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
i 'married' op's mom in the butt twice yesterday! 'married' her sheep-style.
To #500: Wow, you really need to open your eyes. Homosexuality has been observed among many other mammals. Just because someone writes a book and quotes something as "wrong" doesn't make it so. Have you ever eaten pork before offering it up on an alter to God? Have you ever touched a woman who was menstruating? These are just as much of "abominations" as you claim homosexuality is. You don't get to pick which rules you choose to follow, while damning others for doing the same. If "He" didn't like homosexuality, than "He" wouldn't have created homosexuals. I feel that it is my duty to remind you that it was organized religion that led to people flying commercial airplanes into the World Trade Center on September 11th.
#429 I don't work for the Daily, Steve. My name is in green because I'm facebook authorized as a student. I'm just a student at UW.
I find it insulting to refer to my opinions on the matter as "cute" just because I'm a girl (I know you'd never say that to a guy).
We are fighting for the same cause of Gay rights and Gay marriage, we both wish to see them legalized, so why are you attacking ME?
I'm not going to look at this stupid discussion board anymore because you seem to be ignorant to everything and you just live on here feeding on people who are trying to express an opinion and as long as it even has the slight difference from yours you attack it.
Support Gay Marriage, Support free speech.
The end.
Holly, interesting you find cute offensive (which I can assure you I did not choose because of your gender), but you think that people should "get over" being equivocated with bestiality.
#500, I can presume you keep kosher and don't eat shrimp. And if you're a christian that you refuse to lend money at interest (aka capitalism).
You know, the other laws from that book you mention.
To #496. So, you wouldn't vote to allow your relative to marry? Just remember, while you're voting against your relative that you claim to love, that not so long ago voting laws had to be redefined to allow women to vote.
@Holly, my apologies for mistaking you. However, I still hold that there is a difference between freedom of speech and responsible use of the student press.
I am a firm supporter of free speech.
Allowing this article to be published without consequences for the publishers is not free speech. It's rolling over and accepting hate speech as valid. Students control the student press. If the editorial board wants to publish this sort of drivel they can buy their own printing press unaffiliated with the student body.
Thank you for a very clear thinking editorial. Do not be intimidated by the loud rantings of the homosexual radicals. Marriage simply will always be one man and one woman. It is quite revealing and a sign of weakness when someone rants and shouts. It is a bigoted response when the radical portion of the homosexual lobby tries to shut up and supress the truth. It makes those of us who had been on the sidelines sit up and take notice, and resolve more action when challenged. Everyone can marry if they desire, as long as they meet requirements. One man and one woman, not related and not already married.
Understandably a minority in this society would like to see no morality, as that would make them 'feel better' about themselves. Sorry, we can respect a person as an individual while not accepting or validiating their lifestyle. There is universal morality, always has been and always will be - get over it.
No gay marriage, no multiple spouses (of either sex), no 'marriages' to family, animals, or tree stumps.
The more emotional shouting by the gay radicals, the more stonger my resolve is, and that of others.
Jason, you fail to identify any single reason to justify your hatred of the "homosexual radicals."
I also like to eat radical poop.
Jason, it's refreshing to see such a honest appraisal of ones own bigotry.
Though scat is kind of disgusting, and clearly puts you into the realm of the sexually perverse that you preach hatred of.
To #502. Your attempt to misunderstand what I said is commendable, because you did.
#1. I did not say that homosexuality was unobserved among mammals. I said that homosexual marriage is unobserved among mammals. There is nowhere in nature a documented example of 2 same-sexed animals setting up a den/house/nest for the purpose of teamwork towards propagating the species. If you believe there is, I have some ocean-front property over in Spokane that you can have cheap.
#2. I condemned nobody. That may have been your own conscience that you heard.
The problem with your argument is this: God did not create homosexuality. He did not create murder. He created the one who chooses to do murder, and loves that one. He created the one who chooses to do homosexuality and loves that one. None of that removes the effects of the cause.
The people who flew the planes on September 11th were organized zealots who had been fed a bunch of lies by a religion that condones lying to people. The people who flew the planes on September 11th wrapped the name of God around destruction and murder for the understood purpose of eternal sexual gratification.
To compare me to them is an insult that is far below any that I have ever received. But it is significantly indicative as to which of us has hate.
#512
1. Read Tango Makes Two for an example of the behavior your seeking. Penguins do it all the time.
2. Strange, you did seem to want to deny the rights to a minority, that would be condemning.
Please try being more thoughtful in the future. It's no fun replying to such lousy posts.
#1: Homosexual marriage has been observed among the animal kingdom as often as heterosexual marriage has. I have yet to hear of two heterosexual cats, or two heterosexual giraffes go to city hall to obtain marriage licenses.
#2: You condemn gay people while you hide behind your chosen religion. I did not compare you to the people responsible for the September 11th attacks, I simply pointed out negative effects of organized religion. That may have been your own conscience you heard.
Steve, it is troubling and ironic that you say you are "a firm supporter of free speech" then go on and dictate what qualifies as free speech and what doesn't. I hope that you do not actually believe yourself to be a proponent of free speech. Sounds like the sort of "free speech" that was allowed my parents from their former communist government before they were given political asylum here. You know, the sort that is only "free" if it follows in line with the opinion of the dictator (which you apparently happen to be on this blog).
