Letters to the Editor
‘Bureaucratic advising system’ makes enrolling difficult
I was determined to get my schedule set up for the Spring semester, but I ran into several problems registering. It was neither the schedule book nor my registering time, but the overwhelming design of the bureaucratic advising system here on campus that was more troubling than ever.
You meet with your academic advisor who only guides you with General Education courses, but then when you meet with your major adviser, they are not aware of G.E. requirements.
How can you plan your schedule with different inputs suggested?
This bureaucratic advising system is way too complicated.There should only be one adviser that can answer both G.E. and major requirements.
Other universities provide services where students only have one adviser. Why not here?
This is discouraging for students.
I had to make two separate appointments on two separate days to only find myself in a deep hole. I was more confused after seeing two different advisers and highly discouraged to return.
If this campus wants to continue promoting and improving academic achievements of students, they must fix the bureaucratic advising system here on campus.
Rebeka O. Garcia
Freshman
Pre-Physical Therapy
Students urged to offer help to charities during holiday season
As we approach the holiday season, I dearly hope that everyone thinks of all those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
Around 21 percent of Fresno’s denizens live in extreme poverty — that’s one out of five people who probably can’t afford a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner.
This statistic is an abomination to our community. Consider this, and consider helping the situation.
Instead of just lounging around in anticipation of ridiculous amounts of mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes and gifts from your rich Uncle Bob, try volunteering your able labor at the Bulldog Pantry, Poverello House, the Community Food Bank and other such establishments.
The Bulldog Pantry is located on Shaw and Jackson, across the street from the University Health Center — easily accessible for students and faculty.
If you are unable to physically lend a hand, a simple donation, however small, can make a vast difference. Another great reference point to start with is www.volunteermatch.org/search, where you can search for places at which to volunteer, maybe finding another cause you’d like to champion.
Knowing that you’ve helped decrease the destitution of this city is one of the best things you can give thanks for.
Give someone the comfort of knowing that there are still people who care about the welfare of the homeless and impoverished. Give a little of what every person wants and a lot of people take for granted, the best gift a person can receive during the holidays — love.
Jacqueline Aldern
Freshman
Studio Art
Price of textbooks too large a burden for average students
Aside from the cost of tuition and housing, students like myself are now being forced to pay up to $1,000 a year on textbooks.
I’ve tried sharing books with classmates or not buying the books at all, but both these options make it harder to succeed in my classes.
As a student taking an average of 18 units a semester, I find myself spending close to $500 on books alone, sometimes in vain when I find that teachers don‘t even use some of the books required for the class.
I try to purchase books online at cheaper prices, but most teachers require the newest editions, (which in my opinion are only made to help book sales) not to mention the fact that when a new edition comes out, selling your book back to the school is useless.
Most students only receive about one-fifth of their money back and end up with books they don’t want.
The book store should develop a way to rent books to students at cheaper prices, and charge for damages or lost books.
It would also be helpful if the majority of textbooks could be found in the library, even if you can’t rent them out.
As a student I want to stick to sources like half.com simply to not be participating in this monopoly of book sales.
Dayna Waterworth
Freshman
Pre-Occupational Therapy Major
Construction near major campus intersection an ‘annoyance’
The construction on the corner of Cedar and Shaw has become extremely bothersome.
I live in Graves Hall, so I am constantly driving by Cedar and Shaw. The construction just congests everything and causes driving to last much longer than it should. While construction is going, there is either only one lane or no left or right turns. This forces drivers to locate detours and find their way around the construction.
I do realize that the school is just trying to improve the roads by our school, but why couldn’t this construction be done over the summer where it would not cause so much annoyance?
It just doesn’t seem like this construction plan was given much thought.
Robert Delmanowski
Freshman
Business
Title IX places ‘unnecessary burdens’ on athletic departments
As students, we must grapple with raising tuition and other student fees at Fresno State as the university tries to adjust to a shrinking budget.
The addition of a lacrosse program to the athletic department increases expenditures when less funding is available to the school, all in the name of gender equality. Despite its noble purpose, Title IX is placing unnecessary burdens on universities across the nation, including Fresno State, in its call for compliance in establishing an environment of gender equality.
