Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Friday, May 9,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor:
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant:
Salena De La Cruz
Homosexual men
should hide their
disgusting acts
Guest commentary
Being a conservative on this campus is a difficult chore. At
tending classes where liberal ideology is practically forced down
your throat — while any attempt at voicing a conservative opin
ion is oppressed at all costs — is quite the task. Then you have
individuals such as sociology instructor Chuck Hunt who
stretch the truth beyond belief, and it’s sad to see impression
able college students soak up this leftist propaganda.
Before coming to Eugene, I was fully aware that this universi
ty was a liberal campus, but I’m a fairly tolerant guy and figured
I’d be able to put up with the various environmental, pro
choice, forced diversity, hatred of anything remotely associated
with America causes that were sure to be presented as part of
our supposed “balanced education.” However, there is one
prominent issue on this campus that simply drives me nuts.
On more than one occasion I’ve been walking to class and
have been subjected to an absolutely disturbing display of
two homosexual men making out. To me, witnessing this is
offensive, and I fail to understand how anyone can openly be
proud of such a lifestyle. I do not base my position on any
sort of religious belief, but I do obtain a sense of moral de
cency that provides me with the knowledge that homosexual
behavior is wrong.
I’ve had people argue with me on this topic, saying that I’m
narrow-minded and should somehow be more accepting with
my views, but who has any right to tell me, or anyone for that
matter, what should or should not be accepted in society. I apol
ogize to any of you liberals out there who are shocked to hear
that there are indeed individuals such as myself who harbor
such views, but you do not necessarily always have to believe
such things simply because it is politically correct to do so.
I’ll admit I’m uncompromising when it comes to this issue,
but I am not one of those people who thinks I have some sort of
authority to preach about what is right and wrong, and to make
things clear — I do not flat out hate gay individuals. I do, how
ever, openly oppose the gay community as a whole, and I am
not afraid to say it.
Despite its existence throughout history, I believe that ho
mosexuality is a disgrace to society and just because it has ex
isted for a long time does not make it right. I long for the days
when homosexuality was viewed by society as an illness, and
gays opted to remain in the closet.
Today, it seems like there’s a gay pride parade every other
day, and all of a sudden gay individuals are actually proud of
their queer lifestyle, which by definition is strange and odd.
Now, I know some of you would like to label me as a homophobe,
but I personally am completely comfortable with my sexuality and
understand the correctness in preferring the opposite sex.
Look, I have no problem with gay individuals, as long as they
stay in the closet and refrain from using the idea of political cor
rectness as a ploy to tell me that I should be more accepting of a
lifestyle in which I find absolutely disgusting.
Vincent Martorano is a freshman political science major.
Abortion language policy
fn our quest to provide as much opportunity as
possible for fair and equitable discourse, the Emerald
has chosen the following policy in regard to the terms
used in the abortion debate;
In Emerald news stories, editorials and columns, we
will abide by The Associated Press standards, which
use the adjectives “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life”
and “abortion rights" instead of “pro-choice."
However, in the interest of open dialogue, letter to the
editor and guest commentary writers may use the
terms they wish for their arguments. As with any
language, if it is libelous or a personal attack, the
Emerald reserves the right to edit the submission.
Letters to the editor
and guest commentaries policy
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are
encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words and
guest commentaries to 550 words.
SLOW ECONOMY, MO PROOF OF WMDs IN IRAQ , STILL NO BIN LADEN,
CARELESS TAX CUTS, ALIENATION OF THE WORLD.. .
WHO CARES! HE LOOKS
GREAT IN A FLIGHT
JACKET!
MAKES YOU
WONDER WHY
HE EVER WENT
AWOL.
Peter Utsey Emerald
Soldier misguidedly attacks protesters
Guest commentary
I must thank the Oregon Daily Emer
ald for printing Richard Berger’s article,
“Protesters need to review their belief
system” (ODE, April 28). Berger’s con
tempt of anti-war protesters is misplaced.
First, he makes the assertion that the war
is not about oil. Who is he to know what the
war is about — his job is to follow orders.
Second, he resorts to name-calling. Third,
like most conservative talk-radio jockeys,
he suggests that the anti-war faction is not
only anti-American but anti-Semitic as well.
Fourth, he asserts that our president is pro
tecting us through the invasion of Iraq and
the killing of more than 12,000 Iraqis, at
least 3,000 of whom were innocents, ac
cording to an “NBC Nightly News” report.
What I find particularly appalling is that
while calling anti-war protesters anti-Se
mitic, his language is utterly anti-Arabic.
