 "Photo: Illustration by Whitney Bandel")
 "Photo: N/A")
Often state representatives will pass legislation that possesses no enforcement but is symbolic to honor the deceased, praise individual and group accomplishments or raise awareness of social issues.
This was the case in the Pennsylvania legislature when the state House of Representatives was scheduled to pass a resolution designating October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Surprisingly, this effort was derailed when one representative objected to the resolution, claiming it possessed "a homosexual agenda," as reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer in a news article dated Sept. 19.
It was Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, who objected to the resolution because he felt some of the text contained empathy toward homosexual victims of domestic violence, referring to a line which stated that "one in six women and one in 33 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape."
"It had language woven through it that brought men into the situation," Metcalfe said. "I don't support the resolution or funding for groups that go beyond helping women."
We live in a largely heterosexual society that has long created homophobic discourse in our daily lives. Hate and prejudice toward the gay community remains an issue, as evidenced by Metcalfe's objection.
In no way was the legislation funding any sort of support, but rather it was calling for awareness of domestic violence victims. Metcalfe's homophobic feelings have blinded him from comprehending the research within the resolution, proving men can be victims of domestic violence in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. According to the resolution, there were 835,000 male victims of domestic violence in the last year.
Metcalfe's behavior can only make one question on how he balances his obligations as a public official — protecting the rights of American citizens — while ostracizing domestic violence support and innocent victims who suffer. It makes no difference if the victims of violence are male or female, gay or straight.
Sadly, Metcalfe was not the only prime example of homophobic rhetoric in the past weeks. In response to the U.S. 2010 Census, which will measure the number of heterosexual and homosexual couples, Peter Sprigg, the senior fellow for policy studies with the Family Research Council, added to the pile of prejudice.
"In virtually all states, the percentage of same-sex couples who marry is far lower than the percentage of opposite-sex couples who marry," Sprigg said in a Washington Post article. "To us, it says homosexuals do not view the institution of marriage the same way heterosexuals do. In fact, there's a lack of commitment to the institution of marriage in the homosexual community at large. That's one of the reasons why we think same-sex marriage should not be legalized."
Sprigg's comments lack all sense of logical thinking. It is clear that more heterosexual couples are getting married in every state, especially when same-sex marriage is legal in only six states. Sprigg cannot argue that we should not legalize same-sex marriage because people of the same-sex are not getting married, when it is clear that marriage holds such great value that many will migrate to be legally committed.
The bottom line is, jokes calling someone a "homo," "gay," "queer" or "faggot" need to stop. The United States has the potential to demonstrate another great achievement in social justice, as much of the world looks on to witness how we treat those who are different.
America is the birthplace of democracy, so it is my hope that we will soon end our history of the persecution and discrimination of others by accepting the fact that we were all born as individuals, which will create differences that should make no difference.
-Bobby Gomez is a senior in elementary education. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
And if homosexuality is so morally wrong, how come the rest of God's creatures engage in it? You can find it pretty much everywhere else in the animal kingdom. I don't know why humans think we are somehow exempt or different for engaging in the practice.
America is not the birthplace of Democracy. American is a Democratic Republic. Don't forget about Greece (when/if you teach elementary education ;) ).
Regarding to your religious beliefs, believing in God does not make you old fashion or backward, I believe in God as well, in a supreme being. But I guess our spiritual believes differ slighlty. But, I think we humans can often take religion to an extreme taking holy scriptures out of context and using them to fit our personal beliefs. You sound like an interesting person. While I do not agree in this particular subject with you, I do commend you speaking up and supporting your views (Even if I disagree with them). I do hope that you will change your mind regarding this subject, because I believe it is step further in becoming fully human.
And religion and morality are not symbiotic! Of course the ten commandments are adhered to, but the bible also says that if a person is caught stealing their hands are supposed to be cut off.... when does that form of punishment come into effect? Did i miss it?
If there were a pill that could cure pedophiles, would you support it?
How about Homosexuals? I'm guessing you are going to say yes to the former, no to the latter. Why is this?
Pedophilia is, most often, tragic and harmful to the "victim" or child in question. That's not up for debate, but it's not always that way. As I said in the previous post, the example of the Teacher and 12 year old student who had consensual sex and ended up getting married 10 years later. I certainly still think it was wrong, but it wasn't as traumatic as a rape. While we're on the subject, what do you think the appropriate cut off age is? Would you say that someone who has sex with a 17 year old, or who wants to is a Pedophile? The Pedophiles themselves actually started groups attempting to get status as "sexual orientation" rather than sexual deviants. Interesting.If you really want to get to the bottom of it. Yes, I suppose I do not like nor support homosexuality because I view it as immoral. I believe in an absolute morality and God, but don't let that turn you off. I still think I'm a rather sharp guy, which no doubt some now gauge me as retarded for being a theist. But I don't look at gays themselves as people that should be mocked. My viewpoint is that which I think a lot of other people have (but not enough). The "Hate the sin, not the sinner" view. I don't like homosexuality, but I can get along with a Gay man, easily. Why? Because is he really that different from me? I'm not perfect. No. I've got my faults, and sexually I'm not even going to pretend I'm anywhere close to being completely moral. I don't really want to delve into religion, so I'll just end with saying that the only real difference as far as my theistic views go, between myself and a typical homosexuality is that I know and admit that some of the things I do are wrong, and that they generally do not want to say that their sexual quirks are. Hopefully that made some sense to you.
regaurds,
the KHAN!
I'll call a spade a spade, and a bigot a bigot.