In order to offset the costs of football, common men’s sports, like soccer and wrestling, have been cut while women’s sports that have no roots in the Valley, like lacrosse, have been added. There is a certain irony in the fact that Title IX is responsible for men’s exclusion from soccer, swimming and diving at Fresno State — all of which have women’s programs — in its promotion of gender equality.
Fresno State’s baseball and softball teams — each with a national championship — are highly esteemed, as well as the men’s and women’s basketball teams for their NCAA tournament appearances. The issue at Fresno State is not the need to create more opportunities for women (often achieved at the expense of men’s sports), but to ensure equality among all programs, regardless of gender.
All athletic programs at Fresno State should receive the same treatment, attention and support from the university, from the football program to the lacrosse team.
Samantha Peel
Freshman
History
Californians should watch courts’ ‘Judicial strong-arming’
Fellow Americans, arise from your snoozing! We may soon see the court system do the inconceivable — that is, rule that part of the constitution itself is unconstitutional!
Apparently some of those who opposed Proposition 8 are ready to ignore the wisdom of the majority, as well as the foundation of Western civilization in general, and try to use the courts to ram their demented version of marriage on the rest of us.
It was judicial strong-arming that made Proposition 8 necessary in the first place. Now, it’s going to be interesting to see just how brazen and shameless the courts will be in supporting this effort to override the will of the people. Whatever happened to government of the people, by the people, and for the people?
Every year, we celebrate the Revolution in which our predecessors risked possessions, life, and limb in order to free themselves from a tyrannical foreign monarch who was accountable to no one. Do we have the character to preserve our democratic republic from domestic tyrants who arrogantly display their lack of accountability to, and contempt for, the people?
Shall we remain silent while the power of our votes becomes completely nullified?
Not me!
Brad Taylor
Fresno State Alumnus
Related Content
A verified e-mail address is required to post a comment.
Views expressed in the comments section are not representative of The Collegian unless so specified. Comments must be approved by a moderator before they are published. Comments that are inflammatory, profane, libelous and/or posted under a false name may be removed at the discretion of The Collegian. Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper. Be sure to pick up next Friday's issue of The Collegian for featured comments.
80 Responses to Letters to the Editor
Leave a Reply
Connect with us »
Recent Posts »
- Year in Review: The Collegian sits down with President Welty
- Thrower McKee is a rare breed
- Sprinter perseveres through injuries
- Wrightful departure
- The “udder” truth about campus milk production
- Year in review: The Collegian sits down with President Welty
- What the future holds
- Student volunteer’s rough childhood fuels passion to give back
- Head Softball Coach Margie Wright announces retirement
- Shots fired in ‘Sin City’
- A final farewell: Seven seniors say goodbye
- Piercings represent independence and fashion for many
Brad, you know other examples of judicial activism? Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that separate but equal was not. And let’s not forget Brown v. Board of Education, saying that schools could not be segregated. Loving v. Virginia, too, ruling that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and cannot be withheld from a couple merely because they are interracial.
In reality the Supreme Court was doing its JOB when it struck down Prop 22. It was striking down an unconstitutional law that made an entire class of human beings unequal and excluded them.
And you think that putting, right after the constitution’s commitment to equal protection of all, a statement EXCLUDING an entire group of people, is just fine and dandy? No. Amending the constitution is not the answer. It is against what our nation stands for, based solely on prejudice and hate.
The majority is not wise. The founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of mob rule. That is why our Congress is composed of two parts and why we have an electoral college. James Madison, one of our founding fathers and someone credited with our federalist system of government, warned against the tyranny of the majority and stressed that: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” While you may not like us, the GLBT community is a minority group. We are human beings, deserving of civil rights. And matters as important as civil rights should not be decided by a simple majority vote.
Maybe our founding fathers would have an issue with homosexuality, but they certainly wouldn’t support a simple majority being able to alter the constitution in such a fundamental way. It goes against the nation they founded and the ideals upon which they founded it.
Brad, you know other examples of judicial activism? Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that separate but equal was not. And let’s not forget Brown v. Board of Education, saying that schools could not be segregated. Loving v. Virginia, too, ruling that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and cannot be withheld from a couple merely because they are interracial.
