LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

A response to hate speech run amuck

In response to Kris Donner’s ignorant rant on the sanctity of marriage: Boo! There comes a point when people’s opinions on issues regarding my life and the life of so many individuals in this country cross a boundary that incites hatred and idiocy. As a gay male I have stood silent for so many years, stagnant and drowning in a pool of trepidation. With the voices of the religious right frantically screaming their hateful speech, it is high time that American’s concerned with upholding the freedom of all individuals stand together and say, “No more!”

Since the fight for gay marriage is such a prevalent issue with several facets of discussion, I will focus specifically on Kris Donner’s words. Firstly, I agree when you say that the family is the most fundamental unit of society. However, your dogmatic definition of the family is derisory. I know two women who are in love. They decided to extend their love further when they adopted a child. That’s a family Kris. A family is a group of individuals bound together by affection, not your misguided definition of marriage.

This is basically what this argument boils down to, the definition of marriage. Putting all other arguments regarding homosexuality aside (like Kris Donner’s open disagreement to my “lifestyle”…  I was actually born this way Kris!) let’s have a rational discussion about society’s protocol in defining words. Traditionally, in America, words have gained solidified meaning as the result of a movement or revolution. In 1620, the Pilgrims defined the word preservation, with their bold escape from the suffocation of British rule that sought to control their religious beliefs. In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, defining the word freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1963, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed,” defining the word equality. In 2008 and the years to come, members of the LGBT community have the opportunity to stand together and define the word marriage. Marriage is an expression of love and love is indefinable.

So in response to Kris Donner and others who are not sympathetic to our plight, get used to us, we aren’t going away. To Kris Donner and other members of your hate posse, my God has different plans in store. The next time you talk to your God, tell him or her that my God would like to have a substantive discussion about human rights Kris Donner.
 

Matt Post is a sophomore studying political science.

Response to the article, “Proposition 8 (Con).”

Mr. Bode. Somehow you have taken the issue at hand, marriage, and added your own emotions and beliefs twisting the issue into something completely different. Kris Donner, the advocate for Proposition 8, went out of their way to state that they have no negative feelings towards the homosexual community rather just different views of the definition of marriage.

You on the other hand have gone out of your way to attack and deface the advocates view of marriage based on their religious views. Donner’s point was centered on the definition of marriage, the state of being united to a person of the “opposite sex” as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Donner was simply stating that it is, by definition, not possible for a homosexual relationship to enter into marriage. There was no attack made there rather an honest forthright view on the definition of marriage.

From that you chose to state that this view was ignorant, that it is an attack, and pure bigotry. Who is being ignorant? Who is doing the attacking? Who is being a bigot? If you are going to use Christian beliefs and Biblical knowledge as the base of your argument to attack those in favor of Proposition 8 you should probably do some research before copying and pasting “facts” totally taken out of context.

If you even had the slightest knowledge on the Bible and it’s teachings you would feel really ignorant having used the verses you did for the foundation of your argument. Like any other book you can’t simply pick and choose sentences out of context to prove your point. You have to read the book in its entirety to fully understand the whole story and the point the book is making. Every reference you made is from the Old Testament. If you would have went on further you would have run into the New Testament, the part of the Bible where we get Christianity.
Christianity is simply the teachings of Jesus Christ. Through the death of Jesus, God gave us a new covenant or “testament”. In this New Testament Jesus taught such things as it is ok to eat on the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-5) and that it is ok to eat all things of the earth, including shellfish (Acts 10:14-15) and also do to others what you would have them do to you (Mathew 7:12).

Next time you base your whole argument on defacing something do some research.

On what basis is your brash supposition, “Their actions are not done in worship to their “god” but in fear”, based on? Did you objectively interview the “Religious Right” concerning this statement, or did you once again make an uninformed and purposefully harmful statement to make your opinion seem more valid? So next time you write an article stay objective, stick to the facts and stick to the issue at hand. Religion isn’t the issue here. The definition of marriage is the issue.

Jacob Rowe is a junior studying secondary art education.

Related Posts:

1. Letters to the Editor
2. LETTER TO THE EDITOR
3. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
4. Letters to the Editor
5. Letters to the Editor