To the Editor:

Feb 242004

I just want to say I am extremely surprised at the audacity our

editor had to select such a cartoon for printing Monday. I

understand at times our newspaper must print both sides of every

issue, but this cartoon is degrading and stereotypical to all gay

couples. Gay marriages are causing quite a stir across the nation

as well as in our own school community.

Since the actions began last Thursday in San Francisco, there

have been non-stop editorials and responses in our paper. I have

patiently read all of them and have been welcoming and

understanding to the opposing sides of gay marriage. Although, to

those of you who feel these couples who are getting married are

“ruining the sanctity of marriage”… read the story! These couples

are getting married in the city of San Francisco Capitol building!

Last time I remember reading the Constitution there is a clear

statement about separating church and state. So I believe this

means their marriages are not recognized by any religious

organizations or deities. And if they are to be “condemned by God,”

that will come at their time, not yours.

State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman

amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against gays and

lesbians. The first couples to be married in San Francisco were two

icons of the lesbian movement, Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon,

79, and they have been together for over 50 years. I believe if two

people who love each other and agree to spend their lives with one

another, regardless of gender, deserve to be recognized as a

married couple. Do you not agree that couples, straight or gay,

deserve privacy in their relationship? Deal with your own lives,

people. “One man all by himself is nothing. Two people who belong

together make a world.” -Hans Margolius.

Kelly Brush


 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Feb 242004

In regards to Tim Bessler’s Feb. 23 letter: Despite the

realization, homosexual marriages have been going on for years;

they have just never been recognized by our federal government. Are

heterosexual marriages any less sacred today because of it? Should

all churches and religions that perform gay marriages or civil

unions be outlawed? It almost sounds like the government needs to

put its seal of approval on a marriage in order to make it a sacred

union, from what you are saying.

The arguments presented are more against the act of

homosexuality than the act of marriage itself. They are two

completely distinct issues.

If the Bible is to be used as a resource, it is probably best to

make sure that you are interpreting it correctly and fully, and

that you are not imposing your own personal opinions about what the

Bible means to you on other people. If a unilateral interpretation

of the Bible actually existed, then the whole idea of Christianity

being split up into numerous sects would make absolutely no sense

whatsoever. Furthermore, there are other sins considered to be much

worse that are often neglected from the Bible because they are

inconvenient for today’s Christians to follow. An example would be

the eight days of cleansing required after touching someone who is

either ovulating or secreting blood in any form. Why is it okay to

pick and choose what you believe? This is where religion runs into

the problem of individual interpretation. Ultimately everyone

believes their interpretation is correct, but we do not have the

right to stop people from having ideas of their own.

The point about consummating marriage was very naively and

ignorantly formulated. First of all, it assumed that all gays and

lesbians engage in sexual intercourse before being committed to

each other. Additionally, you also made the suggestion that all

straight couples wait until marriage to have sex. We are curious as

to where you got these statistics, because we, along with many

others we’re sure, would tend to disagree with these findings. This

almost suggests that we should outlaw the marriage of couples that

have had sexual intercourse before their marriage.

The arguments that you put forth seem to indicate that

homosexuals deserve to be less equal than straights, making them


The question that I ask of you is how does this affect your life

directly? When couples were being married on the streets of San

Francisco, did it affect your marriage, or anyone else’s marriage

for that matter?

Matthew J. Nielsen

Graduate Student

Joshua A. Sliger

Senior, Political Science

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Feb 242004

There has been debate going on about Christianity and

homosexuality. What it comes down to is how you read the Bible.

Take 1 Corinthians 6:9 as an example. The Greek word used is

“malakoi”, referring to a form of homosexual prostitution that took

place during Paul’s time. Some people are going to use that term to

say all forms of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible, while

others say there is a difference between prostitution and loving

sex, so therefore the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

It’s important to remember some things before we use the Bible

to say Christianity is anti-homosexual. Is it fair to have a double

standard when comparing homosexuality and heterosexuality? Why is

it fair to take a word meaning homosexual prostitution and use it

to condemn all homosexuality, but not take a word meaning

heterosexual prostitution to condemn all heterosexuality?