In reality the Supreme Court was doing its JOB when it struck down Prop 22. It was striking down an unconstitutional law that made an entire class of human beings unequal and excluded them.
And you think that putting, right after the constitution’s commitment to equal protection of all, a statement EXCLUDING an entire group of people, is just fine and dandy? No. Amending the constitution is not the answer. It is against what our nation stands for, based solely on prejudice and hate.
The majority is not wise. The founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of mob rule. That is why our Congress is composed of two parts and why we have an electoral college. James Madison, one of our founding fathers and someone credited with our federalist system of government, warned against the tyranny of the majority and stressed that: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” While you may not like us, the GLBT community is a minority group. We are human beings, deserving of civil rights. And matters as important as civil rights should not be decided by a simple majority vote.
Maybe our founding fathers would have an issue with homosexuality, but they certainly wouldn’t support a simple majority being able to alter the constitution in such a fundamental way. It goes against the nation they founded and the ideals upon which they founded it.
Jo,
I completely see where you’re coming from, However, answer me this: would you be happier if the majority decided that homosexuals should not marry, or if a handful of judges decided the same thing?
Jo,
I completely see where you’re coming from, However, answer me this: would you be happier if the majority decided that homosexuals should not marry, or if a handful of judges decided the same thing?
Handful of judges. That’s what they’re there for.
Handful of judges. That’s what they’re there for.
Agree with Perry on this one.
But here’s the funny thing. Those judges decided that homosexuals SHOULD marry, that denying us marriage rights was unconstitutional. Oh, SNAP.
And the reaction from these same people who want to uphold the “values” of America was an unconstitutional amendment passed by a simple majority, something that goes against America’s values..
No one was forcing Brad to get married to a guy, nor were we forcing his church to perform gay marriages. We had the civil right to marry, and now 18,000 families are in limbo because of Prop 8.
Agree with Perry on this one.
But here’s the funny thing. Those judges decided that homosexuals SHOULD marry, that denying us marriage rights was unconstitutional. Oh, SNAP.
And the reaction from these same people who want to uphold the “values” of America was an unconstitutional amendment passed by a simple majority, something that goes against America’s values..
No one was forcing Brad to get married to a guy, nor were we forcing his church to perform gay marriages. We had the civil right to marry, and now 18,000 families are in limbo because of Prop 8.
If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Taylor is a musician with the Philharmonic. He complains constantly about gays and lesbians–he even complained about the domestic partner laws.
Some things to be aware of…
The Yes On 8 groups are now at each other’s throats. The “official” campaign is trying mightily to keep what it describes as the lunatic “fringe” groups away from the Supreme Court. The campaign does not want the waters muddied with some interesting legal theories, like….
The one the Campaign for California Families advanced in its unsuccessful petition to intervene in the Supreme Court. The CCF argues that all constitutional rights in California are subject to the people’s initiative power. They argued that a simple majority of voters could legitimately take away constitutional rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion for specific religions and the courts would be powerless to do anything about it. There is no way the bigots who want to portray themselves as not bigoted want anything like that dumped in the Supreme Court. It would likely mean the overturning of Prop 8.
Mr. Taylor and his rant are just plain pathetic.
If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Taylor is a musician with the Philharmonic. He complains constantly about gays and lesbians–he even complained about the domestic partner laws.
Some things to be aware of…
The Yes On 8 groups are now at each other’s throats. The “official” campaign is trying mightily to keep what it describes as the lunatic “fringe” groups away from the Supreme Court. The campaign does not want the waters muddied with some interesting legal theories, like….
The one the Campaign for California Families advanced in its unsuccessful petition to intervene in the Supreme Court. The CCF argues that all constitutional rights in California are subject to the people’s initiative power. They argued that a simple majority of voters could legitimately take away constitutional rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion for specific religions and the courts would be powerless to do anything about it. There is no way the bigots who want to portray themselves as not bigoted want anything like that dumped in the Supreme Court. It would likely mean the overturning of Prop 8.
Mr. Taylor and his rant are just plain pathetic.
