Free speech vs. sexual freedom
Re: Homophobia haunts Scarborough (Nov. 11)
I have been indirectly accused (depending on interpretation) of either homophobia or lack of education, or both, by Sarah Barmak in her article Homophobia haunts Scarborough. I was referenced not only by name and position, but also extremely out of context.
I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties faced by LGBTQ students on our campus and elsewhere. I acknowledge a real and pressing need for equity initiatives designed to benefit this student minority, such as the Positive Space campaign; a need for education (I have attended and will continue to attend equity training), and a need for measures designed to protect this group from attack and discrimination. Speaking for myself, I am entirely comfortable with LGBTQ individuals and I wish that no discussion regarding the legitimacy of being LGBTQ were to exist at all.
Nevertheless, the discussion does exist. And expunging it from a message board will not alter the fact that numerous students do have objections to LGBTQ on the basis of moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.
My participation in the discussion was not intended to support these objections-particularly since I do not share them-but to acknowledge that some space to state these views must be made available, so long as the views can be stated respectfully and responsibly, or else education is impossible. I don’t intend to defend the particular example of what occurred on the SCSU message board as respectful and responsible discussion, but I stand by the principle as I’ve stated it.
In the context of a discussion that brought into question the legitimacy of every religious group and club on our campus that follows a faith which objects to homosexuality, I suggested that Student Affairs is the appropriate office to determine what is and what is not acceptable as a recognized student group, in place of statements made by LGBTQ@SC coordinator Brian Konik that were quite clear regarding what they believe is and is not allowed. It is my firm belief that as soon as some students start dictating what is and is not allowed on our campus, and other students allow themselves to be thus dictated to, we have entered into a dangerous realm of self-censorship. So I encouraged then, as I would encourage now, any and all students and student groups to test the limits of what is permissible and acceptable. And I stand by that principle as well. It is unfortunate that the entitlements and claims made by some groups seem to infringe inexorably on the entitlements and claims made by other groups, but that’s the nature of democratic society. And unilaterally muzzling someone because you don’t like what they are saying, or denying them any venue through which to express their views, is not the nature of a democratic society. To quote Voltaire “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.” And I will continue to do so.
Jeff Rybak
Humanities Department Rep.
SCSU
Aborted argument
Re: Abortion debate baffles, entertains (Nov. 17)
The position Students for Life maintains, and which Mr. Wagner argued for, is that human life should be protected from conception (not inception). Prof. Sumner compared an unwanted fetus to an intruder, a burdensome being that threatens the mother’s rights. Is not the womb our natural location for the first months of our lives? No human could be more defenceless than an unborn child, wanted or unwanted-hardly the description of an intruder deserving a brutal death.
One of Prof. Sumner’s more shocking claims was that rights do not depend on membership in a certain species. Dogs have higher consciousness then severely handicapped people. Should more rights be given to dogs then to these human beings?
Finally, concerning two accusations made: First that the pro-life position is a “religious view.” Should we discount Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Mother Teresa (who, note, were all against abortion) because they had religious motivations? We do not need to share their religious convictions to understand that they stood for something noble, good, and just. The second was that men should not speak about this subject. Should it then follow that we should dismiss the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion since the majority of judges who ruled in the case were male?
We would like to bring this issue back into focus. What is the unborn? It is a human being that has the same amount of dignity as all human beings do. We can do far better than abortion.
U of T Students for Life
Homosexuality a moral question?
Re: Is it natural to be gay? (Nov. 11)
Female pigs sometimes eat their offspring after giving birth. “Rape” is a natural part of procreation in many species. Dogs have been known to eat their own feces. But all of these activities can properly be deemed unnatural for human beings. Pointing out that they take place among animals is irrelevant. The homosexuality debate revolves around a moral question and morality doesn’t pertain to the animal kingdom.
Michael Connell