For example, “The Muslim extremists will
stop at nothing to include suicide bomb
ings to kill you (yes, you).... Those people
over there wouldn’t have the money to
hurt us and just wouldn’t matter anymore”
(if we ceased our dependence on foreign
oil). A class in comparative religions would
obviously be beneficial, but perhaps a his
tory lesson will suffice.
Since 1971, aid to Israel from the Unit
ed States has averaged more than $2 bil
lion in taxpayer money annually, accord
ing to a brief prepared by the Library of
Congress. Most of this has been in the
form of military armaments, which sub
sequently have been used to terrorize,
subjugate and steal Palestinian lands and
construct Israeli settlements on them.
Many Palestinians live in refugee camps.
Can Berger imagine living in a refugee
camp in his own country for 50 years?
Gan he imagine, as a Palestinian, finding
a shell casing from a mortar round that
ripped through his neighborhood with
“Made in the U.S.A.” printed on it or
watch as U.S.-made Apache helicopters
fire rocl^et^ at “suppqsqd” Palestinian
terrorists, indiscriminately killing
women and children? Are we safe when
our own weaponry is being used for de
humanization and ethnic cleansing?
Perhaps a more productive endeavor
would be for Berger to examine himself
for his bigoted and inherent racism
against Arabs in general and Palestini
ans in particular. And to his patronizing
question, “Did you vote?” I must
ashamedly admit that I did indeed vote
— for a president whose policies have
proved to border on fascism. I am sorry.
Matthew Nelson is a sophomore general
science major.
Taking away abortion rights is akin to rape
Guest commentary
After reading Dan Johnson’s letter
(“‘Pro-life’ pictures show ‘crimes’ of abor
tion,” ODE, May 6), I have some opinions
to express. I am not one to respond to oth
ers’ free speech, for I am an advocate.
However, Johnson’s letter prompted me to
answer his anti-abortion spiel.
Anti-abortionists make little sense to
me when they are compared to their
abortion rights adversaries. If you exam
ine the common terms for these two
groups, ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life,’ it will
become obvious that one group, ‘pro
choice,’ actually encompasses the other
term. Abortion rights present a choice to
the female facing pregnancy: She may
either choose to carry the pregnancy or
terminate it. Abortion rights carry the
term ‘pro-choice,’ not ‘pro-death.’ How
ever, ‘pro-life’ supporters see no choice
in the matter.
Ironically, the only gung-ho anti-abor
tionists I have met are men. I have never
met a woman, no matter how conservative
or set in her ways, that completely de
nounced a woman’s right to birth control.
The oversized pictures of fetuses displayed
last week were mostly in the hands of men.
I’d like to ask every male who hates the
idea of abortion to take a second look at
what they oppose. The only victims of
rape and incest who can get pregnant are
women. Having to carry a reminder of a
horrifying event like that would be trau
matizing. Taking away their right to rid
themselves of the memory would be
against human decency.
Worse yet, the woman would not be
able to love a child bom of such atroci
ties the way a child should be loved.
Abortion rights are a necessity. No
woman wants to have an abortion, nor
are many woman capable of being emo
tionally stable in such circumstances. All
women are aware of the life potential of a
fetus. Thus the term ‘choice.’ It’s never
an easy decision.
To a woman, the idea of not having the
right to choose is just as horrifying as the
idea of sexual assault. And taking away
their rights permanently would be just
as terrifying as rape itself.
Beth Slater is a freshman journalism major.
Letter to the editor
Freedom of expression
outweighs unpleasant
experiences
I am nervous about the potential
backlash that the appearance of the
group Survivors has had on campus with
regard to the censoring of images.
In Salena De La Cruz’s commentary
(“Anti-abortion group distorts message
with photographs,” ODE, May 2), she
wrote, “Here on campus I think there
should be more stringent rules as to
what kind of images students can or
should be affronted with.”
It is sad that whenever a problem is
discussed in our society, the public cries
out, “Oh government, protect me.” I
don’t approve of the scare tactics and
graphic imagery used by Survivors to get
their point across, and I applaud our
campus security in enforcing school pol
icy. However, to enact any type of new
legislation that would prohibit “certain”
images in public (what images, and who
gets to decide, by the way?) is just one
step toward stopping the freedom of art
to challenge and provoke thought.
I would certainly advocate for warn
ings of graphic images to allow people
the choice to view or not to view, but I
would first advocate for the choice itself.
I’m glad I was able to avoid the scene,
and I’m sorry for those who could not
and had to view such images. But re
member that this freedom is a part of the
society we live in and sometimes, there
is a price to pay for such freedoms. We
reap the benefits often enough.
Gretchen M. Stolte
freshman
art history