You see Jo, that’s the only thing that troubles me. The fact that the court decided that gay marriage was a protected right, and somehow it winds up on the ballot six months later is a little awkward. So you confirm a very good point many others are making.
All that aside, I personally haven’t the faintest idea who should make that decision. First of all, if the judges had ruled way back then that gays were not a protected minority, there would have been no less resistance–probably even more. Supporters of gay rights would probably move to have those judges ousted.
Second, I can’t see that gays are a protected minority in the traditional sense because their lifestyles are a choice. Ethnic groups, people with disabilities and those who claim protection on the grounds of gender can not resort to that since they have no choice of status.
Still, the court made its own bed so I guess they have to lie in it.
You see Jo, that’s the only thing that troubles me. The fact that the court decided that gay marriage was a protected right, and somehow it winds up on the ballot six months later is a little awkward. So you confirm a very good point many others are making.
All that aside, I personally haven’t the faintest idea who should make that decision. First of all, if the judges had ruled way back then that gays were not a protected minority, there would have been no less resistance–probably even more. Supporters of gay rights would probably move to have those judges ousted.
Second, I can’t see that gays are a protected minority in the traditional sense because their lifestyles are a choice. Ethnic groups, people with disabilities and those who claim protection on the grounds of gender can not resort to that since they have no choice of status.
Still, the court made its own bed so I guess they have to lie in it.
Given how much society loves to hurt us, why would we choose to be gay? Why would individuals in societies where the punishment for being gay is DEATH choose to be gay?
The simple fact of the matter is that they wouldn’t, and it is not a choice. And frankly, I’m rather sick of being told that it is.
So Junior, I hereby challenge you.
If homosexuality is a choice, which I do not believe and I am living this “lifestyle,” I challenge you to choose it. Become gay. Since it is a choice, this should be an easy task for you, and you can always choose to change back.
In other words, prove it.
Given how much society loves to hurt us, why would we choose to be gay? Why would individuals in societies where the punishment for being gay is DEATH choose to be gay?
The simple fact of the matter is that they wouldn’t, and it is not a choice. And frankly, I’m rather sick of being told that it is.
So Junior, I hereby challenge you.
If homosexuality is a choice, which I do not believe and I am living this “lifestyle,” I challenge you to choose it. Become gay. Since it is a choice, this should be an easy task for you, and you can always choose to change back.
In other words, prove it.
If you’re asking me to be gay, you can count me out.
And I’m afraid you misunderstood me. I’m not asking anyone to change what they are. All I’m saying is that the gay lifestyle is a choice the same way that being a Christian is a choice. People who are religious assume the role that is dictated by whatever creed or deity they believe in, but it is more than a routine. It’s who they are.
In the same way, homosexuals are defined by what they believe, but also by what they do. Contrastly, a Latino man who doesn’t act according to the popular stereotypes society may impose on him is still Latino. It’s entirely inherent in him. That is the traditional sense I talk about. I think there should be a distinction between the two when making legal decisions.
Here’s the funny thing. Whether we like it or not, the establishment of marriage in this state, or any state, entails the procurement of government records and the recognition of both public and private agencies that hold independent, however strict assumptions of what that union is. Now change doesn’t both me as much as some, but in order for change to take place, these agencies–and the people within them–must be asked to acknowledge a group they can not validate with their value system.
If someone is passionate about something like gay rights, by all means they should fight for it. Even if that means taking it to court. But it’s going to take mind swap with the people who disagree. Just like the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, people have to slowly accept what is different. But I believe it could happen. However, I don’t believe its correct to say that allowing gay marriage will not impose upon anyone’s values, because it’s the receptionist that checks off medical records, the insurance agent who files the paperwork, the bank clerk that manages accounts that have to accept this change.
If you’re asking me to be gay, you can count me out.
And I’m afraid you misunderstood me. I’m not asking anyone to change what they are. All I’m saying is that the gay lifestyle is a choice the same way that being a Christian is a choice. People who are religious assume the role that is dictated by whatever creed or deity they believe in, but it is more than a routine. It’s who they are.