Further, your argument stating that "If the editorial board wants to publish this sort of drivel they can buy their own printing press unaffiliated with the student body" is juvenile at best. On any given day some students will find a Daily opinion piece offensive and yet they have to pay for it as well. Grow up ! It's part of life that we pay for things we don't agree with. Much of your future taxpayer money will go towards things you don't agree with and others might, conversely much of my taxpayer money will go towards things I disagree with and you may agree with. LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT! I'm sure I would not agree with any sort of newspaper you would conjure up if given your way (hope that will never happens) but I wouldn't cry about it because I know freedom of press is part of the checks and balances system.
Your arguments in general reveal many grotesque flaws. This is due to many of your comments proving my point that anyone who dares to deviate even slightly from your "perfect" opinion is administered a stern chiding from none other than yourself. In short if someone does not agree with you, that person does not have a right to express their opinion.
You are content to suppress others freedom to speak and insult them under the false pretext that you are in some way more intelligent then anyone else that writes on this blog. Yet, your insults just reveal that you lack the ability to argue.
My advice to you: Get a life, get off this blog for a minute or two, and do something constructive with your life...don't you have finals or something to study for?
P.S. I'll expect a reply in the next 10 min because I know you won't take my advice. Your posts are surrounded with a stink of some serious hubris which will make it an absolute necessity for you to get the last word in.
Why haven't you written me back, Steve? I want to experience my first gay encounter with a real American!
Whoever used my name on post #516 is an Amateur...
Your attempt at discrediting my argument by somehow suggesting I'm homophobic is transparent.
I actually find myself entertained because apparently that was the best you could come up with.
What's the matter? Can't stand the thought of someone who grew up with English as their second language can come on this forum and reason with "intellectuals" like yourself...come up with a real argument and stop with your petty ad hominem attempts. It's a tiresome and over-used argumentative flaw...I'm disappointed, at least be original.
Please give me attention, Steve! No one in this country will speak to me in person because my Communist country's tradition does not allow us to bathe more than once a week, or wear deoderant.
Thank YOU!
You have proven my point. It's quite sad that a person who most likely claims to be tolerant like yourself is so blatantly racist. I'm sure you see yourself as a civil rights activist because of your stance on certain issues such as gay marriage (btw, I in no way agree with Fay's stance and my comments are exclusively aimed at people like post #516 and #518 and Steve who claim to be tolerant yet have proven otherwise)yet you are the poster-child of a hypocrite. Stop spewing such racial hatred before you further tarnish the very thing you undoubtedly claim to be in support of.
By the way...just to further prove your ignorance, I was born in the United States. You ASSUMED no doubt that I was from a different country because I spoke a different language growing up. But your ignorance cannot take into account that many people in this melting pot of a nation (that's what makes it so great! Different cultures and different ideas!) were actually born here but grew up speaking, Spanish, Chinese, etc... because their parents correctly valued their children being bilingual.
The most hatred often comes from those who claim to be tolerant. Who's the bigot now?
Somebody give me attention, please! I have nothing better to do at 4:30 in the morning other than to create synthetic arguements with myself!
Reason, honey, you sound lonely. Would you like to join my Talky Blog? Just visit: http://blog.nbc.com/ross_blog/
Attention normal people:
Quit foisting all this TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY crap on yourselves before you TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY yourselves out of existence and your kids become bi-curious friends of N.O.R.M.L. on MySpace.
Those thinking that homosexuality is "unnatural" or an evolutionary dead end should check this out:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articl...
Ok, Jason M. show me in the old Testemant where marraige is defined by "One man and One Woman" becuase I believe in that era multiple wive were the norm. As far as M Jack(ass) Gay is not an emotional condition or a choice, although religion is along with being an ass
homosexuality is a defect. either biological (like downs syndrome), psychological (like schizophrenia), or emotional (like agoraphobia). in any case, we should be looking for a cure for the poor degenerates, or a method to identify the problem in the womb, and let planned parenthood do their job.
If you can find me a sheep that can give intelligent, informed, consent, and can fill out a marriage license form, then I'll be ok with them marrying.
steve #499 No steve I'm not pro gay and didn't claim to be, and clearly my definition of love is vastly different than yours. I believe that just because you love someone doesn’t mean you have to support what they want. E.g. Kids would eat candy all the time if allowed to do so. Parents should & usually do say “Here is some meat/veggies/tofu for you to eat that will nourish/feed you” instead of out of what you “claim to be love” letting their child (which came from one man and one woman by the way) eat themselves into sick and unhealthy state!!
# 506 Yes, I am aware of that part of history, and who voted that in was it gays or straights? Oh ya that’s what I thought!!
To Dale # 512 You’re awesome, liked what you said!!
Dear #500 Dale,
You say, "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."
Okay. First I can't believe your lack of sexual knowledge. Do you even know what a condom is? Do you know what the difference between genial and genitals? I would be scared as hell to be alone in the same room with you. PLEASE do yourself a HUGE favor, don't make comments that makes me feel embarrassed for you. Your ignorance is showing big time. Read, Biological Exuberance, Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D. We are not the "only species that does it." Oh, my God! I can't believe you. Yours has got to be the funniest entry of all. And this has got to me my last entry. Everyone have a great life. Loosen up.
