Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 10, 1997)
Or sm ... Page 9 Thursday • April 10, 1997 University relations ampus overrun with air of hostility toward gays and lesbians I pi or some students, H Texas A&M University L is the most dangerous )lace on Earth. Gay and esbian students especially Jo not feel safe while at tending the University be- | ei ' , [ause of its conservative |-£ [haracter. It is the Univer ity’s responsibility to in lure safety for all students, p jut because of the fear nany gay students endure, I t must be more responsive Ind proactive in address ing their needs. Right now, all students have a “sup- Rort system” to turn to if they are ha- Guest Columnists H.L. Baxter Senior Geography major Bradley Houseton Senior political science major rassed or violated. University Police, Student Counseling Service, Student Conflict Reso lution Center and other de partments have been estab lished to help students if they feel threatened. However, many gay and lesbian students feel they cannot turn to these departments because the Uni versity’s climate is so homo- phobic, no administrator would take their concerns seri ously. The University practices its own discrimination in handling, or not han dling, homophobia — a fear that is the foundation of hate. At Texas A&M, gay students feel un safe. This school year alone, gay students have been targeted by the Ku Klux Klan and the yell leaders, as well as fellow stu dents via telephone harassment and van dalism. Despite these incidents, the Uni versity refuses to be held responsible for insuring the safe ty of gay students. •t.T fAfilU- IneW IT'S in Three's a crowd : r - 3ns: ble Surrogate relationship complicates life, ignores child evin” and “Todd” are gay men, committed to each other as partners. They’ve decided they want a child. Rather than pursue an adoption, Kevin and Todd have decided to father the child themselves. To do this, they need a 'voman to bear the child. Enter “Lisa.” She has agreed to car- ty their child. However, Lisa is no mere surrogate. After she gives birth, she will continue to be the child’s mother, helping Kevin and Todd to false the kid. Lisa will be artificially inseminated. When a curious student asked which father would sup ply the sperm, Kevin explained Lisa would be impregnated with a mixture of semen from both fathers. So the question of which father "ill actually donate his genes will be answered hy sperm counts, averages and blind luck. Lisa is a heterosexual woman. One day, she might fall in love with a man who won’t mind marrying into an “instant family” with a moth- Cfand two gay fathers. The popular wisdom of our society dictates homosexuality is determined genetically. Gays a nd lesbians defend their lifestyles by insisting ( heyare acting on God-given natures. The underlying assumption is this: What is Natural must be good, or at least acceptable. So what’s natural about a pregnancy involv- Ugtwo gay fathers, a straight mother, potential 'tepparents and some laboratory glassware? Nothing at all. Parenting schemes like this are inherently -advised because they are devastatingly arti- icial. However, this is just one example of how many Americans — male and female, gay and haight — are rushing to bring more children mto this world by substituting technology and e gal proceedings for old-fashioned family 'tructures. Too many people are following Murphy Brown's example. On campus, a flier for Gay Awareness Week m'oclaims "Love makes a family.” This state ment is true but incomplete. Columnist Jeremy Valdez Senior engineering major Families, marriages and relation ships in general require hard work, good timing and defined roles, just to name a few qualities. Similarly, all children need love. However, beyond this fundamental need are things children deserve, like security, stability, a certain level of shelter and the comfort of innocence. This includes sexual innocence. Not just the innocence of not having had sex, but the innocence which comes from not knowing what defines sex. The diseases, heartaches and predators of this world make it necessary to provide even young children with certain facts to protect them. However, experts and laypeople alike believe sexual education for children should be age- appropriate. Most young kids just want to know “where they came from.” A child juggled by two gay fathers and a mother will be burdened, at a very tender age, with a huge chunk of the convoluted truth of human sexuality. Most kids find this dialogue daunting enough when they’re told of just one orientation and two body parts. The child will need to know why some kids don’t understand his or her family situation, and why some kids tease while others whisper. Unfortunately, it is the children’s lives that are complicated when adults cleverly circum vent the consequences of their lifestyle choic es. Too many people refuse to acknowledge it should take one devoted man and one devoted woman to create a child. Granted, it is possible for a child to be raised in a radically unconventional household, and most likely he or she would be very loved in his or her home. But the arrangement wouldn’t be natural at all. Gay parents and single people are well with in their rights to utilize sperm banks or con tract surrogates. But children are living, breathing people, and shouldn’t be used as banners for a cause. The yell leader incident was particu larly damaging to the safety of gays. At the yell practice in Austin last semester, three yell leaders referred to the U.T. football team as “fags” and “queers,” turning a night of celebration into a night of gay-bashing. The University administration did nothing to repri mand the yell leaders. Neither Universi ty President Ray Bowen nor Vice-Presi dent of Student Affairs J. Malon Southerland made an official response to the incident. An apology was given by one yell leader to the Gay, Les bian, and Bisexual Aggies, but not