Student responds to GSA rejectionBy WES SPEARS
It has come to my attention that Jonathan Balmer has begun a discourse with the Boy Who Lived, and, as such, if he is going to have a discourse with such a distinguished figure, he should, at least, attempt to have a rational argument. However, let us not begin name calling; instead let us turn towards that flighty mistress Rationality and see what adventures she has in store for us.
Balmer’s argument goes as follows:
1. The argument is not homophobic (though it clearly is) because it’s based on principle. What principle? Your first grade principal? There is at no point in this article a principle given that could even possibly justify a claim to not be homophobic. It simply does not exist. Moving on…
2. The answer to the plea that diversity is “straight, gay and innumerable other distinctions”: Where was this? I note that he lists some Bible verses, and I’ll get there soon, but he doesn’t really give an answer to the allegation that diversity is equally split up along sexual- preference lines. Now, arguments could be formulated (and have been—for those wondering, I refer you to biological arguments about the nature of homosexuality and the supposed “gay gene”). However, what he does instead is to redress the failings of contemporary Christianity with regards to justice in general. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Religion majors. Bah Humbug.)
Bible verses that simply tick me off:
Genesis 2:23-24. This says nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Whatsoever. Can we move on now?
Matthew 5:32-33. This is about marriage. Not about homosexuality either. Also, it deals with “breaking oaths.” So, how is this about a prohibition on homosexuality? Maybe the next one…
Mark 7:70. This verse does not exist. Are we making things up now?
Ephesians 5:32-33: This verse is a poetic one, consisting of a great metaphor, calling the church the bride of Christ. A metaphor. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE. In fact, this is what I would call “creative theology.” We are reading a positive moral implication into what shouldn’t be there. Marriage between men and women was the “norm,” and, might I point out, women were property. We don’t want to go back, do we?
1 Corinthians 1:9-10. Oh. My. A verse that’s actually relevant. This is where Paul extorts the church to not “have divisions among you.” Anyone who actually cares may read on and see that this is a verse talking about a sect of the church that had started revering Paul instead of Christ. So, yet again, quite pointless.
What’s the argument here? There isn’t one. Moving along…
3. His argument against the statement that gay students “deserve…to be validated by a sanctioned organization..” or, “In which Mr. Balmer reveals himself to have an agenda of his own”:
3.1 Mr Balmer attempts to run the “racism in reverse” card, stating that the formation of a GSA group leaves no student with “the quietest moral qualm about homosexuality unaffected.” Untrue. In fact, this is a straight-out lie. I am not the CIA, I am not implanting chips in your brain to make you into something that you are not. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then please, for the love of Christ (you know, the guy who loved the poor and the downtrodden), voice it and let them either allay it or at least start a conversation. Refusing to allow a GSA is in fact doing the same to anyone who has the quietest moral qualm about keeping homosexuals properly persecuted. The presence of a GSA does not create bigots, bigotry creates bigots. Are you guilty?
3.2 Mr. Balmer has a lot of random and unrelated information about a court case in England in 2006, in which some universities lost their “Christian union” groups because of politically incorrect language. Hmm. Does this smell like useless information to you?
4. Lastly, Mr. Balmer talks about the “school’s refusal to afford them the rights given to everyone else.” His argument here is that the college shouldn’t support (or endorse) it, but should tolerate it. My friend, there is no “tolerance” of it. They merely have been clever enough to not show their prejudices, without risking the lawsuits that should (and hopefully would) ensue. My apologies, but if the college claims to be an institute of higher learning and to support new student groups on campus (I myself attempted to open one freshmen year), then why is there a problem with this one?
An overall address of the argument:
This saddens me. We seem to have missed the point entirely. In fact, let me borrow a metaphor from an illustrious philosophy professor on campus. “You seem to have not so much missed the boat, but to have missed the continent that the boat was tethered to.” –????
We do not attempt to make any claim as to the origins of homosexuality, or about the recent tragedies, and even less claim on the Ugandan Christians’ seeming lack of justice. What we do claim is that there is a moral injustice (singular) occurring in Georgetown, Ky., whereby students are having an unfair burden placed on them (both limiting autonomy and limiting pleasure) that is not done out of a sense of duty or of virtue.
Hey guys, guess what that all means? Something is happening that violates not one, not two, but all three mainstream accounts of modern ethics. This is a problem. If we want to say that we have an ethical campus (we’re a Christian school after all; don’t we need ethics?), and yet we have this problem, then, well, we’re lying to ourselves.
Mr. Balmer has not only failed to make a coherent case against the formation of a GSA, but has even gone so far as to fail to make the case that he set out to make. He has no principle that makes this a non-homophobic argument, and he certainly hasn’t made his three points. At this point, I would like to ask the readers of The Georgetonian to make their own judgments here and now. Shall we allow this injustice to continue?