By the gays' logic I have the right to marry my sisters, brothers, mother, multiple spouses etc. Why is polygamy illegal?
Aren't they saying that any law restricting marriage violates "equal" protection?
Finally someone stood up for what they believed in. It took a lot of guts- so congrats John. There are many people who agree with you, just not here.
Anyone else sick of these protests? Seriously, just stfu and go home already. If "they" want to get married that badly, then just go to another state, or even another country and get married over there instead of whining like it's the end of the world. Also, to those who are blaming it all on religion, you guys need to wake up and face reality. Instead of getting blinded by the mainstream perception that religion is the sole reason for this, just stfu and wake up. The fact of the matter is that there are atheist and non-believers who believe marriage should be between man and woman, and reject same sex marriage. And there ARE religious people, yes even Christians/Catholics,who accept same-sex marriage.
By stating this I am neither supporting, not am I opposing "homosexual marriage." BUT this article is offensive on many levels. I support the "religious definition of marriage" but also feel that those that choose can choose what they like. The state can decide that two PEOPLE can marry, but it does not mean the church has to approve of that union, they can go to a JP just as easily as a bishop or a clergy.
Again, I do not approve of your comments and your depiction of the man and sheep, although sickeningly humorous to some, is offensive to others.
I also must say though, that discriminating against one church when there were hundreds of people that voted against prop 8 is also offensive and should cease. The LDS/Mormon church is only about 2-5% of the population of California so they were not the only ones voting for this...Go attack a Catholic or Evangelical church...not us.
Nice comment Jennifer. I like your style.
I'm in full support of free speach. This newspaper can run opinion columns on any topic they wish. No newspaper should be censored. Still, can we at least see some quality writing when voicing those uncensored opinions. Next time you decide to run a controversial article, Daily, it should at least be able to garner a B in an English class.
Johh, regardless of your views on the legality or morality of gay marriage the way you present yourself is simply offensive and bigoted. Your dismissal of homosexuality as an "emotional condition" "...to be dealt with..." suggests that you view the people you are discussing as somehow diseased and lesser. This is outrageous, if these are your views why not come right out with it rather than quietly insinuating and see how many people accept the validity of your argument "...from a rational basis". Also by suggesting that people who have responded to the Prop. 8 challenge in California represent "...the danger of gay marriage" you completely ignore political tactics of the last several decades. Operatives on both the right and left have resorted to posting names and blacklisting people on a whole host of issues. This is nothing new, and to somehow seek to tie it to the "...social dysfunction..." and so called societal breakdown is both ridiculous and dangerous. When people feel passionately about an issue they will go to great lengths for it, doing things that might seem over the line, especially when they feel their rights have been threatened. Your own article is an example of this. It is not a "gay" thing or a "straight" thing it is a human thing. You conclude by saying that the government is in danger of turning over another "good old" tradition. At least there you are partially correct, the government has done this before, slavery, woman's voting rights, and immigration quotas, just to name a few. Marriage is a tradition based on love and respect, if two loving consenting adult humans wish to express themselves in that way, a way should be found to let them. True marriage is an old institution, so old that it quite pre-dates Christianity, but why should it not be allowed to change with the times. No one is being forced to accept anything, so why not allow people what makes them happy.
It is fine to disagree with homosexuality and marriage.
It isn't fine to represent homosexuality as some 'emotional pathology' when it is not.
There is no diagnosis for homosexual behavior in the DSM 4. What psychologists, MD's and researchers know is that sexuality is a continuum, not an either-or choice.
If this paper would not publish a column about how the world is flat and the solar system orbits around the sun (NON FACTUAL!) then why publish a column based on the idea that homosexuality is an 'emotional disturbance? (NON FACTUAL)
I am appalled by your stupidity and lack of education. Exactly where in any literature is it written that being Lesbian or Gay "an emotional condition?"
What is your source or do you just grab these things out of thin air.
There is a very good reason that John has only written 3 articles...his lack of an educated opinion...whose opinions are not founded in facts.
As for the photo...actually the inference of a gay man accompanying a sheep is better used to allude the acts of straight men...dumb straight men...hard up straight men. Get your allusions right if you are going to use them pictorally.
I would imagine that, in all of the students enrolled at UW, there would certainly be a more educated and enlightened person to write articles in the opinion section of the Daily.
Shame on you, Daily!!!!
I would love nothing more than to take all of the prop 8 supporters and give them a big hug, then slowly slide my hands over their firm taught buttocks and gently squeeze to my hearts content. Seriously people, there is no way to reason with people whose opinions are formed without critical thought, and whose blabbering is backed by no factual evidence. Prop 8 supporters ARE bigots. In the fifties, the very same arguments being used by these douche bags were used to defend racism. Also, there is nothing wrong with hating those who promote intolerance. Racists, bigots, and those who actively work to prevent good people from pursuing happiness are a stain on our country's fabric that will slowly fade away with time. No worries. ;)
re: #284 and #285
Have you NO ability to recognize satire? Maybe you should read the last few lines of my post again. The reason I made such absurd suggestions about possible "solutions" was because they are a likely outcome of the kind of thinking expressed in John Fay's original post. I guess I shouldn't feel too harsh against you for taking my post seriously... ...as there are certainly a lot of people who would actually say such things and mean them.
