Discrimination tarnishing 'sanctity of marriage'

I would just like to say I completely agree with Alan Eder's column on gay marriage ("It's discrimination, stupid") 110 percent. It is a shame that I have to witness the creation of a second class in my lifetime. As someone who always grew up being taught to love everyone, I think it is completely unacceptable and wrong what our government is doing. The 2004 "Moral Values" campaign is perhaps the greatest lie and hypocrisy in American history since the days of Jim Crow.

However, I think Democrats should be ashamed as well for not doing enough to stand up for gays and lesbians. They have simply played a background role while groups like God Hates Fags, the Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's 700 Club have been courting the Republican Party. Truth is, none of these groups know a thing about Christ, and what they are preaching is against everything the Bible stood for.

I think social conservatives out there should know that most of the states implementing gay marriage bans already outlaw it. This is simply a cheap and disgusting campaign tool for Republicans to win votes in the "Good Ol' Boy Network." I remember when I was once a Republican how anti-gay so many people were. This was especially in the College Republicans. I was just so disgusted by it that I left the party entirely and registered as an independent.

The greatest freedom in society is the right to marry. Marriage is one of our most important foundations and it is what makes us human. When we take away that right from a certain part of society, then we're the ones who're really destroying the sanctity of marriage.

While homosexual marriage may not be traditional, neither was interracial marriage or interfaith marriage. There was a time when it was considered unnatural and untraditional for black people to be free. We need to accept our mistakes in society and correct them.

Joel Shooster
political science sophomore

Majority of Americans think homosexuality is wrong

Alan Eder's column ("It's discrimination, stupid") is flawed at one basic level. While he contends that we allow the liberty of marriage to one group of people and not another, he fails to realize that every citizen of this country can get married, just not to somebody of the same gender. The way the law is currently, everyone already has equal rights. Opponents may claim this is unfair because a homosexual may not be allowed to marry somebody they love. But this reminds us of the age-old saying "life isn't always fair." What if the person one loves is already married to another, or the person loves an animal or inanimate object? Should legislation be passed to protect their love interests as well?

We live in a democracy where in theory the majority rules. The majority of Americans happen to believe homosexuality is wrong. This isn't to say that they believe homosexuals are bad people but that the actual act is wrong. Now what a person does with another consenting legal adult in the privacy of their own home is between them and God. But when we pass legislation allowing two people of the same gender to get married, that states that we as a society condone that behavior when most people in our society don't.

Many contend this is due to bigoted traditional religious views. Perhaps, but unfortunately for them marriage is an institution that has its roots in religion (as opposed to the act of simply having a mate which is rooted in nature). Sorry, but if an institution comes from religion, then religious ideals get to dictate the rules of said institution.

Tom Mosby
psychology junior

Indian mascots boost self-esteem of white sports fans

In the article on Dr. Fryberg's lecture ("Professor: American Indian mascots lower self-esteem"), it was mentioned that her research showed that exposure to Indian sports mascots lowered the self-esteem of American Indians relative to a control group without such exposure. Not mentioned was another study of hers that demonstrated a corresponding increase in the self-esteem of sports fans exposed to the same mascots, most of whom are of European descent.

So, the unspoken bad news in Fryberg's lecture was that those of us who are fighting racial and ethnic stereotypes may possibly be up against some very real economic incentives for powerful professional sports franchises to continue using what research has now shown to be degrading mascots.

Spencer Hunter
library specialist

Word 'man' not inherently sexist

I would like to respond to Kathryn Ortiz's letter on sexist language ("Wildcat needs to steer clear of 'sexist' language"). According to Merriam Webster, the word "manned" means: a: to supply with people, as for service (man a fleet) b: to station members of a ship's crew at (man the capstan).

Just because a word has "man" in it, it doesn't mean that it has to do with men. If it did, here are some other sexist words we would need to avoid: woman, women, human, manatee, mental, manager, semen, history (doesn't mean "his story") and menstrual. Lighten up, go outside, get some sun and enjoy yourself. Maybe you will see that we aren't all out to oppress you.

Ken Gafner
UA alumnus

Gays already granted enough 'unnecessary privileges'

This is in response to Eder's tearjerking crusade for gay marriage ("It's discrimination, stupid"): We went through all this last year. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. That's the bottom line. Hanging the weight of your argument on the Constitution is a cop out. First, in our democratic society, we vote for things. When the vast majority of our nation's population votes against gay marriage, that should be the end of it. We're going to overturn that to appease a mere 2 percent of our population?

We've already granted them enough unnecessary privileges (parades). Let's not get carried away. There are numerous other reasons why it's a ridiculous proposition, but the voice of the people speaks loudest: no.

Rob Monteleone
media arts senior

Censoring perceived sexism is the real oppression

Kathryn Ortiz's Thursday letter in response to "Oppression issues seen in tunnel" alarms me. If a person wishes to use "manned" instead of "staffed," he should be free to do so. Censoring perceived sexism in language oppresses underrepresented groups - apathetics and misogynists. This intolerance of others' beliefs should not stand.

Besides, "manned" is more appropriate than "staffed" in Ariel Serafin's story, because men are, on the whole, more capable tour guides and actors.

Matthew Harwood
creative writing sophomore

Generation Y no match for older workers

I'm so glad that Mike Morefield is confident that the "Y" (does that stand for "whiney"?) generation will do so well in the workforce ("'Y?' Because we're on the way to the top"). I want all of you Y's to believe that you can: Burst into the workplace and demand better pay for less work, ask your boss "why?" you have to do something you're told to do and just be an all-around pain in the ass to your new employer. Oh! Don't forget to have your mom call your new boss to tell him or her that they're not appreciating you enough; then I'll get your job, or better yet, they'll eliminate your position and give me more money!

You see, as an X'er, I have more on-the-job experience than you've even been alive. I have war experience (Desert Shield/Storm), 13 years of trade experience as a plumbing contractor, I've owned a business and soon I'll have the same letters behind my name as all of you. When it's all said and done, those will be B.A., M.A. and J.D. It's going to be tough to compete with me: no whining, no telling employers that they don't do enough for me, or expecting overblown compensation for mediocre work.

I wish you luck, Y's; if you're anything like Mr. Morefield's description, you'll be lucky not to get escorted out of the building by security at your new job. That is, if you get one. Welcome to the real world.

Dan Anglin
senior majoring in English