In the same way, homosexuals are defined by what they believe, but also by what they do. Contrastly, a Latino man who doesn’t act according to the popular stereotypes society may impose on him is still Latino. It’s entirely inherent in him. That is the traditional sense I talk about. I think there should be a distinction between the two when making legal decisions.
Here’s the funny thing. Whether we like it or not, the establishment of marriage in this state, or any state, entails the procurement of government records and the recognition of both public and private agencies that hold independent, however strict assumptions of what that union is. Now change doesn’t both me as much as some, but in order for change to take place, these agencies–and the people within them–must be asked to acknowledge a group they can not validate with their value system.
If someone is passionate about something like gay rights, by all means they should fight for it. Even if that means taking it to court. But it’s going to take mind swap with the people who disagree. Just like the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, people have to slowly accept what is different. But I believe it could happen. However, I don’t believe its correct to say that allowing gay marriage will not impose upon anyone’s values, because it’s the receptionist that checks off medical records, the insurance agent who files the paperwork, the bank clerk that manages accounts that have to accept this change.
And I’m asking you to prove that the “gay lifestyle” is a choice. Clearly you are unable to do so. Being gay is not a choice. Please stop claiming it is, or put your money where your mouth is and prove it.
Being gay is a sexuality, not a lifestyle. Would you rather we force ourselves into heterosexual roles that do not fit us, something that often leads to broken marriages and homes?
People have been forced to validate groups that didn’t fit into their value systems plenty of times in the past. Back when Loving v. Virginia was ruled on, there were people who had to acknowledge interracial couples. One could claim that falling in love is a choice, and that those individuals chose to fall in love with someone of another race. Does that mean it’s okay for them to be excluded? 16 states said yes. The Supreme Court said no. Had there been an amendment put to the people for a simple majority vote, it probably would have passed because racist sentiment was prevalent in America at that time. Thank goodness the founding fathers protected the constitution against mob rule.
So a couple is same-sex? Even if it were a choice, Loving v. Virginia still applies.
The receptionist, insurance agent, and bank clerk are not directly impacted because they are not forced to marry someone of the same sex. So they have to be aware of our existence. Whoopie.
And I’m asking you to prove that the “gay lifestyle” is a choice. Clearly you are unable to do so. Being gay is not a choice. Please stop claiming it is, or put your money where your mouth is and prove it.
Being gay is a sexuality, not a lifestyle. Would you rather we force ourselves into heterosexual roles that do not fit us, something that often leads to broken marriages and homes?
People have been forced to validate groups that didn’t fit into their value systems plenty of times in the past. Back when Loving v. Virginia was ruled on, there were people who had to acknowledge interracial couples. One could claim that falling in love is a choice, and that those individuals chose to fall in love with someone of another race. Does that mean it’s okay for them to be excluded? 16 states said yes. The Supreme Court said no. Had there been an amendment put to the people for a simple majority vote, it probably would have passed because racist sentiment was prevalent in America at that time. Thank goodness the founding fathers protected the constitution against mob rule.
So a couple is same-sex? Even if it were a choice, Loving v. Virginia still applies.
The receptionist, insurance agent, and bank clerk are not directly impacted because they are not forced to marry someone of the same sex. So they have to be aware of our existence. Whoopie.
I don’t mean to offend, really. I respect your position, but you have to understand there are a majority of people in this state that do not. Even interracial marriage took a long time to accepted into the mainstream. All I’m saying is that I can’t conceive that someone is actually born gay just like I can’t conceive that someone is born heterosexual, or Christian or alcoholic.
I use the term “lifestyle” because same-sex couples choose to marry, they choose to co-habitate, they choose to spend time together. The attraction is ingrained into them, but it has to be society, peers, even parents that somehow contribute to the mold. I mean, is there really a gay gene that someone inherits from their parents? It’s preposterous when you think about it. Is there a gene that determines gender, race, skin color? Of course. Those things thereby cease to be a choice.
Can you honestly say that one lived in a culture that had no concept of homosexuality, they would still become gay. If being gay was the norm in society, then I would most likely be gay too.
I do believe, however, that you don’t have a choice of what influences you. You don’t have the choice of the type of society you live in that presents the conditions that makes homosexuality appealing. I don’t know what conditions those are, but it couldn’t be something you’re born with.
