Elon community continues to share views on gay relations

When I picked up the March 4 edition of the Pendulum, I quickly turned to the opinion page and could not put it down. Jonathan Chapman's article "Silly Gays, Marriage is for Straights" was absolutely hysterical. It was quite possibly the best reporting and writing I've ever seen. Oh wait! I'm being sarcastic!

Instead of attacking Nick Benjamin on the basis of his argument, like any good opinion columnist would do, Chapman can do nothing more than poke fun at someone else's beliefs. In doing this, Chapman lacks originality in refuting Benjamin's argument. Instead of using his own beliefs to write an opinion, Chapman finds the most derogatory and ridiculous list of anti-homosexual rhetoric and with a little copy and paste magic, lands it on the opinion page of The Pendulum. I guess with so much space taken up by someone else's work, Chapman was unable to include the fact that the organization that came up with the list is pro-gay right's and anti-homophobic and openly advertises this and other list like it as "irreverent," that is, lacking all seriousness. This is important because Chapman is attempting to equate what is said by Benjamin with what this organization purposely distorts for dramatic effect, or better yet, to be "sarcastic."

This draw into question the integrity of the staff of the Pendulum, which allowed the publishing of an article with very little argumentative and opinionated qualities and instead uses sarcasm and poor humor to discredit the opinion and an individual who actually took the time to formulate and write an argument based on his beliefs. I'm not sure what the motivations of Chapman and the Pendulum were. Perhaps they were unable to refute Benjamin's opinion on the basis of his argument because theirs was simply not strong enough. Or, perhaps, it is another attempt to perfect a certain bias the Pendulum tends to display. Regardless of what you believe in the debate over gay marriages, in a newspaper that is supposed to be objective, the inclusion of such a poorly written column that advocates mockery to refute an argument illustrates that defiling an individual and his opinion is more important than composing a stronger argument based on one's own beliefs.

- Rusty Newman, ‘05

As I opened The Pendulum last week, I noticed that an entire page was dedicated to letters against an opinion article written the previous week by Nick Benjamin. I read through the letters, respecting each person's right to speak freely and have an opinion of his or her own, but at the same time realizing that Nick Benjamin has a right to an opinion as well.

Just a few weeks ago, The Pendulum was begging for letters to the editor, today, there were 12, on the same subject. I write in response to those 12. I support the position of Nick and I support my right to have an opinion and the right to state that opinion. While, as a Christian, I do not judge others, I also do not have to condone their behavior.

John Penniman stated "when we quote the Bible in order to justify our politics, we must have a greater understanding where those words are coming from. We cannot just pick verses out, like Skittles out of a bag."

To Mr. Penniman I say, Nick Benjamin's quoting of Leviticus 18:22 is justified and is stated in context. In fact, in addition to that verse, Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 20:13; Judges 19:22-30; Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekial 16:49-50; Romans 1:26-27, 32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 15:33; 1 Timothy 1:10; 2 Peter 2:6; and Jude 7 all address homosexuality. I recognize the fact that many don't support my religion or my beliefs and I respect that. I do not support the act of homosexuality or the act of homosexual marriage and I believe I have a right to have that view.

-Lindsey Guice, ‘05

In recent weeks The Pendulum has displayed a leftist bias in its choice to favor articles, which have bashed President Bush and ridiculed the views of those of us who stand behind the president’s firm defense of marriage. It is important that people on both sides of the argument look at the issue with a degree of empathy; for the homosexual activists and their supporters, they must first understand that for most Americans, marriage is not merely a union but a sacred institution. We must also consider the fact that homosexuals are indeed individuals deserving of fair treatment. Yet they cannot be entitled to the sacred institution of marriage because the concept of marriage is in its self dynamically incompatible with the gay-life style.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is, from the Christian perspective, the creation of a holy union, which allows a man and a woman to procreate. Since homosexuals cannot create life, they are then incapable of entering into a marriage contract that is built upon the premise that the couple will bear children. This is, of course, the Christian perspective, but marriage is a religious institution.

As much as homosexual-activists would like to deny the fact, marriage is a concept developed upon theological premises. Marriage is therefore an enterprise of which only a religious institution should administer. We would not be facing the troubling concept of “gay-marriage” if the Church alone (whatever the creed might be) had the right to administer marriage. When the state was granted the right to marry people, we first undermined the institution of marriage.

The state’s involvement in marriage removes the sacredness from of the equation; how sacred can marriage be to our society if Bob and Suzy can run down to the courthouse and get married on a whim? The point of the matter is that their marriage would not mean the same thing as a marriage done through a church.

The government should be able to create civil unions but not “marry” people. And if it made such civil unions, it could allow for homosexuals to be together and be entitled to most of the same rights married people are entitled to now. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be an option at the moment. At the moment, the sacredness of marriage is once more being threatened. Marriage will be further degraded if Americans do not make an amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. If we fail to define it as such, then the concept of marriage shall be greatly undermined.

Homosexuals deserve essentially the same rights as married people, but they should not tread upon the sacred ground of marriage. If anything, they should be allowed to enter into civil unions but marriage is intrinsically a religious institution. Henceforth, the state should have nothing to do with marriage. After all, we value the separation of church and state in this nation. Sadly, the government is in the marriage business and it may soon further degrade marriage if it allows for “gay marriages.”