Really, Becca? Are you seriously trying to claim that you personally know who served on the U.S. House of Representatives in 1920, when the Ninteeth Amendment became law? And you're also trying to claim that you're aware of each and every one of their sexual proclivities? How presumptuous of you. I'm sure your gay relative loves you back, eventhough your blind arrogance is stifling.
#515 you, along with many others, have misinterpreted "free speech" as "freedom to do whatever I want with the student press". Of course these people have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how retarded it may be. They don't have the right to use the student run press to print it without expecting consequences from the press owners (the students).
The students grant them the right to use their presses, and the can revoke that right at any time.
Again, you did not answer, do you support the daily running "free speech" article comparing black people to monkeys?
Becca @60 years ago I love my mom. I just don't think we should pass a law to allow her to own property. It would be a huge deviation from tradition, and I don't see why I should give her whatever she wants just because she wants to own property.
I still love her though...
#532 you have embarrassed yourself as an American.
I personally want to thank John Fay for putting forth such a blatantly offensive, bigoted attack on the rights of the LGBT community. As a non-bigot, nothing makes me happier than to see the opposition using such trite tactics to agitate for their cause. Especially when it generates such whiplash.
The Daily, in its quest to stir controversy, is becoming a rag. I'm not going to pick up another copy until this editor board is dumped.
You are clearly a piece of trailer park trash, who is the result of his mom's numerous encounters with other siblings and the family donkey. You are obviously getting no education at that so called univeristy. Why don't you go back to Alabama or Mississippi and attend your Klan meeting? You will get yours one day, and I hope I am there to see it. You and that HAG Sarah deserve each other. Republicanism at it's best! You do your school proud! Now get out of Washington you pig fucker!
Lets all stop and think,
A persons sexuality cannot be proven to be any different from the biological state of being male or female, black or white. And if it could what does it matter, a person chooses to be christian, chooses to be jewish, chooses to be muslim, if laws were made to inhibit their rights, there would be an outcry of injustice.
Tradition marriage is an insult to women in general, and todays version of it is considerably different from before women could establish their own independence.
A homosexuals want to define their own family and join in the institution of marriage is a personal choice that should not be voted upon. You cannot vote upon the humility of another person.
I as a straight women feel very deeply for the struggles of homosexuals they have been long oppressed and discriminated against, and it is time we allow all Americans to enjoy the rights our forefathers wrote out, the all men are created equal.
Steve,
The reason I didn't answer your question is because it's irrelevant: "do you support the daily running "free speech" article comparing black people to monkeys?"
Such an article would be ridiculous and is irrelevant because it is not a debate that is in the national spotlight and very very few people (sadly there are a few) would take a stance that would compare people to monkeys...therefore it is IRRELEVANT and is only used to incite emotions.
However, a debate on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized has merit because it is a debate that is being discussed nation-wide. Like it or not there are many, many people across this nation that hold John Fay's opinion (I certainly do not agree with him but know people, even at our school that do). Therefore, such a debate IS relevant and should be discussed at a school that values different ideas and debate, such as ours. Get used to it, this will be the hot topic over the next decade and all side will get a word in (that's what The Daily allowed, it is just trying to introduce students to this topic and encourage thought about the issue).
Come on Steve, don't belittle me with your assertions that I do not understand "free speech." Discussion is what will lead to an understanding of BOTH sides of the argument. When we can see where the other side is coming from and RESPECT their DIFFERENT opinion, then and only then do we become tolerant and begin to progress society to something better. Censorship will only further incite hatred and bigotry.
One more thing, I'm a student at UW and also have a say in whether or not The Daily can use the press and I say yes! I'm sure many students also agree with me. You are not the only one who pays tuition and therefore has a say in whether or not The Daily can print and I doubt you can gain enough support to revoke it, especially when they do not hold the opinion given by John Fay but are only looking to facilitate discussion.
I don't even know where to begin with this. I'm sure you, John, have ceased to read these responses, considering how many people have already addressed the inconsistencies and insensitivity of your argument. However, I can't not respond after reading this ludicrous article.
I'm happy you didn't go so far as to call homosexuality a choice, but it is certainly not an "emotional tendency" either. I'm not really sure what an emotional tendency even is; are you equating homosexuality to having a short temper? As in, something that can be treated with therapy, conditioning, and drugs? Homosexuality cannot (and should not) be treated because it doesn't have a distinct etiology (i.e. it's not a disease nor even a disorder, evidenced by its prevalence in non-human animals). For people, there are biological as well as social factors involved.
And race being a biological state? Are you KIDDING me?! This "theory" was discarded YEARS ago and your broaching it again betrays your ignorance so thoroughly, it's almost unbelievable. Race is an epiphenomal construction, otherwise we wouldn't have what we call multiracial people.
Oh, and the poor Mormon Church! They began the whole blackmailing thing, first of all. But more importantly, their influence in getting this proposition on the ballot represents a huge conflict of interests and violates the separation of church and state that was written into the Federal Constitution by our founding fathers. Plus, churches should stay out of policy because they have tax exempt status. Not to mention that the Mormon Church is headquartered in an entirely different state.