When you use the Bible to condemn a group, it’s important to

remember the actual lessons of Christ. When you read his teachings,

you’ll find he never teaches anything to justify condemning

homosexuals. Some Christian groups (such as the KKK) have used

biblical passages against not only homosexuals, but also women and

African-Americans, despite the fact Christ never teaches that. So

if Christ doesn’t teach homosexuality is wrong, and the passages

translated to justify that belief are referring to prostitution,

why is it so many Christians feel their religion is


Robert Steele

Junior, accounting and political science

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Feb 242004

On Tuesday, President Bush announced his backing of an amendment

defining marriage between a man and a woman. This infuriated

Libertarians like myself. This once proud country founded on life,

liberty and the pursuit of happiness has become one of religion,

nannies and the pursuit if what society says makes us happy.

Number one on the ‘do as we say’ list is the Christians. They

got mad when liberals tried to take God out of the pledge, but then

walk all over the last line, “with liberty and justice for all.”

Last time I checked gays fell under all, and getting married was a

liberty. For those of you that hide behind civil unions, you aren’t

much better. It’s the equivalent of saying you don’t like cocaine,

but if you changed the name of cocaine to happy dust then you would

support it.

Finally, to those Republicans who told people like me, “If you

don’t like America then move to Iraq.” Well, if you don’t like

countries that are laws aren’t founded on religion, then maybe you

should move to Iran.

Brian Zimpfer

Junior, computer science

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Feb 242004

I am utterly appalled at the reaction that our government and

fellow students have to the proposed Amendment banning gay

marriage. Who are we to decide what is right or wrong? Who are we

to judge another just by their sexual orientation? The answer is we

are not those who decide what is right or wrong or those who judge.

That is left up to a higher power, not mere human beings who hardly

know anything about their own bodies and minds.

President Bush supports the proposal banning gay marriage, Sen.

Wayne Allard supports the amendment and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave

supports this amendment. Aren’t these people those we trust to make

the right decision regarding the freedoms we hold dear? Now doesn’t

that seem odd that these three people, and others in Congress as

well, support an amendment to deny U.S. citizens a legal contract

that can be viewed as freedom? It seems more fascist to me than

democratic, more malicious than loving, more hateful than caring.

Why do our leaders want to deny that homosexuals are just like

heterosexuals? Oh my, can that be true? Of course it is.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals both need love, both physical and

emotional. Both have wants and needs that cannot be denied by any

institution whatsoever. Yet for some reason, homosexuals always get

the bum deal.

If God created mankind in His image, did He not also create

homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals alongside heterosexuals?

Wouldn’t that make God also a homosexual, a transsexual, a bisexual

and a heterosexual? What’s so hard to swallow about that? I may not

agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I see no reason to deny

the same legal rites I am entitled to those who’re of a different

sexual orientation than myself.

If you’re as appalled as I am, call and e-mail your congressmen

and congresswomen. (202) 224-3121 is the Capitol’s directory

assistance. Or you can contact Congress through e-mail, by help of

this Web site:


Don’t let the freedoms of all men and women be refused by the

government. Voice out your opinion, vote and most of all, spark

debate among your fellows.

Shawn Kozlowski

Junior, English

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor,

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Feb 242004

I have been living with epilepsy for nearly 10 years. I found

the article printed in Tuesday’s paper to be fairly accurate. There

are a few comments that need to made, however.

Gran Mal (not Grand Mal) seizures do, in fact, involve loss of

consciousness. Neither I, nor anyone I have ever met who is

epileptic, has ever had a Gran Mal without loss of


To add to what Jesse McLain said, epileptics have to fear

everyday things that most people don’t worry about – seizures in

class, which I experienced last semester, having a seizure while

walking on the sidewalk and even using computers too much.

Computers are a problem because the refresh-rate of the screen can

act like a strobe light and cause a seizure.

While some people freak out about epilepsy, I have found that

almost everybody is very accepting. I always inform my teachers

what to do and have rarely met a teacher who was worried. It is

important for epileptics to tell friend and teachers about their

condition. If they don’t, it could lead to a costly and unnecessary

trip to an emergency room.

One last thing that should be addressed is minor seizures and

tremors. While some might say that there are no minor seizures,

they do exist. Monday, for example, while I was sitting at my desk

and my right thigh muscle twitched uncontrollably. This was an

annoyance, but nothing more. Tremors tend to make people think that

epileptics are drug addicts. They involve uncontrollable shaking of

the limbs. This is most common in the hands (for me, of course, in

the writing hand). Neither minor seizures nor tremors should worry


Brian Thomas

Senior, history

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Feb 242004

In response to Tim Bessler’s Feb. 23 letter: Last time I

checked, the Bible was written by men, who are sinful, not by Jesus

himself. This means we do not know if the Bible is the exact

thoughts of Jesus himself. The only things we can say is truly from

Jesus are the red letters, and in those red letters, I get a

message of unconditional love-U-N-C-O-N-D-I-T-I-O-N-A-L.

