Civil Unions Editorial - Extended Edition

Everyone loves a little controversy, right? In today's American culture, same-sex marriage is still one of the most controversial issues we face, which is rather ironic seeing as how we pride ourselves on being such an advanced and accepting culture. In many ways, homosexuality had more support long before America was even a factor.

Homosexuality has been around for countless years, possibly even since the dawn of mankind itself. In the days of polytheistic Pagan worship--even those predating ancient Greece--homosexuality was an accepted practice, and in fact part of several religious ceremonies. Homosexuals were seen as equals in society clear back before all of our marvelous modern conveniences. So, if we are so much more advanced than our ancestors, why are homosexuals so often treated like a threatening alien race and denied many basic rights, such as marriage?

One of the most common arguments against same-sex marriage is: "marriage is between a man and a woman." According to Dictionary.com, that is correct; they define marriage as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." However, according to Wikipedia, marriage can be one of many things: "a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife is a monogamous homosexual marriage; recently, some jurisdictions and denominations have begun to recognize same-sex marriage, uniting people of the same sex." The trusty Webster's New World Dictionary doesn't specifically mention marriage as being strictly between a man and a woman either, but it does, however, define "married" as the following: "being husband and wife, having a husband or wife." The second half of the definition could validly apply to same-sex couples as well.

Marriage entitles partners to many rights, benefits and responsibilities that they would otherwise have no claim to. For example: tax breaks, custody rights, inheritance, ownership rights, etc. Civil unions provide much the same thing, just under a less-controversial title. Numerous countries around the world recognize and allow same-sex civil unions, including several U.S. states.

Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States Same-sex marriages Unions granting rights similar to marriage Unions granting limited/enumerated rights Foreign same-sex marriages recognized Statute bans same-sex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

List of jurisdictions allowing same-sex unions

• Argentina
• Australia
• Brazil
• Canada
• Colombia
• Ecuador
• Denmark
• Europe
• France
• Hungary
• Israel
• Mexico
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Portugal
• Republic of Ireland
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• United States
  • California
  • Connecticut
  • New Jersey
  • New Hampshire
  • Vermont

Unfortunately, the majority of the United States is still against the legal union of same-sex couples in any form. How is it we will stand aside and allow the marriage of a man and woman who can't stand each other, or have no intention of being faithful to one another, or are just getting married for the benefits, or whose union was part of an arrangement but two men or two women who truly love each other and have dedicated their lives to one another are not allowed a legal union?

We say that color doesn't matter, religion doesn't matter, gender doesn't matter. We are so careful not to discriminate, but imagine the outcry if people of different races weren't allowed to get married, or different religions, or even people of the same race or the same religion. Unthinkable, right? Kind of ridiculous, right? Discriminatory, right? Right.

Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized?

In a Nutshell

Yes

No

Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence proving biological causation. Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages). It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles.

Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.

How about a little enthusiasm

I have a question for all of my fellow UNK students out there. Did anyone else notice how many freshmen there were on campus this year??? Not that that's a bad thing, but it was like invasion of the 18-year-olds! This last fall I was a Student Peer Leader with the First Year Program which is basically a program that takes certain freshman-level classes (mine for example was English 101, there were also Healthful Living classes, Personal Money Management, etc) and includes an upperclassman (Junior or Senior) to serve as kind of a Teacher's Aid. Our job is to answer their questions, teach them about college life and campus, basically smooth the transition from high school and home to college and living on their own in as many ways as possible.

Anyway, this year's freshman class was HUGE! I've been searching the UNK website for some exact numbers, but I haven't been able to find any. I think, and I could be wrong here--especially since my research is failing me--that this year's incoming freshman class was one of the biggest UNK has had. Of course, more freshmen means more 100-level classes. There were 36 different sections of ENG 101 courses, four of which were strictly for Honors students, and three of which were First Year Experience classes. I don't know about other departments, but I know many of the professors in the English Department don't necessarily enjoy teaching these 100-level composition classes. In the case of my class, it was pretty obvious to me and the students that the professor I was working with had no desire to be there. If students are expected to get excited about something like English (which I've found to be a love-it-or-hate-it kind of subject), especially basic English comp, I think the professor needs to put in a little extra effort to make it worth everyone's time. Most of the time, I believe the Graduate Assistants take the majority of these classes, but with an incoming class this size, almost everyone had to teach at least one section.

I know that professors don't like having to teach the basic stuff (this is a thesis statement, this is how you do research, this is how you format a paper, etc) when they're used to teaching upper-division classes or classes they themselves love, but I really think that if the professor I worked with would have been just a little more energetic about coming to class and been more open and responsive to students questions, my freshmen would have gotten so much more out of the class than they did. Several said they hated it, it was such a waste of time, it was pointless, they didn't learn a thing except that the professors will embarrass them for asking questions, and others said they didn't learn anything because it was dumbed-down too much and too repetitive. I know there's no way to please everyone, but I feel like a little more effort could have been made in this particular case.

