To the Editor:
Justin Boulmay's opinion piece on Tuesday is sure to ignite all
sorts of controversy. There will be the inevitable cries of indignation
directed at Boulmay‚s comparison of gay marriage with the
immorality of pedophilia and bestiality. But the outrage at Boulmay’s
charges, though valid, largely miss the point. Boulmay's primary
thesis one never proved, merely asserted is that marriage is a
gift of God and that the government cannot legitimately create
laws that go against the arbitrarily established preferences of
the deity. Boulmay's implicit wish is to replace the secular and
rational political philosophy of our founding fathers with theocratic
laws grounded in faith; this, I submit, is moral obscenity. Marriage,
properly, is neither a gift from God nor a subjective creation
of a particular culture; it serves legitimate legal and psychological
needs. Just as sex is a physical act stressing the mental unity
of two or more partners, so marriage is a legal act stressing
the same unity. The government properly limited has no right to
step in and deny any legal union between consensual, rational
partners for the same reason that it does not have the right to
regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults; that is not
the proper purpose of government. The government's sole responsibility
is the protection of individual rights; any attempt for it to
do otherwise an attempt to redefine something that was never the
government‚s to decide.
Brandon Byrd
Vice-President,Objectivist Club
bb47783
To the Editor:
To compare the legalization of homosexual marriages to bestiality,
incest, pedophilia, rape or any other sexual crime (as Justin
Boulmay attempted to do in your 3/2/04 issue) is absurd. Those
are acts, which take advantage of others and cause them injury
on many levels, thus their illegality.
The issue of homosexual marriage is not about harm to families,
individuals or society. Nor is it due to the sanctity of marriage.
(Especially not in a country where half or more of all marriages
fail.) It is about the reproduction of inequalities, which favor
some and cause harm or deficits for others. It is only part of
the struggle for equality, which is faced by many, not just the
LGBT community. The true issue at hand is not whether the legal
validation of bonds of love, respect and support is a moral act.
It is whether or not the perpetuation of systems of inequality
which create second-class citizens out of those who are different
is ethical.
I invite everyone interested to attend a meeting of ASU's BGLAAD
(Bisexuals, Gays, Lesbians, and Allies Associated for Diversity).
It meets every Thursday night in the Equity Office, IG Greer,
at 8:00 pm, and is a great source of information, as well as a
warm community of friends. Everyone is welcome. Bring your questions,
and an open mind.
Terrell Gould
Senior psychology/anthropology
lg46874
To the Editor:
I’ve been a part of the Appalachian Family for five years,
and I have never heard an expression of ignorance as blatantly
disrespectful as Justin Boulmay’s editorial about his position
on homosexual marriage. In no way is a marriage or a civil union
of same-sex couples comparable to “adults who wish to have
sexual relations with a child.” The way that Justin compares
the love of two human beings with an adult raping a child is disgusting
and outrageously inaccurate. I’d imagine that the love between
two people being compared to a pedophile is most likely painful
for any gay person to hear. I was so shocked after reading Justin’s
article that I called two homosexual friends to gauge their responses
to his statements. However, I was even more shocked by their nonchalant
reactions. One friend replied to the article saying, “Homosexuals
are so used to being hated on that we’re almost used to
it by now.” After listening to my friend express his apathy
towards your article, Justin, I’ve become eager— eager
to have close-minded people wake up and realize that it’s
not their job to judge another person’s lifestyle. Two people
of the same sex, whose intentions are only to love each other
and to be treated equally, should not be compared to pedophiles
whose intentions are to inflict pain and suffering. Homosexuals
at ASU and around the world deserve apologies from you and The
Appalachian. With Mountaineer Pride,
BrianS.Merritt
bm37898
To the Editor:
I would like to make some comments in regard to your article in
Tuesday’s paper. I am one of few Jewish students that attend
ASU, and I know that I am a minority. Where I am from, I have
never had to deal with such adversity. But after being here for
years, I have come to deal with the fact that my religion plays
a huge part of “who I am." I have known about the controversial
movie, “The Passion of Christ”, and until I read Tuesday’s
paper, I have never been as offended as I was that day. I think
of myself as a very accepting person, I love diversity and I love
differing opinions. I really want to see Mel Gibson’s movie,
because I want to gain knowledge and understanding. However, when
The Appalachian printed that the Campus Crusade for Christ was
having a “buy one get one free” program for tickets
for “The Passion” I was offended. “Any member
of CCC can buy a ticket and get another for free provided they
bring an ‘unsaved’ friend. I really don’t feel
the need to be! “saved” while watching Gibson’s
movie. I am just thankful that my friends accept me for who I
am, and not feel the urge to “save” me, while watching
a movie. A movie’s true reason is for entertainment, not
spreading the word of the Gospel to the unsaved. I guess the reason
for this letter was because I thought I was living in a progressive
and accepting society that knows more than one religion exists.
I feel like I am taking a couple steps back into the past, and
that scares me more than anything. All I want is to be accepting
for who I am, not what religion I happen to be.
Emily C. Robertson
Junior, PR major
er47104
|
