Sunday, December 07, 2008



Hundreds rally at UW against anti-homosexual-marriage column in campus newspaper

We read:
"About 200 people attended a rally Friday at the University of Washington to protest an anti-gay marriage column that ran in the student newspaper, The Daily. Protesters say language in the column, including a reference to bestiality, coupled with the accompanying image of a man standing next to a sheep, amounted to hate speech. But speakers differed on whether the paper should be censured.

Ana Mari Cauce, the UW's dean of arts and sciences, talked about her own struggles coming out as a lesbian and the hurt she felt in reading the column. "But the antidote to free speech is more free speech," she said. "I am thankful that I am living in a country where everyone has the right to express their opinions."

On the other hand, the Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS) this week passed a resolution demanding the paper apologize. However, the editor-in-chief of The Daily, Sarah Jeglum, said this week she stands behind the decision to run the column and isn't planning any sort of apology. In a Friday column, Jeglum said she'd learned "Free speech is for everyone. It's not just for the majority, and it's not just for the minority."

That difference of opinion, if not resolved, could lead to a showdown between the editors of the paper and the elected student-body representatives who sit on the publications board which oversees The Daily. Dave Iseminger, GPSS vice president, hinted at such a showdown when he said at the rally that lacking an apology, his group may work to change the composition of the paper's editorial board.

Source

The column concerned was a perfectly rational one. Here is an excerpt:
"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?

Source

Rational debate is beyond the Left. All that they are good at is hate.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

One of the most fundamental principles of Leftism is, do as we say, not as we do. This is simply another example of that warped, biased, irrational way of thinking.

Anonymous said...

The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy - in that case all "marriage" should be banned or abandoned!

Anonymous said...

The left?, But all the gay and pedophile politicians getting outed are republicans.

Mobius

Anonymous said...

Gee whiz, somebody now has a username of Mobius.

But it ain't me!

I guess that I could go by Dave Jones, but someone would just register that name and then what would I do.

And do you have any idea of how many Dave Jones's there are in the world?

Mobius

Anonymous said...

"The left?, But all the gay and pedophile politicians getting outed are republicans."

Barney (meat-whistle) Frank is a Republican? But that does leave all the Demoncrats to steal every penny that's left, doesn't it.

Anonymous said...

In Massachgusetts, we will elect ANY loser with a D after his name.

"Gerry Eastman Studds (May 12, 1937 – October 14, 2006) (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/) was an American Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts who served from 1973 until 1997. He was the first openly gay national politician in the U.S. In 1983 he was censured by the House of Representatives after he admitted to having had an affair with a 17-year-old page in 1973.......

Studds was re-elected to the House six more times after the 1983 censure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

Anonymous said...

I don't think the slippery slope argument is a fallacy (in that it is misleading, false or unsound). I do, however, think that this should be used and accepted with caution. The problem is not where do we start but where do we stop. Of course, the same is true of everything from speed limits to tax...
I am impresed with Ms Cauce - if only all were as enlightened. Maybe someone should pass her comments on to the No on Prop 8 whingers now carrying on in California.

Anonymous said...

But the "slippery slope" argument is used to stop extending marriage rights at all. So why were voting rights extended to women and blacks when it might lead to giving votes to illegal immigrants or to 10 year-olds, or to whoever would like a vote wherever they live in the world - none of which is as silly as marrying your dog?

Anonymous said...

The government should stay out of the marriage business. The legal aspect of marriage is a contract between two people. There is no rational reason this contract should not be allowed for any pair or group. As long as no person is coerced or forced into the contract the it should be applied to everyone.

The argument in the article about the 70 year old man and the underaged girls is flawed because underaged girls are not legally allowed to sign a binding contract. The same is applied to bestiality.

Longevity of a tradition is not a good basis for what is lawful or right. Slavary has been practiced for most of the last 5000 years, but most of us would agree it is wrong.

The marriage of two homosexuals in no way alters the sanctity of a traditional marriage. If you don't like it, then don't go to the wedding.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but repulican gays and pedos, far outnumber the democrats. Enjoy your kool-aid

Anonymous said...

My argument about "Civil Marriage" is that the government should either get out entirely, or recognize that it is simply a contract and allow any number of consenting adults to enter into "Civil Marriage."

There is no rational argument against bigamy under Civil Law, other than "that's always the way we've done things around here."

