The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

80° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat



    Anti-Prop. 107 column rife with hypocrisy

    I find it sad that in Samuel Feldman’s article “”Politicans, religious leaders play politics of hate”” in Tuesday’s Arizona Daily Wildcat, he was so fast in resorting to the same discrimination and attacks that he decries. He asserts that it is wrong for those of differing moral values to judge those of alternative sexual preference and/or identity. First off, there is nothing wrong with having different morals than someone else. I morally object to same-sex marriages. Does this give me the right to hate someone who feels differently? No. Does this give me the right to disagree with what that other person does? Yes. Proponents of same-sex marriage are so fast to throw out their catchwords of “”discrimination”” and “”hate”” that they fail to see that (in most cases) neither of those words apply. A moral objection to a given behavior does not imply ignorant abhorrence.

    As to the same-sex marriage ban laws, which are becoming more and more common, they don’t reflect hate, but the moral position of the majority. Why are there laws against incest and polygamy? Because the majority is morally opposed to them. LGBT individuals must understand that they are in the moral minority, and that just because the majority doesn’t agree with them doesn’t make everyone else wrong.

    With regards to Feldman’s argument, it’s hypocritical at best. He decries the phrase “”attack on marriage”” as a trick to motivate the majority “”programmed sheep,”” as he put it, to action. He decries the forcing of moral views on others yet tries to guilt everyone who feels differently than him into changing with: “”These attacks are the politics of hate, and anyone advocating for them should be ashamed.”” Also, he denounces people for “”skimming”” the Bible when he himself has failed to understand that (in Christian belief) the verses he quoted pertained to the Mosaic Law and were superseded by the teachings of Christ and no longer in effect. Feldman’s article merely perpetuated the behavior he decries and has accomplished nothing.

    Nathan Urbancic
    senior majoring in Spanish

    Central issue of Prop. 107 not gay marriage

    I would like to clarify a few things regarding Alex Hoogasian’s letter Thursday about Proposition 107. Gay marriage is already banned by state law in Arizona, and an Arizona Court of Appeals has upheld that ban as constitutional. The Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that decision, and that decision stands.

    The central issue in Proposition 107 is not gay marriage but the prohibition of any legal status similar to marriage for all unmarried couples. This includes such alternatives as civil unions and domestic partner benefits. The principal impact of passing this amendment in other states has been to eliminate health care benefits for unmarried heterosexual couples and any children covered through that relationship.

    Norm Meader
    administrative associate department of geosciences

    Debate shows Munsil right for Arizona

    Monday night’s debate showed clearly who the best choice for Arizona’s highest office is.ÿ

    On one hand, we have a governor who could not defend her poor record on immigration, crime, education and health care, all of which are more strained in Arizona now than they were four years ago when she took office.

    On the other hand, we have Len Munsil, who showed himself to be educated on the issues, in touch with Arizona values and committed to moving Arizona forward.

    At the end of the day, Napolitano is a tax-and-spend Democrat, and if she is re-elected, Arizonans can expect more of the same over the next four years: higher taxes, lots of talk, few results.ÿ

    But Arizonans have a chance this November to send to the governor’s office a man who understands what it takes to make progress on the difficult issues facing our state.

    Len Munsil will deliver the aggressive border policy that this state so desperately needs in order to achieve real results for Arizona’s students, families, businesses, hospitals and citizens.

    Napolitano struggled Monday night to defend her record on the issues – because her record on the issues is a weak one. Fortunately, Arizona has a better choice in this election. Arizona has Len Munsil.

    Michael R. Huston
    political science and philosophy junior

    Degree possible for transfer students

    I read two letters in the Arizona Daily Wildcat about how tough it can be for transfer students here at the UA. I transferred from a community college in Kansas and knew there was going to be an adjustment period (i.e. classes not matching up, increased workload, etc.). I spent my first semester at the UA adjusting to life at a big university (larger class sizes, a generally faster pace and making appointments to see my academic adviser). I knew making the transition was not going to be easy, yet I still hung in there. Presently, I am a management information systems major in the Eller College of Management and graduating in December. It all comes down to the following questions: Do you want that UA degree bad enough? Are you willing to do what it takes to attain advanced standing in your major? Speaking from my experience as a transfer student, I only have one piece of advice to offer: Get in there and get the job done! The takeaway from this letter is: To all students, transfer and nontransfer, it can be done. Good luck, everyone!

    Leroy Walters
    management information systems senior

    We no longer live in a patriarchal society

    In response to Tiffany Bellan’s Wednesday letter, “”Women can be successful and happy,”” I find that her remarks only epitomize the feminist attitude that seems prevalent in attempting to find bigotry in every situation imaginable. I find it incredible that Bellan believes we still live in a patriarchal society. It seems to me that no matter where I turn in my collegiate career, particularly with my major, that there is some professor who examines women in a certain context, which is a fine and noble pursuit. However, I have literally heard gasps of astonishment when I have told female friends that I have a professor who studies the development of masculine identity. They find it so incredible that a man would dare to venture into that type of scholarship, because, after all, men have suppressed women for thousands of years.

    A society that supports women’s studies but debunks the value of masculine identity is hardly a patriarchal society, and in fact creates a double standard. Women and men both have their place, and both should be valued equally. I find that Bellan, as an international studies major, and a senior to boot, would not be hard-pressed to find an actual example of a patriarchal culture, instead of making a far-fetched and quite offensive statement as alluding to the fact that our society is male-dominated. Bellan’s ludicrous claim that Martha Stewart was imprisoned because the “”good ol’ boys wanted to teach her a lesson”” only epitomizes some of the ideas that feminists (without implying that Bellan is one, I am simply drawing a parallel) try to find as some chauvinistic practice that simply does not exist in factuality but rather in some odd perspective; Martha Stewart was imprisoned because she broke the law, including perjury. Oddly enough, the federal judge who denied her appeal was – surprise, surprise – a woman. In fact, call me crazy, but I would even venture to say that women were on the convicting jury. It is claims like these that offend me and many other males I have talked to.

    Our society is by and large equal, and I certainly in no way view a successful woman as having to be a ruthless she-devil. Plenty of women are successful and balance two jobs in a career and motherhood, and I say kudos to those women. Allegations like the one Bellan makes only further drives a wedge in gender differences (if indeed they even exist in anything but a physical sense, as a woman’s mind is just as capable of a man’s), and true, complete equality seems to be even further away. I would venture to say that most men want there to be true parity between men and women, but as long as either gender continues to make absurd claims like Bellan, equivalence will only seem even further away.

    Matt Winter
    classics senior

    More to Discover
    Activate Search