Same-sex marriages not morally acceptable

The arguments in Thursday?s editorial supporting same-sex marriages were seriously flawed, albeit sincere. The basic idea, specifically that such marriages should be approved to avoid the legal quagmire in cases such as Lois Marrero?s pension, totally begs the question regarding the moral aspects of such unions.

As William Bennett, author of The Book of Virtues, has pointed out, when homosexuals are asked why such unions would even remain monogamous instead of involving multiple (marriage) partners (despite the high rate of promiscuity among gays), the common reply usually is, ?Tradition.?

Clearly, the choice to invoke ?tradition? in this manner, while totally ignoring the wise, centuries-old tradition of allowing only heterosexual marriages to begin with, shows how arbitrary the gay movement?s thinking actually is.

In addition, proponents of this measure fail to realize that the sanctity and uniqueness of heterosexual marriage, which is seen as the basic social institution that undergirds the family, and thus, society in general, can only be maintained if this institution retains the special status that it currently enjoys in the American legal system.

Elevating gay unions to that same level, regardless of whether it is called ?marriage,? is the beginning of the end for the unique status of marriage between a man and a woman.

Homosexuality itself is not a new phenomenon. Therefore, since major civilizations from the dawn of time have never approved such marriages, the failure of the writers to put forth fresh arguments that would justify such approval seriously weakens their case.

Since a right is often defined as a ?morally legitimate claim,? what support would the writers put forth that would be compelling enough to eclipse the special age-old status of regular marriage, with all of the implications that this brings?

Moreover, advocates of same-sex unions should begin realizing how such approval would encourage the advancement of even more unconventional and socially harmful practices.

The recent court case involving the legitimacy of the Man-Boy Love Association, which implies the social approval of pedophilia (if both partners consent), is one disturbing example.

Overall, it seems clear that the editorial writers are sadly unaware of the Pandora?s box that the approval of gay marriages would open. Fortunately, the pension board that decided the Marrero case did not make the same mistake.

Ed Matusek is a first-year student in the philosophy Ph.D. program.

Parking problems, cost need to be addressed

I am a junior here at USF. I live on campus at Kosove/Alpha Hall. I have no complaints except for one minor one. Wednesday, I had a doctor?s appointment at 9 a.m. I came back on campus around 10:30. A half hour later, I found a parking spot.

My question to the Parking and Transportation Services would be where do we park?

I looked in the parking lots near Beta Hall, behind Beta Hall, and across the street from Beta Hall and to my best interest ? nothing. I had to eventually stalk someone for their spot (which I do not like to do, as I do not like having it done to me).

I just want to know why the field behind the Parking Services building is still a grass field. Why not make it a parking lot? This could easily create another 100-200 spots.

That would make everyone?s job a lot easier (because students would have somewhere to park and the campus police would not have to write so many tickets).

Why sell so many parking decals for residents if you don?t have enough parking spots?

Cynthia Kramer is a junior majoring in Elementary Education.