I hope when you say “prove it” you’re not asking me out. Just kidding. But seriously, you make some good points. It’s nice to converse with someone who actually uses facts and logic to back up their beliefs.
I don’t mean to offend, really. I respect your position, but you have to understand there are a majority of people in this state that do not. Even interracial marriage took a long time to accepted into the mainstream. All I’m saying is that I can’t conceive that someone is actually born gay just like I can’t conceive that someone is born heterosexual, or Christian or alcoholic.
I use the term “lifestyle” because same-sex couples choose to marry, they choose to co-habitate, they choose to spend time together. The attraction is ingrained into them, but it has to be society, peers, even parents that somehow contribute to the mold. I mean, is there really a gay gene that someone inherits from their parents? It’s preposterous when you think about it. Is there a gene that determines gender, race, skin color? Of course. Those things thereby cease to be a choice.
Can you honestly say that one lived in a culture that had no concept of homosexuality, they would still become gay. If being gay was the norm in society, then I would most likely be gay too.
I do believe, however, that you don’t have a choice of what influences you. You don’t have the choice of the type of society you live in that presents the conditions that makes homosexuality appealing. I don’t know what conditions those are, but it couldn’t be something you’re born with.
I hope when you say “prove it” you’re not asking me out. Just kidding. But seriously, you make some good points. It’s nice to converse with someone who actually uses facts and logic to back up their beliefs.
what about the right to be single
what about the right to be single
but truly there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence that backs up a gay gene. its all false and misdirected.
biologically it doesnt help to be gay either.
but truly there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence that backs up a gay gene. its all false and misdirected.
biologically it doesnt help to be gay either.
In re: genetics….
Research indicates there may be a “gay” gene. However, it hasn’t been conclusively shown yet. If I recall correctly, an extra Y chromosome has been found in DNA samples. The researchers say the result is suggestive, but not enough research has been done to say for sure one way or another. Researchers have, however, made it plain that the inconclusive results so far should not be cited as meaning there is NO gay gene, just that more work needs to be done.
As for alcoholism, junior, genetic research has shown a definite link. Children of alcoholics are more prone to be alcoholic themselves. Testing over many years has identified a particular gene that’s only found in alcoholics and addicts and no one else.
In re: genetics….
Research indicates there may be a “gay” gene. However, it hasn’t been conclusively shown yet. If I recall correctly, an extra Y chromosome has been found in DNA samples. The researchers say the result is suggestive, but not enough research has been done to say for sure one way or another. Researchers have, however, made it plain that the inconclusive results so far should not be cited as meaning there is NO gay gene, just that more work needs to be done.
As for alcoholism, junior, genetic research has shown a definite link. Children of alcoholics are more prone to be alcoholic themselves. Testing over many years has identified a particular gene that’s only found in alcoholics and addicts and no one else.
It doesn’t matter if there’s a GENE for it. Religious preference, ethnicity, culture, is not genetic, but we still value it and protect it, as should be.
Have you heard about the folks in Iran who face DEATH for being gay? A society where it’s not accepted and yet they are gay. Imagine that. I was never exposed to homosexuality as a child, but I turned out gay. It was a matter of realizing that I did not find men attractive, but I found women quite attractive. So, yes, I think I would be gay regardless.
My cousin is an alcoholic because both his father and his grandfather were. There are babies born to addiction. But please do me a huge favor and don’t compare my sexuality to substance addition. I am not addicted to women any more than you are addicted to the opposite sex.
Again, if you are under the impression that you can change your sexuality, please show us how it’s done. Otherwise I think you’re full of it.
If you’re a chick, maybe. But if you’re a dude not a chance. Sorry, don’t swing that way.
Also, you claim you are not being offensive, but you are basically telling me that I and the entire rest of the GLBT community should resign ourselves to never finding human companionship simply because we happen to be attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite. You seem to be saying that my only option is to be celibate and alone or to marry not for love but for societal expectation. How in the world does that protect the sanctity of marriage? I find that suggestion offensive and hurtful. How would you feel if you were told that you could never ever fall in love, you were prohibited. What gives you the right to tell me that I can never enter into a loving, consensual relationship?
