Gay community should seek ‘union’
By paralleling integration and gay rights, you are implicitly suggesting that the brutality and ugliness of slavery is tantamount to gays not receiving Social Security, partner’s employer healthcare and tax breaks – an awfully irresponsible analogy.
Short of invoking poetic license, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman – but enough of the semantics.
Union between persons of the same sex is, legally, a very agreeable concept in so far as they have to adhere to identical licensing and registration procedures as traditional marriage – including divorce and the accompanying judicial tribulations. The moral and ethical dilemmas of same-sex unions should be left to each individual and church to decide whether or not their belief system endorses it. Individuals should not be forced to accept homosexuality any more than any of us should be forced to accept anything we view as inherently wrong – that is to say imposing one’s beliefs on another is erroneous. The churches also should not be pressured by the gay community to accept a lifestyle that the tenets of their belief system directly oppose – equally, organized religion doesn’t have the right to impose its beliefs on the gay community.
If same-sex unions confer any more privileges or invoke fewer consequences than traditional marriage, they will never happen in the United States.
And a bit of advice to the gay community: learn that words matter…”marriage” has religious connotations and organized religion in this country forbids homosexuality. Focus on the word “union” and you will realize much more success.
Setting aside religion for a moment, we are a country of (representative) majority rule and until you can change the hearts and minds of the masses, same-sex unions will not happen.
Lastly, the suggestion that homosexuality leads to bestiality or incest is fallacious and grotesque and should be roundly condemned! Also, the idea that legalizing gay unions will lead to legalized incest or bestiality is ludicrous and should be dismissed as frivolous.
Peter Ragusa
5th yr. Senior
Zoology/Political Science
Priests should be able to marry
One of the greatest disadvantages to aging (besides wrinkles) is the inability to adapt to change. This is evident to me through the stubborn nature of my grandparents’ generation.
However, I can no longer ignore how the same aging process has adversely affected the Roman Catholic Church and its leader, Pope John Paul II.
The Catholic Church desperately needs to change its tradition of priests remaining chaste.
If priests were allowed to marry, perhaps more adult men would respond to a call in Holy Orders. I recognize this would require priests to receive pay in order to support a family.
As a Catholic, I would rather tithe to support a priest’s family needs than to have my money spent settling lawsuits for victims of a pedophile.
I understand the importance of priests appearing holy and remaining chaste in order to properly serve God. However, I have learned that true holiness lies in one’s actions towards others.
God can still be the ultimate priority in a priest’s life even if he has a family of his own. Aren’t all Christians called to have God as the number one priority?
Ultimately, I feel that it’s time Catholicism gets out of its old wooden rocking chair to hop into a new era of thought.
Allowing priests to enter into holy matrimony can save the Church. It can increase the number of priests and decrease the likelihood for priests to release their sexual frustrations on children.
Steven Scales
Senior
Mass Communication