Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 27, 1993)
\ 5 are the workers )0 « mis- d get-i n - e P°rting f shuttle ‘ v idence Richard ■ s space J i inten- d iscipli- id we’ve Opinion Tuesday, July 27,1993 The Battalion Page 5 GOOD LORD/ fvlAKep fWPU ItJ-TUE^E pictures/ x PEHANlP To KMOW VlWH TdlS>. fllTM I/? 1M TUE H5>C// Van L.flKlP 1 DEMW TO KklOW Hold MPCH TKI*? FILTH WOOLD COM /- )n ih spend s and $23 Agricul- heads the rities, an the gov- extent of the Unit- organiza- ates that ercent of gives the antrolling • Clinton ice the com- he provi- ups had :on's plan nded en- n Code of losexuals he code nal act. ommittee it with e legisla- homosex- : support licans for g of Sen. >ama De- 1 Clinton ; year. SIS 10th an- bans to jtlining :elebra- onsecu- saying een ex- ? refine id East- nbargo, oorts. eabout $13 bil- ; scarci- ing vis- dom to stmenh gn cur- ? said, ign cur- int ven- 1 explo' in $530 jrely af' aged to to mea* ne revO' ts spat 6 h work' Nearly ill pro- ,ver- a&m ie of th e e long itself/ rid fit ity to vel. It ne pet' EDlfafft U0T£: 1UE AW\/E CPfTTOOM m &EEM Cet^OREP FOR VOUR HOf?AL PROTECTIOli. Society views marriage as religious privilege, not right GUEST COLUMN EDWARD M. GRAHAM [ read Matt Dickerson's column on marriage recent- ly,and noticed a disturbing aspect of marriage was missing. The missing ispect involved Ihe fundamental definition of mar riage. Dickerson describes mar riage as a legal, iconomic union letween two hu mans. I definite- ^differ with that view. Marriage is a religious commitment in fc’hich a man and a woman proclaim to ilie community (local and world-wide) liatthey intend to be together and grow to toward God (1 am being purposely nonspecific about which religion). Cou ples invite everyone they vaguely know loproclaim this fact, and regrettably to in gifts a symptom of this legal/eco- 'flnic attitude. What Dickerson de- siibes is how society reacts to mar riages, not the essence of marriage. Marriage has religious bases deep in Itiecultures of nearly all people around iheworld. Whether Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, etc.; marriage is definitely a religious thing. Elaborate teremonies are held in religious set- i, often a church. Many Hindus spend four days getting married, and ie whole village (2,000+) is invited! Here in the West, we have it easy. Society has chosen to accord special ecognition to marriage because it real izes the importance of such a profound let. It is our own democratic society (Texas) which has chosen to legally rec ognize marriage between a man and a woman, and not legally recognize the marriages of homosexuals. This is true democracy, open democracy, where the majority rules. Marriage and adoption are related is sues. Why should a judge assign a child toahomosexual couple when little is known about homosexual parenting ability (as Dickerson states)? Why take the chance? Partners in homosexual unions who are mismatched should re member that many heterosexual couples are also mismatched due to conceal ment. For instance, one or both sets of parents may object to the couple. Quite common in heterosexual relationships. Liberalizing the definition of mar riage and the legal requirements could be dangerous. Why can I not marry two or more people (polygamy)? Could this be a "basic human right?" 1 hope not; think of the problems. Past societies and cultures have experi mented with these ideas and discovered they do not work or produce successful marriages. Winy can't 1 marry a pri mate? Sounds ludicrous, but Dickerson states that homosexuals should be able to marry the mate of their choice. Society already places many bounds on the legal recognition of marriage such as age, consanguinity, who may perform the ceremony, mental capacity of either partner, etc. Very few people appear to contest these restrictions even though some people's "rights" are limited. Some people in Arkansas do manage to marry off their 14 year-old daughters, but that is for another column. There are also complicated proce dures and nerve racking times one must go through to end a marriage. Di vorce is indeed an ugly occurrence in the U.S. or anywhere. Seldom is it jus tified. Other cultures have high societal pressure against divorce so that couples are nearly forced to resolve their prob lems instead of evading them. Most religious people would say the key to a successful marriage involves developing three foundations to their relationship- a spiritual, emotional, and physical (in this order). I doubt many people would list legal or economic foundations for having a successful marriage. These are simply side-issues of marriage which usually become im portant during times of trouble or di vorce (i.e. times when the three founda tions are weak). Homosexual marriages which are unstable or experiencing promiscuity (as Dickerson discusses) lack these three foundations. Society's legal non recognition is not the cause. 