. I don't whatsoever think that immutability is a requirement for constitutional protection. I know that a lot of people disagree with you, if against the facts, and I'd like to show some of the evidence just to make it more clear that in sexual preference choice is a myth.
Good Article! I am not surprised at all the hate & name calling coming from people who oppose this view. Just be happy with civil unions, and don't try to redefine marriage.
Love this!! "people who resort to swearing/name calling either have small minds or small vocabulary" Good call To John K.!!
P.S. I have a gay relative who I LOVE, but will I vote to redefine marriage for him, NO!!
Chris, I'm no social scientist so I would have trouble digging up relevant and current research on this topic. I can point you to the recent varnum ruling in Iowa which found as material fact exactly this question.
This article doesn't do any favor to the reputation of the UW. What a poor example of higher education. How could you be a college level writer without realizing that this is a clear example of a slippery slope fallacy (it's okay, you can Google that term, if you need to)? Here's some more info missed in class: if "traditional" marriage was the same as it was 2000 years ago, than women would still be regarded as property, interracial couples would not be allowed to get married and divorce would be illegal. Try researching Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions to expand your brain cells. Homosexuality is as much of an "emotional" state as heterosexuality is. And you're portrayal that opponents to gay marriage getting harrassed for their beliefs is irrelevant. Gay people get harrassed and discriminated against every day of their lives. Mr. Fay, it's very evident that you have more time to watch the Simpsons than to pay attention to your studies.
Becca, you cannot be pro-gay and anti-gay marriage. You should re-think exactly how much you love your relative. You obviously don't love them enough for them to be equal.
Remember the "Scientific" teaching that the Earth was flat and if you got too close to the edge, you would fall off????
Remember the "Scientific" teaching that the other planets and the sun revolve around the earth????
Remember the "Scientific" teaching concerning Spontaneous Generation???? (It explained how a sweaty farmer's shirt left overnight with some wheat kernels magically bred mice by morning.)
Remember the "Scientific" teaching that one bath/shower per week was more than sufficient????
Societies have always assumed their science to be perfect and infallible. That doesn't make it so.
Just because all of these scientists
The American Psychological Association
The American Academy of Pediatrics
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychoanalytic Association
The American Anthropological Association
think that homosexual marriage is OK or normal or whatever doesn't make it so. If it is SOOOOO natural, why is ours the only species that does it? Bears? no. birds? no. cats? no.
The fact is this. The One who put us here on this planet has some rules. Those rules are in place to keep each of us from hurting ourselves and one another; whether emotionally, physically, intellectually, spiritually, etc. Some people believe what He has said and some don't. Each of us has a choice as to whether we believe Him or not. The decision to disobey the rules, to deny that the rules exist, or to deny that He exists, and lead a lifestyle that consistently agrees with this decision bears some consequences. (My "right" to deny the rule of gravity (gravity does RULE us) will not keep me from falling should I jump out of a 2nd or higher story window.) The consequences may not be numerous, but some of them are eternal.
Homosexuality is wrong. Bestiality is wrong. Pedophilia is wrong. That's not my opinion. It's what Jehovah says. Leviticus 20:1-16 (No, I am not going to respond to all of the "quotes" that are taken so far out of context.) If you choose to believe it not, understand that I do not curse you, as many of you have cursed the author. But, I do feel that it is my duty to inform you that you have been warned.
Believe what you want to believe. I beg of you. Make it easy for Him to know whose you really are.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
96 Comments
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
#401 John D.
(Mount Pleasant, MI | Unverified Name)
on December 3, 2008 at 1:58 p.m.