I am gay and Christian. To your arguments from the Bible, I

cannot take them as directed strictly to homosexuals. For one, the

verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, the word homosexual is used, yes,

but when the Bible was truly written, the word homosexual did not

exist. I can guarantee you that if you were to seek out the

original Greek, Latin or Hebrew translation, that verse would have

a completely different meaning and would not be based on

homosexuals. In reference to Matthew 19:12, that has nothing to do

with being gay. A straight person may be better off being single

just as much as a gay person is.

I find it insulting that you compared homosexuals to alcoholics.

An alcoholic makes a choice to either drink another beer or not. A

homosexual cannot wake up one morning and all of a sudden be

straight. It is not a choice.

In regards to being celibate before marriage, that is not a fair

argument against gays. I know for a fact that many straight,

Christian couples engage in sex before marriage. And I know for a

fact that some gay couples do actually wait until marriage. That

argument is for those people having sex before marriage, not

against homosexuality. I find it very ignorant for people to

actually believe the stereotype that all homosexuals are

promiscuous. A stereotype does not define us or give an accurate

picture of homosexuals.

However, I think my biggest point of this letter is to tell you

that this battle for legalized same-sex marriage has gotten very

out of hand. Do you not realize that homosexual couples have not

been able to get married for years? Has that stopped us before? No!

Sure, it would be exciting to be able to marry my girlfriend

someday and I will fight for it, but even if I cannot, it is not

going to stop me from loving her. Homosexuals will still have

commitment ceremonies, live together and start families-whether or

not same-sex marriage is legalized. Moreover, from what I know

about God, he is a God of love (Leviticus 19:18, 34; Mark 12:29-31;

1 Corinthians 13; 1 John 4:7-21) not a God of hate. If you think

not giving homosexuals the right to legally get married is going to

get rid of us, you are wrong. You will still have the gay neighbors

and we will still have our pride, faith and love. Of course, we

want rights, and we will fight, but no one can stop us from loving

each other, legal or not.

Sarah Fry

Fort Collins Resident

Kim Rutherford

Junior, HDFS

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Feb 242004

I was disappointed and outraged to see the cartoon on the

opinion page on Monday. The cartoon made the statement that a

marriage between two men, or two women for that matter, is

comparable to calling a duck a tree or a fire hydrant a boat and

that it is not a marriage in the least.

Why can’t a marriage just signify a loving and lasting

relationship between two people? And for that matter, how are the

rest of us affected by these marriages in any way? Are straight men

and women being forced to marry gay men and women? No. This insults

gay and straight members of your campus community. It perpetuates

the hate, discrimination and non-acceptance that homosexuals face

daily and is not acceptable on the CSU campus.

Rachael Kissling

Sophomore, human development and family studies

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Feb 242004

This is a response to J.B. Gaynor’s Feb.19 letter regarding

Brent Ables’ article “Striping Degrades Women.” It is a good thing

Mr. Gaynor is in the microbiology department, as it is obvious he

lacks understanding of human relationships and current societal

dynamics. Mr. Gaynor’s main point that “…there are male strip

clubs, too.” presents a poor argument in defense of strip clubs.

Strip clubs, whether male or female, are degrading to both sexes.

Mr. Gaynor also goes on to state that “men and women are sexual

beings,” and we should allow ourselves to “think of each other in

that way.” This implies that strip clubs are an acceptable outlet

to do so. Sexuality entails more than just physical appearance.

Embracing one’s “sexual being” involves intimacy, emotions and

connectedness – something strip clubs lack the last time I checked.

Furthermore, while Mr. Gaynor may think it is “inherently unfair”

to make a connection between “degrading women in strip clubs and

condoning violence against them,” I would suggest he read/view the

following material before making such a claim:

* Killing Us Softly – Fighting the backlash of women in the


* Tough Guise – Fighting the backlash of men in the media

* Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women – By Susan


* Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man – By Susan


* Against the Tide: Men in American Society – By Michel Kimmel

and Thomas Mosmiller

* The Centerfold Syndrome: How men can overcome objectification

and achieve intimacy with women – by Cary Brooks and Lenore


Perhaps Mr. Gaynor will consider my qualifications worthy of

discussing this issue instead of using the excuse that a freshman

is not capable of discussing these “matters.”

Heather Schilling

Department of Human Development and Family Studies

Marriage and Family Therapy Masters Student

 Posted by at 5:00 pm