1 personally do not recognize homo sexual marriages since i subscribe to a definition of marriage apparently far different from Dickerson's. Legal recognition of marriage does not stabi lize marriages as Dickerson suggests; the three foundations do stabilize. Marriage is not a right which pro tects couples and their children; it is a confirmation of the couples' desire to grow toward God. Marriage is not a basic human right, it is religious privi lege which the state and society have chosen to recognize. Edward M. Graham is a graduate in dustrial engineering student Home: A nice place to visit, but... Students find refuge from reality under parents' roof ROBERT VASQUEZ Columnist L eaving home for college is a frightful and bold adventure. But, as my friends tell it, it's nowhere near as unnerving as return ing home. One of my roommates put it this way, "Home is a nice place to visit, but 1 wouldn't want to live there." So often. I've heard the stories of kids going back home, only to find that it wasn't the same place they left. Some kids say that their parents are too prohibitive and watch them too closely. It seems that once the kids have tasted freedom, they find the shackles at home just a little too tight; the leash a little too short. Others say that their parents drive them crazy with too much attention. The kids aren't used to having their par ents around and they seem to trip over each other. Either way, the parents can't seem to win. The problem is a common one. I've been told, "No mat ter how long your gone, no matter how far you go, once you leave the nest, you can never really go back home. I wasn't sure what it meant, but it sounded profound. So I said, "Thanks, Mom. I appreciate the advice." She smiled and said, "No, son, that wasn't advice. That was a fact. You can't come back. Your father and I have sold your bed and are renting out your room for scientific studies. They're conducting experiments on the fungus and mildew you left there." Actually, it wasn't my mother who filled me in on this little fact of life. It was friends from college and high school who spoke with the weathered voice of experience. They had learned the hard way. They had taken the big step and moved into places of their own. Struggling with rent and towering piles of bills, my friends seemed content to tough it out alone. They partied till the wee hours of morning, no curfew hovering above their spinning heads. They skipped break fast when they felt like it and drank beer late in the after noon when they rose to greet the new day. And when the kegs had run dry, when the parties were over, and the bills had finally caught up, the prodigals would return home where their masochistic parents waited patiently, ever happy to lend a helping, albeit firm, hand. I've never understood the problem with kids returning home. The thing that perplexes me is that parents allow children to return at all. So many kids talk as if their par ents were lucky to have them back. Some, maybe most, parents feel that way. But other parents are only too happy to nudge their chicks out of the nest. One lady's advice to me was, "Don't ever have children. They cost a fortune. And they never leave." I was only visiting when I went home this weekend. It had been months since I last made the pilgrimage and I was looking forward to the visit. I wondered when I would finally suffer the same problems my friends had mentioned. I would be careful, I determined, not to confront my par ents with the problem, should one arise. I would silently endure their good intentions and escape at the end of the weekend, both parties unscathed, and return only for Christmas and Thanksgiving, at which time they tradition ally stuff large birds and roast them. But no problem arose. Actually it was kind of nice to visit home again. My parents have always been accommo dating. And my trips home always prove a great escape from the brutal reality I have found in college. From the moment 1 arrive until the moment I leave, my parents' every move is geared toward making my stay as comfortable and pleasant as possible. The places we eat are always my decision. My father's favorite chair is always offered to me. My mother looks for a good movie or event that I might enjoy. If I go out, there is no mention of a cur few. And in the morning, I'm allowed to sleep as late as I wish, until I wake up to the sound of hushed voices, my parents whispering so as not to wake me. As I sit at the table, eating a breakfast that has been pre pared and served to my specifications, I can't help but wonder if these people are aware that I'm content to eat a can of cold ravioli when I'm away at college. I wonder if they're aware that I rush from work to school only to rush back to work again. I guess they are. Maybe they feel sorry for me. It's kind of strange to be treated so well, but I'm not complaining. When I'm at home, I'm treated like a visiting dignitary and given my diplomatic immunity, I can do no wrong. So many kids complain about their parents when they go home. I'm just glad they're still there. I still don't know why they treat me so well when I return, though. Maybe they're just trying to