When can I vote on your marriage?
It doesn’t matter if there’s a GENE for it. Religious preference, ethnicity, culture, is not genetic, but we still value it and protect it, as should be.
Have you heard about the folks in Iran who face DEATH for being gay? A society where it’s not accepted and yet they are gay. Imagine that. I was never exposed to homosexuality as a child, but I turned out gay. It was a matter of realizing that I did not find men attractive, but I found women quite attractive. So, yes, I think I would be gay regardless.
My cousin is an alcoholic because both his father and his grandfather were. There are babies born to addiction. But please do me a huge favor and don’t compare my sexuality to substance addition. I am not addicted to women any more than you are addicted to the opposite sex.
Again, if you are under the impression that you can change your sexuality, please show us how it’s done. Otherwise I think you’re full of it.
If you’re a chick, maybe. But if you’re a dude not a chance. Sorry, don’t swing that way.
Also, you claim you are not being offensive, but you are basically telling me that I and the entire rest of the GLBT community should resign ourselves to never finding human companionship simply because we happen to be attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite. You seem to be saying that my only option is to be celibate and alone or to marry not for love but for societal expectation. How in the world does that protect the sanctity of marriage? I find that suggestion offensive and hurtful. How would you feel if you were told that you could never ever fall in love, you were prohibited. What gives you the right to tell me that I can never enter into a loving, consensual relationship?
When can I vote on your marriage?
I’m not married. Never will be. End of story.
I’m not married. Never will be. End of story.
P.S. If gay marriage passes, what’s the sex education video gonna look like?
P.S. If gay marriage passes, what’s the sex education video gonna look like?
But you still have the choice.
About the same as it does now, I’d assume, given that gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex education.
Way to buy into the fearmongering “protect the children” argument.
But you still have the choice.
About the same as it does now, I’d assume, given that gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex education.
Way to buy into the fearmongering “protect the children” argument.
Yeah, considering they don’t even mention the word marriage in sex education anymore.
Yeah, considering they don’t even mention the word marriage in sex education anymore.
Marriage isn’t required teaching. That’s all decided by local school boards. Sex education, from what I remember, involved looking at the reproductive system, learning the stages of pregnancy, and learning how to prevent pregnancy. I don’t recall ever being taught a darned thing about marriage or even how to have sex.
Not sure if you’re being pithy or what, but if you are it’s pretty clear why. Sorry you don’t have a leg to stand on, but you could at least handle it maturely.
Marriage isn’t required teaching. That’s all decided by local school boards. Sex education, from what I remember, involved looking at the reproductive system, learning the stages of pregnancy, and learning how to prevent pregnancy. I don’t recall ever being taught a darned thing about marriage or even how to have sex.
Not sure if you’re being pithy or what, but if you are it’s pretty clear why. Sorry you don’t have a leg to stand on, but you could at least handle it maturely.
take this lover’s spat elsewhere. We can clearly see you guys want to be gay married in California. When that day comes, I won’t be there, but I hope your leather jackets and cowboy hats look fabulous!!!
take this lover’s spat elsewhere. We can clearly see you guys want to be gay married in California. When that day comes, I won’t be there, but I hope your leather jackets and cowboy hats look fabulous!!!
So the purpose of sex education is to teach children about reproduction and pregnancy?
Interesting.
So the purpose of sex education is to teach children about reproduction and pregnancy?
Interesting.
Have you ever actually taken a sex education class, or were you just making assumptions based on its name?
Have you ever actually taken a sex education class, or were you just making assumptions based on its name?
Oh I’ve taken one alright. In fact, I’m talking to a sophomore right now who took sex ed and she said she didn’t see any homosexual activity in the video.
Oh I’ve taken one alright. In fact, I’m talking to a sophomore right now who took sex ed and she said she didn’t see any homosexual activity in the video.
But I agree with you on one thing. A gay lifestyle is a good way to prevent pregnancy.
But I agree with you on one thing. A gay lifestyle is a good way to prevent pregnancy.
Then what exactly is your point?
Then what exactly is your point?