In light of any significant way to protest, well, anything about Georgetown College, I shall host a protest at some later point. I will undoubtedly post details after my permits have been approved by the city. I look forward to seeing many of you there, helping to make a point against the sheer and utter ridiculousness that is Georgetown College Policy.
—Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore
P.S. This is not meant as a personal attack, merely a counterargument that demonstrates the passions involved. Also, I do not intend to attack the institution of Georgetown College, instead the policy and the policy makers. The professors and other staff members are beyond fantastic. Perhaps our administrative faculty could take a note or two from them.
Student claims leggings are pantsBy HILLARY JONES
Recently I have begun to ponder a very important question: what are pants? This may sound silly to most people. Of course everyone knows what pants are, right? However, this is not always the case, at least for me and some of my friends. In the last year, it has become a noticeable trend among females of my age bracket, as well as others, to wear some alternatives to the standard blue jeans, khakis or dress slacks.
Yes, I’m talking about leggings. When I first saw this happening to my peers, I was in a state of shock. I did not agree that these garments were an acceptable choice on their own to cover the lower portion of your body. Recently, though, I have become conflicted. Perhaps leggings can be pants after all.
According to the first definition on dictionary.com, as well as some friends who have spent some time across the pond with our British brethren, pants are actually underpants. Please do not think this means you can wear your underwear as pants.
Instead, we will just look to a synonym that fits our situation. The definition for trousers (also taken from dictionary.com) more closely resembles our American idea of pants: “a garment shaped to cover the body from the waist to the ankles or knees with separate tube-shaped sections for both legs.” There is no mention of what material these must be made of or of how closely fitted to the body they can be. Therefore, it stands to reason that as long as a garment consists of two tubes to cover the legs, it can be called trousers, or pants in our vernacular. It seems that they could be loose-fitting or skin-tight, made of denim, wool, polyester or any material you choose. They can be any color or a variety of lengths. So far, the case for leggings belonging among the ranks of pants is looking optimistic.
Recently, with the advent of the infamous “jegging,” leggings are beginning to take on a form that strongly resembles pants in the traditional sense. They have pockets and some even have a zipper fly. Other leggings are adopting various embellishments such as lace, rivets, bedazzling, laces, etc. that I have seen come and go on denim jeans over the years. But does this make them pants, or just imitators?
I decided to test this out for myself last week. I found a cheap pair of black leggings (these even had zippers at the bottom of the legs) and wore them to class with a long cardigan and boots. I found that I felt just as covered as I would in sweats, they were really comfy, and they were even quite warm on a somewhat breezy day. I got compliments on my new outfit and, with the exception of some of my anti-legging friends, no one seemed to deem my clothing choice inappropriate. I count this day as my own personal conversion. In all ways, the leggings met the demands of pants. Therefore, I say that, as with all fashion, if you are comfortable with it and want to wear leggings instead of jeans, go for it. After all, they’re basically the same thing.
A letter from the (Page) Editor
Dear students of Georgetown College,
There are over 1400 of you. You all have opinions. I hear you talking about them all the time—in the Caf, the WOW! Grille, the quad—and, whether I agree with all of them or not, you do have them. So why don’t you express them in a more public forum? Sure, you’re often IN public when you express them, but you aren’t expressing them TO the public.
Today, as I write this, it is Election Day. This, to many people around the world, is the ultimate expression of free speech. In America, however, many people do not use this opportunity to speak up and make a choice about their country and government. Whether you think your vote counts for anything or not, making a statement is important. It’s too late for me to really lecture everyone on the importance of voting, but I think now is the perfect time to lecture everyone on the importance of making a statement.
This newspaper is YOUR newspaper. We write these articles to inform you and to express your ideas. Many students on this campus probably never even glanced at a copy of this newspaper before this semester. If you don’t even realize that this exists, it’s awfully hard to use it in any constructive way. But now, after all the controversy stirred up in the paper this year, you are aware. You’re reading this right now, obviously, so you know we exist and that these pages in particular exist. But they aren’t just for people paid to write. They are your pages.
We all have opinions. We all love to express our opinions to our friends. Think of all of campus as a group of friends. Express your opinions to them. Express them to us.
Though I appreciate all of the opinions that have presented this year in these pages, I would love to hear from the rest of you. I want to have so many opinions sent in to me each week that I simply cannot publish all of them in these two pages. But, lucky us, there is an online edition with plenty of space. To pull an Uncle Sam, I have to say, “I want YOU to submit your opinions.”
This is your campus. Your newspaper. Your life. Take control of it. Express yourself.
With love to the students and to the First Amendment,