The example of an adult and an underage girl is a red-herring because the underage girl is not allowed to make any other legal decisions (with the exception, of course, of abortion rights).

If the government wants to give persons who are bound by civil inheritance and joint property contracts (what we currently call "marriage") special standing in the form of tax breaks, etc., then we should give such breaks to all who are bound by such contracts.

Why is it that in business, I can contract with any number of entities for any number of things, but in my personal life I'm only allowed to designate one "spouse?"

However, if the government is going to regulate "marriage," then the people will decide what constitutes marriage - and if the people decide to restrict marriage to one man and one parakeet, that is the electorate's choice to make.

I see no "right" to marriage in the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

The truth is that the article excerpt is dead on. Unlike race, homosexuality is a choice, plain and simple. And it is up to the country to legislate how it will react to those choices.

I'm a law-abiding, God-fearing, straight male with an excellent credit score. So where is my special treatment? Where is my bailout check? Where is my special legislation giving me special rights?

Anonymous said...

7:26 AM - You are very lucky as the law has given you the special right to marry the sexual partner of your choice - because as a straight male you are only interested in marrying an adult woman who accepts your proposal (well so long as she's not already married - in which case you are in the same boat as homosexuals in being denied a desired marriage partner - what a bummer!.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 5:22, source for that belief in the prevalence of repubs vs dems, or is it under the heading of "EVERYBODY (in YOUR circle) knows...." ?????

Kind of like Pauline Kael writing in disbelief regarding the outcome of the Nixon-McGovern election of 1972, "Nixon can't have won; no one I know voted for him" ?????

Anonymous said...

There is a rational argument against bigamy. Where men have been allowed to marry more than one woman at a time, you get a whole lot of men who encounter a shortage of available women. What has historically happened in those societies is that the men who are the losers in the marriage sweepstakes realize the only way they are going to get any sex is via prostitution, rape, or murdering the husband of the desired woman, and act on that realization accordingly. Those become extremely violent societies, with all the consequences that implies.

As for rights, this paragraph from chapter 7 of "For a New Liberty" says it well:

A "right," philosophically, must be something embedded in the nature of man and reality, something that can be preserved and maintained at any time and in any age. The "right" of self-ownership, of defending one's life and property, is clearly that sort of right: it can apply to Neanderthal cavemen, in modern Calcutta, or in the contemporary United States. Such a right is independent of time or place. But a "right to a job" or to "three meals a day" or to "twelve years of schooling" cannot be so guaranteed. Suppose that such things cannot exist, as was true in Neanderthal days or in modern Calcutta? To speak of a "right" as something which can only be fulfilled in modern industrial conditions is not to speak of a human, natural right at all. Furthermore, the libertarian "right" of self-ownership does not require the coercion of one set of people to provide such a "right" for another set. Every man can enjoy the right of self-ownership, without special coercion upon anyone. But in the case of a "right" to schooling, this can only be provided if other people are coerced into fulfilling it. The "right" to schooling, to a job, three meals, etc., is then not embedded in the nature of man, but requires for its fulfillment the existence of a group of exploited people who are coerced into providing such a "right."

Anonymous said...

This entire issue is all semantics. In Cali, civil unions are treated the same as marriages under state law. If the people against Prop 8 were fighting to get civil unions the same regognintion nationally, then they would be much more successful. Im from Florida and I voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. If the vote had come up to give civil unions the same rights as marriages, I would have voted for that. However thats not what the gay crowd wants. They want to be "married" and take kindergartners to gay marriage ceremonies. You guys wanted all or nothing and now you have nothing. And Anon 9:06, Im glad you pointed out that straight people can marry someone of the opposite sex. However you call is a "special" right. Its not "special", you have the same rights as straight people. You can both marry someone of the opposite sex. Since we all have the same rights, exactly where is the discrimination? If that straight person wanted to marry another guy, he doesnt have that right because he is straight. he has to abide by the laws that govern everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

Anonymous said...

One of Charles Dickens' characters famously said "if the law supposes that the law is a ass - a idiot" And a law preventing two adult human beings from marrying each other just because they don't have the required genitalia, is a dumb law reflecting a dumb society.
And why should "straights" have a better class of "marriage" than non-straights - that's discrimination. And to tell them they can always marry someone they don't want to is also dumb.