No moral justification for objection to gays

Minita Sanghvi's column on Friday was exceptional. The society that will survive is the society that is open to the most individuals with positive energy. Throughout history, many humans that have had same-sex partners have contributed to our species. Whatever their concept of the creator, humans with same-sex partners must originate from that source of energy in the same way as others. If two adults agree to be together, why should anyone care? There is no real need for humans to procreate any more than we have been already. In fact, a case can be built that those who have large families are more immoral than those not procreating, if morality is based on survival of our species and not just religious dogma.

Great, honest, courageous column, Minita, and thanks to the Wildcat for printing it.

Robert Johnson
biology senior

Homosexual activities need condemnation

I found the Christopher Wingert letter so typical of the denial held by those afflicted with SSAD (Same Sex Attraction Disorder). He writes: "Believe it or not, gay Christians exist." Well, I think I'll opt not to believe such a heresy, because it's an absolute contradiction to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ while being a buggery enthusiast at the same time.

Wingert goes on to spread the myth that people are born gay when he uses the half-truth that: "God loves us the way He created us." Yet he neglects to explain how it is that certain common traits exist in the upbringing of many homosexuals, such as dysfunctional relationships with their fathers.

Indeed there are many other irrefutable facts censored by the pro-gay mass media, such as the fact that a vast majority of priestly pedophile cases are those between men and boys. Likewise, there is a highly disproportionate number of sodomites amongst serial killers, such as John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Dean Coryl and Herb Baumeister ÷ to name a few. Yes, Chris, I'm afraid you people have made it my business to condemn this vice against nature that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

No doubt if this is published it will produce a backlash of nonsense about "bigotry and homophobia." Like Dan Quayle once said to his enemies, "I wear your scorn as a badge of honor."

Wingert closes by referring to the mess we're in. I couldn't agree more.

Gonzalo Martinez Celaya
UA alumnus

Responsibility comes with right to party

Never have I read such an immature response to someone's opinion as Aaron Vill's response to John King's letter, which was critical of out-of-control college parties. Instead of presenting a logical argument against King's letter, all Vill could muster was a feeble attack against King by calling him boring, an idiot, etc. If Vill considers himself an adult, he should act like one. Furthermore, if it was Vill's intention to convince others of his maturity, he failed miserably.

Vill writes, "You can't make these claims that you can't back up," regarding King's assertion that there is broken glass and trash left behind in the aftermath of college parties. Well, I can attest to instances such as those and worse, and, yes, I do have police reports to back them up. In 2001, my wife and I moved from a neighborhood near Tucson and Elm after living there for five years. During two of those years, the house next door was rented to college students. A contributing factor to the move was college parties. During our tenure in that neighborhood, we experienced stolen property, a vandalized mailbox and vomit on our front porch, not to mention sleepless nights ÷ all of which were directly attributed to college parties. Although we tried to tolerate the disruptions, we weren't the only ones disturbed since the house next door was red-tagged three times in two years.

If one were to take Vill's advice that one should live 15 minutes away or farther from the university to avoid problems associated with out-of-control parties, a huge area of Tucson would be off-limits to residents, which is absolutely ludicrous. A more prudent approach would be to party responsibly, and, if one wants to be excessively boisterous, party at a bar or another commercial establishment designed for such behavior. There is a time and place for everything and neighborhoods are not the place for unrestrained bacchanalian festivals. College students do have a right to party and have fun; no one is denying that. But with rights there are responsibilities. A house party has a right to occur so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of neighbors to have their own peace and tranquility.

As a disclaimer: Yes, I do party occasionally, and, no, I do not know and am not affiliated in any way with John King. I wrote this letter so as not to let immaturity and ignorance masquerade as maturity.

Frank Vladich
UA staff and alumnus

Improving neighbor relations a good idea

Contrary to Ann Trahkman's opinion, I believe that ASUA Sen. Sara Birnbaum has picked a great problem for ASUA to tackle. Getting students to accept their responsibilities as adults, including those of obeying noise and drinking ordinances, might just make a dent in alleviating problems with "car thefts and break-ins, rapes, assaults, etc.," as well as controlling other related, less serious, but still very irritating problems, such as party and post-party littering, vandalism, drunk driving and general disturbance of the peace. College students are not solely the cause of these types of problems in surrounding communities, but as a group they are responsible for far more than their fair share. I wish Birnbaum the best in her quest to bring the community and the students together to find answers to these contentious issues.

Dan Moynihan
UA staff engineer

At birth, whites have numerous advantages

I am writing in response to Eric Hathaway's letter in which he states that "people throw down the race card for personal gain."

What he doesn't acknowledge is that whites in the United States are dealt a hand of aces at birth. White people don't have to "throw down" a race card ÷ it's called white privilege. We may not ask for it, but these unearned benefits are automatically given to us because of the color of our skin.

White privilege is shopping and not being followed or harassed; it is being able to excel without being called "a credit to your race;" it is taking a job with an affirmative action employer and not worrying that coworkers suspect that you got it because of race; it is having a building named for someone who shares your skin color and not having it protested or questioned, just to name a few examples.

The desire for the "country to become a kaleidoscope of colors" so whites can "have a moment of solace" so that we are not "the face of some oppressive majority" is ignorant to our history of 300 years of affirmative action that has benefited white people, including slavery, Jim Crow laws, forcibly relocating Native Americans and taking their land, denying citizenship to immigrants of color, a militarized border, legacy admissions · and the list goes on and on.

Though we may not like it or feel responsible for it, white people are indeed the face of oppression, though we will not be a majority much longer. Rather than have guilt or anger about our unearned privileges, whites need to acknowledge and use our privilege to create a more just and equitable society. Our "solace" will come when whites are willing to pass along our aces, give up our domination and power and end racism on the institutional and individual levels in this country.

Cathy Busha
ASU Tucson component
MSW student