RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
What you can do to build a less homophobic campus
Published: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010
On Jan. 7, while Princeton was entrenched in reading period, the New Jersey Senate voted 14-20 against S1967, a bill which would have extended marriage to same-sex couples — effectively postponing consideration of marriage equality until 2013 and the next gubernatorial ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Why do homosexual partners have to model their association on the heterosexual paradigm. Of course, the answer is because they would then get benefits (welfare).
Why don't you work for the only non-fascist solution: eliminate State-granted marriage licenses altogether. Why should the government get a say at all in the voluntary association of anyone?
"They must also jump through hoops to get their paperwork to reflect the gender with which they identify or struggle with financial issues, as the University’s student and the employee health insurance plans do not cover the gender reassignment surgery some transgender people need"
That is the one thing I found a bit excessive in this article. You are going to have a tough time differentiating this from plastic surgery.
"As any publicly out person can surely attest, institutional policy can be quite tolerant, and yet it still only takes one homophobic or transphobic person to sabotage all sense of belonging."
C'mon... everyone hears things that they find personally offensive on a regular basis. That's part of life. So assuming that's most of what you mean here (and not threats of violence or other things which are clearly different - and not to be tolerated - but also not encouraged or even tacitly tolerated by Anscombe et al), it's hardly a fair attack. There are plenty of people who disagree with my lifestyle choices - and sometimes they are rude enough to let me know inappropriately. And then life goes on.
Why is it OK for University employees to attack publicly a student group (Anscombe)? Are they writing in their capacity as employees or as private individuals? I fully support the right of faculty and staff to speak out on issues important to them, but we have to recognize the power dynamic at play when institutional representatives condemn a student group -- it can hardly be an equal exchange of views. This should put to rest the myth that the University's health services and other centers aren't opposed to Anscombe's vision of chastity.
People "need" sex-change surgery as much as I "need" a Lamborghini.
"There are plenty of people who disagree with my lifestyle choices - and sometimes they are rude enough to let me know inappropriately. And then life goes on."
It's probably not worth arguing with you, but your statement highlights a main difference in assumptions between those who on the right of this issue and those on the left. Namely, whether or not homosexuality is a "choice." We probably won't find common ground on this anytime soon. Some conservatives I've spoken to have conceded that it's ok to feel romantic love for those of the same gender, as long as you make a conscious effort not to act on such impulses. Indeed, that is what people have done for hundreds, if not thousands of years. While I understand this argument, what's flawed about it is that you are asking someone to suppress a key aspect of themselves even when their expression of that aspect does no harm whatsoever to other people. It would be different if someone had a desire to abuse drugs or kill people. They should be rehabilitated, but liberals and conservatives are going to disagree on whether lgbt folks should be rehabilitated.
"Why is it OK for University employees to attack publicly a student group (Anscombe)?"
Because they are trying to impose their morality, backed by religious doctrine, on other people. Not so of the lgbt community. There's no institutional attempt to get everyone else to become gay.
"the University’s student and the employee health insurance plans do not cover the gender reassignment surgery some transgender people need."
That is not a need. That is a want. I know transgender people don't have any choice over their desire for sex change surgery, but that doesn't mean society should pay for it.
I always wonder how people are able to demand more steps towards gay rights when LITTLE work has been done to establish that being gay really IS something beyond the individual's control (genetic factors?). It seriously is like, very important to establish that homosexuality isn't a purely behavioral trait shared by many people, because if it is, there's no grounds for giving it elevated treatment (compared to other behavioral traits such as..plain old fetishes, say).
Someone may respond to this saying this is an example of how this campus isn't "accepting" enough of homosexuals, but seriously I'm just trying to help. It makes a big difference if you're accepting someone based on who they ARE vs what they DO. all it takes is some old fashioned reasearch.
'10: The argument you raise is truly the weakest link in the pantheon of anti-gay rights pseudo-scientific jargon, because it can be refuted with one question: How can you establish that *heterosexuality* isn't "a purely behavioral trait shared by many people?"
Once you can do that, get back to me. Until then, I would encourage you to stop explicitly associating homosexuality with sexual fetishes, implicitly making the completely inane argument that millions of homosexuals have spontaneously decided to pursue sexual and emotional bonds that, not even mentioning relatively tolerant regions like North America, can often get you killed in Africa and the Middle East, and condescendingly proffering your willingness to "help" when in fact you are just filling space with uninformed drivel. Also, one hopes that by this point in your Princeton career you no longer have to interject your writing with "like."
On a more personal note, as a gay dude on campus, I have never had any issue with homophobia at Princeton.
Ah, yes, the typical Prince opinion article with a number of broad suggestions that probably have not been well thought out. Let's see what is particularly egregious here.
"Gender-segregated bathrooms." How exactly do you suggest modifying this? Most of the buildings here are old and have limited facilities. To that end, it is difficult even to accommodate handicapped people which is something required by law. You could convert existing bathrooms into "gender-neutral bathrooms," but this would have negative consequences for use and for those who do not wish to be a part of such an environment for safety or other personal reasons. Or do you suggest having gender-neutral buildings, which in itself is a kind of segregation?
"As the University’s student and the employee health insurance plans do not cover the gender reassignment surgery some transgender people need." I have another idea: let's expand coverage for immunizations and dental care off campus that would probably be a greater good. Also, it seems that expanding the student coverage (I am being very specific here) is undesirable. Since there would be some period of evaluation prior to the procedure, would it not be more proper to continue some pre-existing coverage? At any rate, such a thing merits a debate on the actual nature of insurance rather than merely proposing to add in coverage of questionable value or so-called "need."
Regarding the Anscombe Society - Yes, brilliant, make a straw man about their positions. Is it that difficult to answer them outright? Because boy howdy are they weak. Also, '07 raises an interesting point that ought to be answered but surely will not be.
"As any publicly out person can surely attest, institutional policy can be quite tolerant, and yet it still only takes one homophobic or transphobic person to sabotage all sense of belonging." OK, so, in thus hypothetical scenario how is this any different from someone just being mean? Doesn't this completely undermine your claim in the first paragraph?