Also, marriage is not inherently religious. The European concept of marriage (upon which our concept is founded) was nothing more than a business transaction with an eye for status preservation or increase. Families would desire their children to marry children from other families that were wealthy and prestigious. That's it. In the beginning, it wasn't even about love. By the way, same-sex marriages were sanctioned in the Roman Empire, whence we get the overwhelming majority of our governmental policies and practices.
As for your slippery slope argument, it never has held up and it never will. Please stop bringing bestiality and inanimate objects up in this context - this is about PEOPLE. You are indirectly equating us to animals and things, and I do not appreciate being objectified and dehumanized.
John, please note that we do NOT reject the "custom of traditional marriage" - you can still get married! And we could care less if some church doesn't recognize our marriages; all we ask for is equal protection under the law. Churches can rail against gay marriage all they want - we have no intention of restricting their right to free speech (though they have no problem with restricting OUR rights, funny how that works, huh?) - as long as they keep it out of the lawbooks. (By the way, if you're concerned about the protection of religious rights, what do you sa to the churches that DO recognize same-sex marriage?) Marriage is a legal right first and foremost; the religious factor only comes in secondarily, and then only for those people who ascribe to that particular religion.
I am not completely enraged, John, because you are losing, quite frankly. It is only a matter of time until our love is equally recognized by the law. History has taught us that progress is inevitable. The Mormon Church and people like you are simply delaying the process. It's annoying as hell, but a slight impediment nonetheless.
Jordan,
You and so many like you have a very dangerous tendency to try to do whatever it takes to push your agenda by trying to quite the voice of people that disagree with you. I'm talking about the Mormon Church. Many like you, down in California, share your opinion that the those in the Mormon Church need to be quited. As a result, they incite violence, threats, and spew vicious hatred of all kinds labeling these people as "bigots" because they have a different opinion.
Yes, it is a religious organization but that does not mean they are not allowed to have a voice in issues that affect their congregation. Many people misinterpret "separation of church and state" and think it means that religious groups should not have any opinion in politics whatsoever. That position is ignorant, all people should be allowed to express their opinion, including religious groups like churches. We should not censor them!
One more thing Jordan. Really??? You are really going to say that because their headquarters is located in a different state, they should stay out of California's affairs? Ummm...there are a lot of Mormons who, like all Americans, deserve to have a voice who live in California. This is an issue that is important to them regardless of where the headquarters are located.
And...in the state of California and many states like it, your "love is equally recognized by the law." Look it up, it's called Civil Unions and you get the same benefits and everything as those who are traditionally married. You just keep pushing for the "title" of marriage and in the process try to trample on people who disagree with you. If you are treated the same under the law, and truly love one another, the "title" should not mean anything to you anyway. We ALL need to give a little and understand the issue from both sides instead of shoving agendas down the throats of those who disagree, then label them as monsters.
Before someone comments on it:
quiet* quieted*
I believe in free speech but no one is going to continue reading the daily if this is the crap you are going to publish.
The author stated numerous opinions as fact. My Favorite -"homosexuality is more of an emotional condition". The author offers that Prop 8 supporters have had more hardship than the gay community. I could go on but I'm watching our football team go 0-12.
UW was a good school in 2000. How did this idiot get in?
Hey Reason,
Civil Unions DO NOT receive the same benefits as a married couple. Married couples receive about 1,100 benefits while Civil Unions receive significantly fewer.
Reason, how can you possibly argue John Fay's right to free speech in previous posts, but deny Jordan the same right? Seems a little hypocritical to me. And by the way, it is YOU who needs to research civil unions. You will find that civil unions absolutely DO NOT allow the same federal benefits as marriage.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion. You have a right to oppose gay marriage. But unless you can create a respectable argument for your opinion, you're ignorant.
I'm hoping you learned something from this - don't state an opinion unless you can rationally back it up.
I could say more and explain the exact problems with your argument, but it's been rehashed to death and I'm too lazy to rehash it all again.
The issue of gay marriage is bigger than individual rights, but about the direction of our society. Fay is saying that we should think about the long-term effects of allowing a group of judges to shape American culture. Whether Daily posters like it or not, there is a LARGE group of Americans that want the traditional definition of marriage and family structure preserved in this country.
It's time to stop hurling insults and start engaging in dialogue with fellow Americans with cultural differences. It seems like Fay tried to start the dialogue and is being torn to pieces. I wonder where the hate is coming from.
Unlike many on this blog, I do not resort to name-calling but only desire basic respect in discussing opinions. I did not deny Jordan the same thing, Jordan can reply at any time and I was respectful in letting Jordan know the facts. In no way did I insult Jordan or tell him his could not give his opinion and respectfully corrected his assumptions and/or gave my opinion.
Further, to respectfully correct Peter and yourself (which I don't blame you for not being informed since there is such a bias out there on the information you get AND b/c of all the uproar in California it would make sense that people are pushing for marriage to get equal rights...yet they already do! The difference is the title)in the states of California and Oregon, among others, the rights of gay civil unions are exactly equivalent to heterosexual marriages.
On the following link to Wiki there is a map, notice on the map that the states in green allow civil unions to be equivalent to traditional marriage. Further, "a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 made it substantially equivalent to marriage at the state level" -Wiki
Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
Hope I addressed your concerns...