- Luke Wake, ‘05

I've noticed something very disturbing in your opinion section lately. The issue of gay marriages has made some things evident in our very own student body. First off, I will state this now: I am a heterosexual, however, I have several gay, bisexual and straight friends. The letter published Feb. 26 about somebody who watched “Will and Grace” greatly upset me. How can one say that certain sexual preferences will never be accepted in society? Was it not back in the 50s and 60s that people were also saying interracial relationships would never be accepted? Yet today, interracial relationships are common and I myself am a product of one. Furthermore, for one to use religion to denounce homosexuality in my opinion is a disgrace to religion. I've noticed people have misused religion, especially Christianity, as a reason to discriminate. Members of the infamous Ku Klux Klan claim they are sons of God, yet they have a violent history where they constantly broke the 6th Commandment, murdering African Americans because they think they're "unnatural" and below them. Violence has a beginning and it may seem like people are just having opinions now, however, so did the fathers and grandfathers of men who are now known as "white supremacists." These opinions grow and can turn from discrimination to outright hate. Need I remind us of Matthew Shepard? Now some may think that race and sexuality are two different things. However, psychological studies are showing that sexuality is something one is born with and can't help. Honestly, from reading the opinion section the past two weeks and knowing what some of my friends have been through, who would want to live that life? I know several homosexuals who said if they could stop being gay they would because of all the hardships society places on them. But they can't. It's who they are and they live with it. And to the religious opinionist – a lot of my gay and bisexual friends have STRAIGHT parents.

Back to the issue of gay marriages. Who are we to deny people of their right to fall in love and legally recognize their relationship? Also, with the divorce rate in this country as high as it is, and people such as Britney Spears flocking to Vegas for quick marriages and divorces, the entire institution of marriage is not that sacred anymore. The only reason people are fighting now to keep it within the heterosexual community is out of discrimination. Many are misinformed about sexuality and people tend to denounce what they don't understand. Just because a person is gay does not mean they are going to hit on everybody of the same sex. To everyone who's straight, do you hit on everybody who is the opposite sex? No. People have different standards of what they are attracted to and that applies to all sexualities. We all seek out different qualities in people. In closing, I would like everybody to remember this is the United States of America and we value civil rights. However, to deny gay marriages is denying a group of people a civil right. Furthermore, there is no harm in marriages ... I say let's focus our attention where it really is needed right now, on how our country is declining in foreign relations, especially in the Middle East, and how there is a huge threat that we could have another September 11.

-Kristina Foster, ‘05

After seeing the opinion pages, of last week’s Pendulum, I am shocked at the lack of journalistic professionalism showed by the staff. Talk about discouraging students to voice their opinions. When is it ever appropriate for a newspaper funded in part by all students to take such a blatantly obvious position on a controversial issue? Whether you agree with Nick Benjamin’s article or not, it is not fair nor right for the paper to publish almost a full page of students denouncing his beliefs. I mean, come on, after the first few responses any moron got the picture. Can we say repetitive? But if a whole page of negative responses to his article were not enough, apparently the editorial staff felt it necessary to post an article from columnist Jonathan Chapman also bashing Benjamin’s beliefs that took up more than half of the next page. Since when does the Pendulum so boldly display one point of view? But, setting all of that aside, there are several things that must be said regarding all of this:

“The ideas that George Bush is proposing are plain and simple gay bashing,” wrote Blake Hinton in his Feb. 12 column, "Bush's views about gay marriage unfounded." Funny, because I have never heard our President say that he hated homosexuals or promoted “gay bashing.”

In fact, the following was what President Bush said in his State of the Union Address:

“I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization…The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.”

Wait a second, President Bush didn’t say anything about disliking homosexuals, he did not even say he disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle. All he said in his address and all he ever has said on the subject, is that we must protect the institution of marriage. Because, he, like many others, including myself, believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman or a man and a man. I am not standing in judgment of homosexuals and declaring their behavior either moral or immoral – that’s for God to decide. However, as an American and as a Christian, I believe whole heartedly that the relationship between a husband and a wife is like no other relationship.

Ginger Brown wrote, “However, it is very 'normal' here at Elon. Elon policy is that no one is discriminated against because of sexual preference. Apparently Elon also honors same-sex marriage because health benefits are provided for same-sex partners of employees.”

Several things – number one, you do not speak for the entire school in saying that homosexuality is very “normal” at Elon. I know of many, many people who would disagree. Also, I would like to point out that though Elon offers benefits to same-sex couples, that does not mean that it honors same-sex marriages. Last time I checked, you aren’t the public relations person for the school, and the school has never come out and said it supports such marriages.

Steve Storch in his response wrote, “My last question is, who truly decides what kind of people can be married?”

Exactly. But I draw the opposite conclusion from him. The only one that can decide such a thing is GOD! And it seems pretty clear to me what God has said in the Bible. It was Adam and Eve wasn’t it? Not Adam & Steve.

Jessica Bowling in a lovely email that she sent to Nick Benjamin stated that, “Not only was your article shallow & defenseless, but you managed to piss off almost the entire school.”

This made me laugh out loud. If she thinks that a group of socially liberal students represents “almost the entire school,” she is seriously mistaken. I would like to point out several findings of the most recent Gallup Poll. 64 percent of all Americans oppose same sex marriages. This cannot even be made a partisan issue, with only 40 percent of even Democrats supporting same sex marriages. Even in our age group (18-29), which is consistently the most socially liberal group. only 49 percent support same sex marriages.

I would also like to point out that only 23 percent of Southerners support same sex marriages. So, seeing as how not even a majority of people in our age group support same sex marriages, and y'all did choose to attend a university in the South, anyone who ventures to say that Mr. Benjamin’s views are extreme and in the minority – even in the Elon bubble, are quite frankly WRONG.

-Cristen Richardson, ‘05