Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 6, 1998)
CONTACTING OS CWSAOOIt ADDRESS I '541)346-5511 Gregorj»,Er*r*S i E-HA*. PjO. BOX 3159 j MeftMjo -o^gcr ». rjjere 0r*gcr374C3 OWUME omo* m JQT^ edu -o* EDITOR IN CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Nicole Krueger Respect is golden rule of Christianity Many Christian groups show their faith by welcoming hfjth gay and heterosexual believers OPINION Jonas .Allen A nd the h mat Jeopardy an swer Is: Aretha Franklin never knew this smash hit could get so lost in Ameri can politics. The question is: What is “R-E-S-P-E-C-T”? For the general pub lic, respect is a give-and-take thing. But when the topic of homosexuality comes up in legal circles, respect is of ten forsaken for arguments of whether equal opportunity laws for homosexu als translate into special rights. Oregon and Colorado are at the fore front of this issue, but other states are not far behind. The most recent anti homosexual proposal was passed nearly three weeks ago in Maine, where voters repealed a state law pro tecting gays and lesbians from employ ment discrimination. According to The Associated Press, Christian con servatives hailed the vote as an “im portant victory for people of faith” and a sign that Americans would no longer tolerate seemingly immoral behavior and special rights for homosexuals. Last time 1 checked, Christianity was still based on the Golden Rule — treating others with respect. How is it, then, that some nationwide Christian groups can treat certain citizens with such disrespect and tarnish the value they hold so dear? The Christian Coalition, a national religious organization, helped fund the campaign to repeal the gay rights bill, which only passed by a 3 percent margin. The coalition’s views are not that different from local Citizens Al liance groups, who feel homosexuality is wrong and that practicing homosex uals must denounce their lifestyle and “accept Christ." Who ever said homosexuals hadn’t already “accepted Christ’’7 Roy Cole, pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church of Portland, leads a congregation of nearly 200 wor shipers every Sunday. With few ex ceptions, those in attendance are ho mosexuals. Pastor Cole claims these services are very similar, if not identi cal, to the ceremonies practiced by the Christian conservatives so opposed to homosexual activity. “These Christian groups are focused on homosexuality as the cornerstone of all that is wrong in American soci ety ... [yet] we have straight people who attend because they find a sense of community here they might not find elsewhere,” he said. Metropolitan Community Church worshipers are just as embracing out side of church; numerous members volunteer at various AIDS/HIV sup port organizations and homeless shel ters. Members even “adopt" homeless teens over the holidays and see that they are well cared for. So how, exactly, is the homosexual community destroying the social order esteemed so highly by the Christian Coalition? True, it would be a stereotype to say all gays and lesbians are saints, but to say they are all sinners is an abnormal ity as well. Christian conservatives would have us believe otherwise. Pastor Cole concedes there are about seven verses in the Bible referring to homosexuality as unacceptable, which is a large part of the Christian Coalition's argument that homosexu ality is wrong. "But the Bible says many things. The Bible clearly teaches that slavery is part of society, but Americans went to civil war to fight slavery itself," he notes. Instead of outdated teachings, what these groups should really get from the Bible is the idea of respect. Respect for one another, respect for diversity and respect for love. Respect for love is most important because within it lie the answers to co operation. Yet religious conservatives cringe at the thought of gay marriages. They argue the purpose of marriage is procreation. But did those very people marry out of love or an instinctual dri ve to continue the species? Most likely the former. Cole said marriage is “not necessari ly reflective of the commitment people make to one another,” claiming his church performs six to eight marriages CHRIS HUTCHINSON^merald MSKtP a year, although many other members have just as deep a commitment to their partner. Unfortunately, the com mitment of some Christians to others seems rather shallow. “The time has come for both sides to ... come to a healing process,” reads a newsletter supported by First Presby terian Church in Portland. The letter is wrong. There is only one side. Now is the time for Christians to fi nally unite under the blanket of re spect their religious founder preached. The road to higher ground is not nec essarily straight. Jonas Allen is a columnist for the Emer ald. His work appears on alternate Fri days. His views do not necessarily repre sent those of the newspaper. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Push for safe sex In Barry Williams' recent letter (ODE, Feb. 25), he exposed his lack of separation of the term ho mosexuality from that of homo sexual sex. Envisioning anyone's sexual practice, much less a sex ual practice different from your own, is disconcerting on many levels. In that, I hear Williams and his concerns. However, his physiological arguments for the purpose of gendered anatomy looked over many important and valid arguments on the issue. If the argument is that there is something somehow innate or natural about heterosexual sex, or that there are ‘‘wrong'’ places and “wrong ways" to have sex, is safe sex included? Certainly, Williams realizes that safe sex does indeed prevent the spread of unwanted viruses. Williams, who said “homosexual behavior is unhealthy and results in 1 to 2 percent of the population having 29 percent of Hepatitis A," seems to blame homosexuals for caus ing almost a third of their popu lation for having hepatitis. Yet those numbers don’t seem accu rate and aren’t referenced. And if indeed Williams intends to blame homosexuals for the spread of this disease, shouldn’t he instead be targeting unprotect ed sex? In current America, most sex is not “successful” in producing offspring. Most of the time, that isn’t even a goal of sexual inter course. Williams is making an ir responsible statement that im plies safe sex is unnatural. I in vite him to explain this logic more carefully. The argument that homosexual sex is an abomi nation of the physiologically pro ductive origins of sexual inter course could too quickly be paralleled to sex that does not prevent offspring but is between male and female partners. The use of contraceptives, condoms or other “unnatural” devices, in my opinion, remains a very re sponsible practice. When sex gets dangerous and disturbing, it is a very, very unsafe issue. I hear Williams’ fear and concern for the demise of the na tion, but I think his scapegoats are poorly chosen. His target of “un natural” (implying non-propaga tion oriented) sex falls very heavi ly on the campus community. That community, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered students, is unfairly targeted. Christina Thompson Biochemistry All sides solicited In response to Juliana Coons’ comment about the University community not “really hearing” Donta Graham-Preston’s story (ODE, March 3), I would like to remind Coons (and the Universi ty community) that Graham-Pre ston has had ample opportunity to give his version of this so called story. Not only did both he and the two survivors participate in open hearings, both Graham Preston and the survivors have had the chance to express them selves in the Emerald, The Regis ter-Guard, the Oregon Commen tator and I suppose in any other public publication. So why haven't we heard Graham-Pre ston’s side of the story? I don’t know; maybe someone should ask him. Maybe he won’t “de cline to comment" this time. The fact the survivors are willing to make their side of the story pub lic shows courage and strength, something we cannot say has been exhibited by the accused himself. Gertie Bay Hall History/ French