My comments from the last post are to "Peter" and "To: Reason #551" AND I never post anything without thorough research so don't insult me by suggesting I don't know what I'm talking about and I make up facts.
John Fey For President of the US!!!!!!
fact: ugly, fat girls need queers otherwise they wouldnt have any friends
Well, you obviously didn't do your research this time, because in the direct link you posted, under the United States, it clearly says, "The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996." You apprently don't seem to understand what this means, so allow me to explain it to you.
The United States has two-tiers of government that typically affect marriage rights. The US federal government has the set of laws that must be followed nationwide. Notably for the discussion around equal marriage for gays is that the federal government sets and controls the prevailing set of laws around federal taxation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and what is considered a taxable event. In addition to the Federal laws, each state has a set of laws. Now it gets complicated.
The Federal government explicitly says that marriage is to be regulated by each state. The Federal government also says that federal agencies will only recognize marriage between one man and one woman. So, in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut, we literally have same-sex couples who are legally married in the state and yet are treated as complete strangers by the United States as a country. This becomes a major problem in many circumstances. One of the biggest ones is when one of the people die. Upon death, the Federal government's laws kick in, for example, the IRS determines what part of the estate is taxable. With a marriage that the federal government recognizes, there is no problem; spousal privileges allow the living spouse to inherit the house without paying tax on it. But since the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, the surviving spouse is a legal stranger according to the IRS, so it's the equivalent of one person leaving his house to a stranger, and the stranger has to pay taxes on the value of the house. This causes many couples, especially elderly ones, to have to sell their house just to pay the taxes. There are over 1,000 federal laws that offer protection only to married couples, and not to civil partners, domestic unions or anything other than recognized marriages.
Great point Post #561!!! But then you need to take issue with the federal government. Your point is outside the scope of the argument. The argument is about prop 8 which, as you correctly stated, would still not allow equal rights under FEDERAL law. So why try to push for the word "marriage" in prop 8 when it doesn't change anything but the name since civil unions are the same at the state-level but would not be recognized at the federal level no matter what the name is?
I short I did not bring up the Federal point b/c it's outside the scope of the argument to begin with. We are talking about California law here. Seriously though, well written and very insightful on Federal Law.
Hope I cleared it up for you.
Great article.
...and that last one ended the debate.
Dear John Fey,
Please go away.
I find it funny that everyone refers to this as hate speech. I read the article and didn't see one thin hateful. I've read more "hateful" things in birthday cards for crying out loud. There has been way more hate against the "religious right" in these comments than anything in the article. If someone goes up to an alchoholic and tells him he has a problem is that hate speech? Wow, you people are nuts.
Are you really saying that it is a "problem" to be gay?
Alcoholism IS a disease. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation.
I don't see the validity or relevance of your argument.
I haven't mentioned anything about Proposition 8 in my previous posts. You are attempting to fabricate a smokescreen to undermine my point. The issue I have is with you blindly suggesting that civil unions are equal to marriage, which is the entire scope of my arguement. And to bring the idea just a little closer to home for you, imagine if the federal government prohibited first generation children of immigrants from marrying, but said we’ll let you register your partnership instead. The very idea is offensive and demeaning. I'll go ahead and let you have the last word though, since you've proven yourself so well to be nothing more than an internet troll, who has nothing better to do with their time other than to distort facts to create arguements on message boards. What's the matter, did your World of Warcraft account get suspended? I'm sure if I log on at 3 a.m., you'll still be posting.
Wow, such animosity...I guess I mistook you for someone who is just trying to get an opinion across without all the excess amateur hatred. FYI, I'm watching the Dawgs dominate right now 83-49 as I'm typing this. Also, I was up last night late because I was studying for a final until way late, which I took earlier today. And I've never played WOW in my life but do go to the IMA and ball, as well as play football every weekend on a rec team. I'm more rounded than you would expect, but go on keep making assumptions.
If you didn't notice, we are talking about John Fay's article on this blog which is about prop 8, not about federal law. My points were about prop 8, IE the SCOPE OF THE ARGUMENT. You went off on a tangent. I guess we just aren't on the same page.
Side note, the game is over great win for the Dawgs, they are looking good after that near Florida loss. I'm expecting a sweet 16 this year which will help us sign Josh Smith and Tony Wroten in the future. And thank God we have Abdul Gaddy, WHAT A PICK-UP! At least we have the basketball team, happy about that!
With that, I'm done with this post, and now going to Happy Hour. Have fun!
Hey Reason,
Do you actually expect me to accept a Wiki page as a valid resource? Do you actually go to college here or have you just never written a paper?
Reason, sweetie, your love of balls are a little off topic.
Ha ha! Reading your darling comment about the invasiveness of sodomy made me chuckle.
As a woman, I am all too familiar with that invasiveness through the good old front door, excepting the monthy of course.
A penis is built for invasion, which is actually how, dear Bob, you got here in the first place.
Come to think of it, maybe more people should switch to the rear job.
And while we're on the subject --the word penis comes from the Latin word for tail.
In response to comment #1...
"Your argument about bestiality or underage marriage fails to take into account the idea of consent, something both sheep (LOVEly accompanying graphic) and 10 year old girls can't give."