show how grateful they are that I left home. Vasquez is a senior journalism major WAT r0tz* Th.s i£ , a I> i •&CVRACEL • J THoo&H^ *£i&staora<mt It A&I alumni should bow when to quit What a shame that Dick Watson ^xas A&I class of '61, is wasting so 'Wch effort on such a worthless fight, ^rtainly any Aggie would also fight a ^ange in the name of this great Uni- %sity, but there comes a time when Tail just have to suck it up and take it. Hiat time has passed, Mr. Watson. Also, the article in Monday's Battal- janleft me with the impression that Mr. "atson and his colleagues are some- ""riat confused. First of all Mr. Watson, °u are not being forced to become an 'ggie. If you think you are an Aggie, Win your own mind. No student of WzM, nor former student, will ever insider you an Aggie. You may think of 'Aggie' as a label feed on students of a university with the letters 'A' and 'M' in its name, but being an Aggie is something you could never understand. Not only will you not be labeled an Aggie, you will never be an Aggie. Secondly, Carl Douglass has vowed to throw away his A&I ring and diplo ma if the name is changed. The logic behind throwing away the symbols of the memories and accomplishments from the place you supposedly love so dearly eludes me. My Aggie Senior Ring means a lot more to me than just a name, and it will take something as drastic as losing all ten fingers to keep me from wearing it. I want to leave you with a little say ing I have on my wall: Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I can. And the wisdom to know the differ ence. Maybe I'm wrong and you can change things, Mr. Watson, but it seems to me that your wisdom has failed you. Jesse Lynch Class of'93 No proof oppression reason for depression A senior psychology major (Tracey Jones, June 28) highlighted the impor tance of depression in women, which is a major public service. I have a different point of view, how ever, on the potential causes of depres sions in women. The argument posed was that women are at a greater risk than men for depression because women are more oppressed or more re pressed than men. Correlation is not causation. To illus trate: In the United States, more blacks than whites are at or below the poverty level. More blacks than whites also suf fer sickle cell disease. Therefore, the analogous argument would be that poverty causes sickle cell disease. Not true. Sickle cell disease is caused by a genetic defect in the struc ture of hemoglobin. The disease itself may bankrupt a family thereby causing poverty, but there is no evidence that poverty causes the disease. As for oppression, repression, and depression: What are the facts? • Some forms of depression affect men and women equally; others do not. • More severe forms of major de pression affect men and women equal ly, while less severe forms are more likely in women than men. • Prior to puberty, boys and girls are at equal risk for all forms of clinical de pression. After puberty, women's risk rises to two to three times that of men's. • Debate (theories, not facts) sur rounds the possible protective roles of testosterone, estrogen or progesterone. • The degree of status attainable or actually obtained by women has not yet been found to relate to the risk for clini cal depression. • Self-anger as a cause of depression has not been supported; in fact, much research indicates it is incorrect. • Some research suggests that women are, in fact, in better touch with their feelings than men or more sensi tive to others' feelings and emotional expressions. No research to my knowl edge has suggested a contrary view. My response does not dispute the need for equality between the sexes. This is not only fair, but long overdue. Whether it will cure or prevent clinical depression in women has not been di rectly studied. To date, the facts do not fit the theo ry that oppressing women caused de pressed women, that women are more repressed than men or that anger turned on the self causes depression. Political agendas have begun to se lectively call on science or scientific "facts" for support. Women deserve to be equally treated. You bet. Science needs to be objectively regarded, fairly cited and protected from political agen das, even if the agenda has merit. A. John Rush, M.D. Vice Chairman of Research, Dept, of Psychiatry University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the editorial board. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, and Mail Call items express the opinions of the authors. The Battalion encourages letters to the editor and wSI print as many as space allows in the Mail Call section. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author’s name doss, and phone number. Contact the editor or managing editor for information on submittinq guest columns. We reserve tKe right to edit letters and guest columns for length, style, and accuracy. Letters should be addressed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 01 3 Reed McDonald /Mail stop 1111 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843