Logic before nature
Tony McDonald's main argument against providing benefits for gay couples is that homosexual relationships "fly in the face of nature, family, community, culture" ("Paying for values," The Firing Line, Jan. 18). Let's examine those points.
Nature. There are plenty of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior, and everything natural isn't always great. Cyanide is natural; so are hurricanes.
Family. About half of the marriages that took place this year will end in divorce. Many of those divorces will involve physical or emotion abuse. More still will involve children. So, I don't see how gay couples fly in the face of family when straight couples seem hellbent on destroying the concept of family anyway.
Community. I've been involved in many communities (scholastic, extracurricular, church) that all included gay people and gay people in relationships.
Culture. This confused me because gay people are a part of American culture. Unfortunately, the fact that McDonald hates gay people and gay couples and doesn't think they deserve the same benefits as other couples is also a part of our culture.
And just because some bigoted congressmen decided to write some bigoted language into our Texas Constitution doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean the University should be allowed to provide unequal benefits. There have been plenty of laws in this country that have been racist, bigoted and unfair, so quit hiding behind the same Texas Constitution that makes it a felony to own six dildos.
David Kallison Sociology senior
Logic before nature II
Tony McDonald would be wise to note that Uri Horesh and his supporters are well aware that a majority of Texas citizens lamentably voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But since when has the reality of the status quo, democratically determined or not, been a basis for silencing one's activism? By that measure, if a hardcore liberal "overwhelmingly" wins the White House in 2008, the Young Conservatives of Texas should dissolve and call off any and all activism. After all, the voters will have spoken. Tellingly, this logic is almost identical to that which southern racists used during the Jim Crow era to demoralize civil rights organizers.
More to the point, McDonald's attitude is sickening and places right-wing cultural sensibilities above the very real needs of rational decision-making adults. Contrary to McDonald's caricature, marriage is not reducible to reproduction. Marriage is also about inheritance, healthcare and a host of other issues quite necessary for sustaining life. Employees of any institution, state-funded or otherwise, have every right to demand these things for themselves and their partners.
Bryan McCann Communication Studies graduate student International Socialist Organization
Logic before nature III
Leaving aside his patent bigotry, Tony McDonald seems to be confused about what the goals of the movement for domestic partnership benefits at UT are and what is at stake.
First, there is little in domestic partnership that can be seen as "identical or similar to marriage." Domestic partnership benefits would extend to heterosexual and homosexual couples alike, which falls well short of a ringing endorsement of same-sex partnerships. And granting equal benefits to all UT employees and partners would barely address the myriad of other inequities that same-sex couples face related to parenting and custody, property inheritance, even hospital visitation.
Second, the call for equal benefits is hardly a money-grab perpetrated against unsuspecting heterosexual taxpayers. Cities, states and businesses report little (less than 1 percent) or no increased cost in their healthcare budgets as a result of offering domestic partnership benefits.
Finally, who is subsidizing whom? Same-sex couples' taxes continue to support the cost of benefits for heterosexual state employees and their families, benefits we do not receive. Apparently, McDonald doesn't mind us subsidizing his values, of which equality is not one.
Kathleen Feyh Communication Studies graduate student
The old Clinton cure-all
I have two thoughts on Nick Staha's Jan. 18 column, "The Futile Obama Phenomenon:"
You know you've been in college too long when, in trying to explain current American political behavior, your first thought is "Of course! It's all because of the German philosophers!" Common sense, on the other hand, would suggest TV is the main reason a politician's charisma matters more than his message.
It's also common sense that Clinton supporters ought to not make their case by mocking the idealism and naivete of Obama supporters. It doesn't matter much to me, since I'll probably vote for the Republican (as long as he's never strapped his dog to the top of his car and driven across New England). But Hillary is quickly becoming the political version of cod-liver oil - something that bitter old people force down the throats of the young because, after all, it's good for you.
Ben C. Cohen Department of Geology staff
Be the first to comment on this article!