I realize I might be treading on thin ice here considering I'm posting this for a class (and therefore, a professor), but I really believe that all students (especially new ones) would benefit much more from classes where the professors actually make it seem like they want to be there, even if they don't. Students pick up on and feed off the vibe(s) their professors send out, and if they don't want to be there, you can bet the students will pick up on that too.

Sex...in Space

Disclaimer: I hope my sense of humor about this subject doesn't offend anybody!
My friend Sarah and I have a radio show on 91.3 from 5-6 on Mondays, and yesterday as we searched for something to talk about, Sarah stumbled across a very interesting article on reddit.com. I think the title pretty much says it all: "Which Sexual Positions Are Possible In Space? NASA knows..."

If you're like Sarah and me, you're probably getting a good chuckle out of that title right now. After the chuckling stopped, something occurred to me. Sex is pretty personal, and granted astronauts have to go through all kinds of embarrassing and overly-personal tests before they go up in space, but isn't this crossing the line just a little? It's one thing to say "We need you to test how the bathroom facilities work in space," or "We need to know how zero gravity affects your normal bodily functions," but to be told that you and your coworker are supposed to have sex in space while you're being monitored I think would be just a little too weird. But, I guess if we're really serious about wanting to colonize another planet someday, this is probably a pretty valid test.

The results were rather humorous (at least to me). They tested 20 positions by computer simulation to find the top 10 (by the way, you really ought to read this article for yourself; the astronauts are actually called "guinea pigs" at one point), which were then tested by the astronauts and videotaped.

*Side note: does it count as porn if it's in the name of scientific research?

Only four positions were possible without "mechanical assistance" (seriously, read the article!). One of their biggest findings was that the standard missionary position is not possible without gravity. I guess future generations will have to be a little more experimental in order to populate other planets...

"What a moment for the man, what a moment for the country."

I've never watched the Presidential Inauguration before, so I was kind of excited when I walked into work and my boss had the live feed playing on her computer (I was actually rather surprised as well; my boss is the most right-wing Republican I have ever met, and she was not happy when Obama won the election). I sat down just in time to hear the announcer say that the website had just changed, and now recognized Barack Obama as the President of the United States, moments before he was officially sworn in.

I've never really followed politics--I've never really cared that much about them--but I really enjoyed watching the Inauguration. I've since heard many people comment on how Obama stumbled over the oath and even got lost at one point. Personally, that was my favorite part! Well, that and the fact that both he and Michelle nearly started laughing. Hey, guess what, the President is HUMAN! --gasp!-- I like that Obama isn't the best public speaker we've ever had; if he was perfect, who could relate to him?

The only part of the Inauguration that I wasn't overly fond of was Reverend Lowery's poem. The benediction he delivered was very appropriate and touching, but the racial rhymes that he ended with, I found to be slightly offensive.

"When black would not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead man, and when white would embrace what is right." - Reverend Joseph Lowery

Even the crowd was laughing! If he did mean it in a joking way, then it probably wouldn't have been so bad. But if it was supposed to be serious, I thought it sounded like he was making fun of all the races, and I was less than impressed. I'd love to know anyone else's thoughts on this if you'd care to share.

"Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America." - President Barack Obama

Lincoln high school students rally for milestone events

MLK Day Focuses on Hope, History

Unlike most of the Martin Luther King Jr. articles that I expected to find, this one was not only local, it was all about high school students. I really enjoyed the way the article tied together the milestone of our first black president's inauguration tomorrow and the MLK holiday, as well as the student quotes used in the article: “One question I want you to ask yourself is ‘what have you done to further the message of Martin Luther King Jr.?’” Harris said
“Do you believe we can all graduate and do something with our lives after we graduate? You better, because before long we’ll be adults,” he said. “We need you to believe we can reach our highest potential.”

However, there is no quicker way to lose my interest in an article, no matter how good it may be, than grammar mistakes. There were several instances where quotation marks should have been used and weren't. For example: It is historic that America elected a black man as president, but it is more significant is that America has moved past race enough to elect someone based on character and qualifications, she said. And How about the 34,000 public school students, he asked, and all the students in Lincoln?

hello world--real original, huh?

Hey everyone. This is my first official blog post for my JMC 425 Blogging/Commentary class. I'll be sharing my opinions on many different media forms throughout the next few months, so I hope you'll stay tuned.

Here's a little about me, just in case you were wondering:
I'm a senior at the University of Nebraska - Kearney, originally from the tiny Nebraskan town of Harrison. I'm due to graduate in May with my BA in English w/a Writing Emphasis and a minor in Journalism. If I'm lucky, maybe I'll get my own personal column in a newspaper or magazine someday, so this should be good practice for me. Who knows, you might have good reason to remember my name.