I think that the flaw in your counter-argument comes from your understanding of "consent." If we accept a legal positivist view that certain people, by law, cannot give consent (10 year old girls), then we have to accept that the same standard already applies to gays. By attempting to refute his argument, you simply made it stronger.
http://timblair.spaces.live.com at any time we need to stop all hate crimes at the uw etc... the daily needs to replace By John Fay
November 25, 2008
For an opposing viewpoint, read Proposition 8 disappointing.
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.
This article was meant to provoke this kind of reaction. It succeeded in its objective.
Andy, that makes no sense legally or logically. At all. Re-read what you wrote.
yellow and blue make green!
To above:
The problem with his argument is that he assumes 10 year old girls can't voice consent. Legally, that's correct, although a ten year old could physically say "yes." The current law relies on the fact that a relationship of that nature is simply unethical, and should not be recognized. This sentiment is the same one that motivated people to vote in favor of prop. 8. For his argument to be correct, we would be led to another possible conclusion; because the state can't determine "love" in the case of gays, it shouldn't have that right in the case of toddlers. As such, children could be fair game for relationships.
Basically, he just paraphrased the editorial's argument.
Andy, you seem lonely. You should purchase one of my dolls for companionship! Just check out http://infomercial.tvheaven.com/richa... I can already tell that Smooch the Elf would be a perfect fit for you!
To post #568: "I'm more rounded than you would expect." Oh, believe me, everyone on this board expects you to be round... very round. :)
Gay marriage is wrong. Plain and simple.
Marriage is a union between "a man and a woman". Homosexualism is a HUGE problem in this world, a disease even.
And like any disease, we must unite and find a cure for it. It is infecting more and more people around this world and those who defend it seem to be under the misguided view that it's "normal" or "okay". It isn't.
Transvestitism is also quite wrong. These are all abhorrent behaviours and paying a psychologist to say that "It's okay to do this." does not make it okay.
Open your eyes, people.
My eyes are open, Bob, and I'm saddened that you're type of thinking still exists. This rhetoric has grown tired over our history and unfortunately won't go away with my eyes wide open or shut.
I think the government should stop recognizing marriage. If a couple wants a ceremonial marriage, fine. They can have a ceremony, but government will have no part of this.
They can put in place a way to legally add a name(s) for hospital emergencies and have legal protections obligating parents to children as well as other reasons people give for wanting marriage.
There are many benefits to this arrangement such as:
when a couple is buying a house, they agree contractually what portion of ownership each has, instead of splitting everything 50/50. If they do choose the 50/50 option, it can be there in black and white.
If someone needs to finish a college degree, they alone will qualify for aid, which is how it is done if someone had a more affluent roomate they are splitting costs with.
It is more clear (than when under the falsely secure state recognized "marriage")that someone can leave at any time. People stay, because they want to stay.
Best of all.....
No more fighting about who qualifies to married and who doesn't!
i could not agree more johnfay, keep up the good fight!
One of the standard tactics used in logic to quickly test if an argument is valid is to replace a proposition with its antithesis and see if it is still valid. With the simple search and replace of "gay" or "homosexual" with "christian" and "christian" or "church" with "homosexual", we can quickly see just how much non-sense is expressed in this article. Regardless of how you feel on this issue, you have an ethical duty to defend your views with well thought out, rational arguments, which you can see, this is not (Some sections elided for space):
[The Simpsons, while often brilliant in their social commentary, do not form a rational argument in any sense of the word]
. . .
Now, I realize the Christian 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 Christian marriage, which Prop. 8 overturned, was extremely rash. There is nothing constitutional about Christian marriage on a state or federal level. For Christian 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 Christians is discrimination, “like a person’s race or gender.” Race is a biological state; Christianity is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.
Being Christian, 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 Christian marriage. Once you’ve legalized Christian 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 homosexual 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 homosexual views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.
There’s also a social consideration. The potential of open Christianity 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 antiChristianblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs.
This sad reaction illustrates the danger of Christian marriage. Now, this is not to suggest that all or even most supporters of Christian marriage have acted inappropriately.
. . .
Did you know that in England, having a bob refers to taking a shit? Perhaps you're the one who needs to be cured?
Congrats for embarrassing UW, oh well, it's just more of the same, fairly typical cr*p that gay people face, the picture really doesn't help your case at all!
The Simpsons as a reference, I wouldn't attend here if I was paid to do so!
Thanks to a previous comment for this link- http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j_gEiRD...
It is clear that your understanding of homosexuality is limited, and this is what causes you to discriminate. Maybe you should stop and think, perhaps try to prove that homosexuality is "emotional condition." Good luck with that!
I will be extra kind and suggest you check with WBC and BNP supporters. It is unfortunate, for you, that many of their facts have no actual evidence!
On the other hand you could stop with the hatred and adopt more of a live and let live approach to life.
One thing that really bothers me is the that you mentioned peadeophelia, when I read an article that does that tries to compare homosexuality and peadeophelia the credibility of the piece drops, and the motive of its writer comes into question.
I am gay, I liked other boys from a very young age, and I had no previous exposure to homosexuality. I know that it is no choice or emotional condition, it is simply my orientation which cannot be changed.