to the student body at large. It is no won der many gay students feel they are not allowed to be Aggies; the very lead ers of the University are against them. On the part of the University, silence is acceptance concern- I Photo by Ryan Rogers, The Battalion ing this type of hate. By not responding publicly to such incidents, the Univer sity sanctions the defamation of gays and lesbians. The University continues to allow student groups to show preju dice openly toward each other. This prejudice fosters an environment of hostility, jeopardizing the safety of all students on campus. This environment of hostility am plifies the level of fear gay and lesbian students experience while attending Texas A&M. Although the University provides resources to help students who have been harassed or personally violated, many gay students do not utilize these services. This unwilling ness to use available resources lies in the risk of having to admit one’s ho mosexuality to a stranger in the process of filing a complaint. By re porting a crime, many gay students feel they are making themselves a tar get. They feel uneasy hav ing their name on a sheet of paper as the subject of fc a gay-related hate crime. The task of insuring the safety of gay and les bian Aggies is a double- edged sword — the admin- ’ istration is fearful of a population it does not un- ! derstand, while the gay pop- ‘ ulation fears retribution from the University for being ‘ themselves. It is fear which breeds prejudice and hate. The response (or lack thereof) of the administration to gay and lesbian hate crimes is in dicative of the homophobia saturating Texas A&M. The University administra tion and the gay student popu lation need to meet in the mid dle in an effort to cure homophobia on campus. Howev er, the University must initiate this process if it is to convey its sincerity toward ensuring the safety of gay students. The reason gay students feel so isolated at Texas A&M is because they do not trust the University to take their con cerns seriously. By reestablishing trust, the University administration could show its willingness to work with gay students, not around them. God's sexual preference Christ loves everyone, including gays and lesbians A ccording to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ, the act of homosexuali ty is wrong. This is readily accepted by the religious right. True followers of Christ also are com manded to love God and to love eveiyone around them — de spite differences in sexual preference, race or be lief. Unfortunately, this is not embraced as easily. Sadly, only a handful of gentle, compassionate and loving Christians truly “pick up their cross” and blindly fol low Christ. Following Christ basically means four things: glorifying God, learning his word, teach ing his word and serving and loving his children. Each of these acts is self-sac rificing. These objectives have no respect for sexual preference, desires of personal achievement or personal happiness. These goals are designed per fectly to humble the creation and give glory to the creator. These goals are a simplifica tion of the Christian life, which was taught by Christ himself. In short, Jesus taught com passion — not gay-bashing. Religious leaders continue to single out three or four sins of socie ty (including homo sexuality) and preach burning condemnation, often mixed with hate. Because of this hateful en terprise, gays and lesbians who may be searching for something to fill a void in their Opinion Editor Alex Walters Senior journalism major lives (a void com pletely filled by Christ) are left out and forced to the con clusion that Christ didn't die for them. The religious right is doing a bang-up job of keeping gays as far as possible from God’s love. Despite what Christ taught, despite that he “came not to condemn the world but to save it,” (John 3.17) people who call themselves Christians still cling to the humanistic principle of hating everyone who is different. (A Christianas) goal should be to spread the gospel instead of forcing every homosexual into the mold the religious community has created. Christians should embrace the gay community. Their goal should be to spread the gospel in stead of forcing every homosexu al into the mold the religious community has created. “Every man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3.23) and that sin can not be forgiven by men. Sin is be tween God and the individual. It is not the Christian’s responsibili ty to damn someone to hell, but to open their arms and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Just as one human cannot successfully convert another to Christianity, one cannot be damned by another. Damnation and salvation are acts belonging only to God, and yet the religious right and those who fail to take the time to learn God’s word feel free to damn anyone they see fit. It is impossible to call your self a Christian without know ing what Christ taught and what he did. This is why the homo sexual act is a sin (because Christ spoke out against it), but this is also why condemnation is a sin as well. Christ reminded his follow ers not to complain of the “speck in your brother’s eye, without first removing the plank in your own.” (Matt. 7.3-5.) Christ was love and for giveness. Christ never threw a stone, nor did he con demn. Christ is the savior. Christians should start acting like it. Christians should stop per verting the word of God to fit their lifestyle, whether it be a gay lifestyle or a hateful, preju diced one. Ministers should stop telling people Jesus had trouble dealing with his own sexuality (because it is not true), and the religious community should stop telling people they are going to hell be cause they are gay. Ministers and all Christians should be dealing with the disease instead of the symptoms. In short, they should be preaching the gospel, the story of a man who loved with his heart and died because of it.