I am past the legal age of consent, I can engage in sex with others above the age of consent, I can fall in love with others above the age of consent. If I make a life with someone that I love, what should it matter if it is a homosexual or hetrosexual relationship? Marriage allows an expression of commitment, I don't think this should be discouraged. I will never marry a woman, however the love between me and my partner is equal to that in a straight relationship, therefore when I settle down I would like the same rights as a straight couple, the same security, the same benefits. who are you to say that this should not be so?
Do you honestly mean to suggest that public outcry and protests are exclusive to gay people? Who are you kidding? Have you watched the news lately and seen the controversy over an Athiest sign being placed in the State capitol? That would be the Christians who are defacing the sign and holding protests over Governor Gregoire's stance on freedom of speech. Funny how you act so similar when the shoe is on the other foot.
Yah bro, like what the fuck Johy Fay. You raffle the feathers of all these fags and you bounce on them? Geez, what a douche. You need to step your game up, you know what I'm saying. The lord don't likey pussy's like you. My girl is coming over right now to suck my dick, you know what I'm talking about bro, you need to man up and get some poontang. But for reals tho, you have the title of the most gangster writer at the UW. That's so tight bro. Come to WSU and write, oh wait, nevermind bro.
yo what is up fagots, Gay marriage? r u serious, why the fuck are people wasting their time talking about this shit, I am a Dawg but I will actually agree will Mr. Pullman, it's all about that poontang, we should be talking about Puerto Rican booty
Ok, now I have done some freaky shit before. One time, I put my nuts in a girl asshole, then flipped the dick down into the pussy. Then, I told her to put that Ass-Gas in my face. Does that make me gay? Nah, I'm just a mah-fuckin freak!
Chaz McCormick, Pedos en mi cara, Spoonie Luv. What a fucking retard if you think we can't figure out that you're obviously the same idiot.
Hey #591, those sound like fighting-words. Why don't you identify yourself, then me Spoonie, Chaz, and Pedos en mi Cara can show you we are not the same person. From the looks of it, it sounds like you want 6 nuts in your ass. And why are you not focusing on the issue at hand: bestiality and marriage. And don't call people restarted, that can hurt someone's feelings.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, bro spoonie. Chillax homie g. I don't know about the whole nuts in the ass thing, maybe it's a dude. That shit would be totally gay, but if it was a girl, I'm down. But you know what I'm sayin. But yeah, 591 get your act straight pussy. Over here on the mean streets of Pullman when douche bags say something stupid like you just did, they have something bad coming to them. Just saying. Rep yo set bitch, Theta Xi, bitch. What it do.
JOhn Fay's argument is essentially a moral one involving tradition and truth. Why then is his article nothing more than a suspension of logical fallacies, created under the axiom that if you shotgun enough false arguments that somehow one or two of them might link together and click in a reader's mind as a valid, or even readable argument? Such disrespect for logic speaks loudly of the real motives for the anti-gay marriage crowd. Do they even know that when they open their mouths that their actions speak so much louder than their incoherent words? Probably not.
Mr. Fay, your column is filled with fallacies and flawed logic. I don't even think this is about gay marriage. This is about intelligence and common sense. The decision of the editorial board to run your column, and later to stand behind it is ridiculous and appalling. Your decision to write it only shows your own prejudice and ignorance. In a way, you have helped the gay rights movement. Your sad little article has prompted many people to realize how idiotic and nonsensical the anti-gay rights 'reasoning' is.
John,
Thank you for having the courage to speak out on a very important topic. Although I may not agree with everything you said, I do agree with you premise about gay marriage: marriage is meant to be a union between one man and one woman.
Thanks again for having the courage to speak up in what I'm sure is a very hostile environment for you.
You know, maybe when Marriage isn't soo easy to enter into ie: 2 strangers who meet, get drunk and 2-3hrs later go to a drive thru Marriage by an Elvis Impersonator in Vegas..and at that VERY MOMENT get over 1400 RIGHTS BACKED by the Federal Gov't. Meanwhile Convicted MURDERERS in Prison CAN MARRY and GET those 1400 RIGHTS......while LGBT Tax paying,hard wrking American citizens who've been in 5-10-15/20yr relationships or longer get Crapped on by thier own gov't....LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL ..my ass!! America needs to LIVE UP TO those words...or STOP USING THEM to describe how wonderful this country is...Pffft!
Mr Fay,Forget what all these people here say about your article....You have a great Future in Journalism...at FOX! (insert sarcazm) ....you ever think about changing majors?
Sounds like some of you, including the author, need to learn a few more things about civics, history, and gay people in general.
Saying that "social dysfunction" results from gay marriage because of the protests against the Prop 8 vote is like saying the Civil Rights marches and bus boycotts were a result of integration. If there were no bigoted opposition to extending full marriage rights, there would be no protest.
Everybody here needs to get a grip. I applaud the Daily for running such a controversial article; and I'm a Coug.
In no way what so ever is this hate speech, it is one side of an argument that the paper gave space to both opinions for. In no way does it attack or threaten anybody.
Would you consider a pro homosexual piece hate speech towards heterosexuals?
Keep it up Daily, make people think...
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.
#501 jewmonkey
(Houston, TX | Unverified Name)
on December 6, 2008 at 1:29 a.m.