God's teeth! Where do these neanderthals lurk until satan calls them forth to do his bidding? (Or is that god? Never could tell them apart)

Thing is even these religious fruitcakes are entitled to their opinion. Free speech blah blah blah (although personally a cricket bat taken to their legs is more appropriate than tolerance I think)

But the issue again is whilst people are entitled to their bigoted opinions a wise society does not allow them to actually FUCKING VOTE on them, as prop 8 allowed. No sane society allows the majority to vote on the rights of a minority, that way madness lies.

Oh come on LOOK at her…there are only two explanations.

1. She is a self hating closeted lesbian who is terrified of "The Gay" in her.

2. With her looks she wants to make sure there are as many men as possible in the dating pool so that she might actually get a date one day.

slap! major insult to chloe sevigny!

Just weeks earlier, The Daily surprised many on campus by endorsing Republican Dino Rossi for governor.

Jeglum said all five members of the editorial board voted to endorse Rossi, but she dismissed the notion there has been some kind of conservative takeover of the paper, which has been viewed in the past as particularly liberal.

It's apparent where this silly cow is coming from and what her politics are. Slap her down now, lest she become the next Coulter.

@tallskin:

Does a cricket bat work better for that then a baseball bat? But seriously could you explain the game of cricket to an enquiring yank?

It seems odd usually there are faculty advisors for all school teams and associations – I'm thinking she's going to get canned one way or another.

I'm a student at the UW and I thought rally went fairly well. The group I'm with, Socialist Alternative, was also there with our huge "Marraige is a civil right: banner and we were pretty pleased by the event. The attendance was was pretty good at about 150 people, plus the media was also there. However, the enthusiasm of the crowd and the interactivity between speakers and crowd left something to be desired. By the end of the rally it seemed that there wasn't really any direction to move forward. There weren't any calls to plan for something more. But it was still a good event given the fact that it was planned by about one or two people.

A forced apology helps no one. Let the school withdraw funding (assuming they fund the paper in the first place) if they don't want to sponsor such views. As for people protesting this thing, have they nothing better to do? Let the idiots show how idiotic they are rather than forcing them to hide it by enforcing speech codes, sensitivity training, etc.

She's a man, baby!

@tallskin:

>"No sane society allows the majority to vote on the rights of a minority, that way madness lies."

I'll go ya one better, Tallskin.

No sane society should allow people like this to contribute to the genetic pool, that way more madness lies.

The point raised by the cartoon and in the article is a perfectly legitimate one to which neither this post nor its comments have offered a response, namely:

Proponents of gay marriage are in essence claiming that the law ought to widen its definition of marriage in order to embrace their wishes. The new definition will require a new border. Where should the new border be?

The author and commenters seem to want to build the narrative around ad hominem attacks and charges of homophobia. These are distractions. If you are sure your viewpoint is valid, just address the issue head-on rather than hiding behind nonsense. That you sidestep the core issue suggests that you are not equipped to address it, or that it cannot be addressed successfully because your argument is unpersuasive.

@Hmm: Sorry, but we don't think comparing gays and lesbians to barnyard animals is legitimate. The same comparisons were once made about interracial relationships and it was a parade of horribles fallacy then, as it is now.

So instead of exposing the fallacies and thereby perhaps scattering the fear reflected in the cartoon, you chose to be cute.

Do you want to be taken seriously, and to be useful? Then learn how to make an argument like a big boy. Cuz right now, here is what you are doing:

Gee, I don't like what she did, so I will poke fun at her (so that lots of people will post comments that give me positive reinforcement) rather than do something that is actually productive, like respond to the perfectly legitimate concern represented by the slippery-slope argument, namely: if we let the gays in the circle, then who or what is next?

Wishing away the question with a simple flip of the wrist about "a parade of fallacies" just doesn't cut it.

The cartoon represented an understandable fear on the part of those who don't understand us. The fear is unsubstantiated. I don't know what your readership is, but you had a chance, which you blew for the sake of getting laughs and approval, to provide your audience with arguments that they could have used to engage people and dissipate the fear. A lot of people seem to like your site. You might consider taking that more seriously.

I hope you're happy now that you sucked a half-hour out of my Friday night merrymaking. Dumbass.

@Mark Wickens: The Daily is funded only in a small part by our Services and Activities Fee – most of the funding comes from ad sales and other sources. In fact, I believe the Q-Center (a resource center for GBLTQ students) actually receives far more SAF funding than The Daily.

The idea of trying to cut SAF funding or get advertisers to pull out was discussed quite a bit, but pretty much everyone felt that doing so would be overly retaliatory and would stifle free speech. The theme of the group and the rally has been one of tolerance and free speech – not censorship or revenge.

The goal is largely an apology from The Daily for running such and offensive article and for them to implement higher journalistic standards – not content based, but fact based. I don't think anyone has a problem with an article making a logical and factual case against gay marriage, but going against what medicine says (claiming being gay is an 'emotional tendency' and a 'problem') and making unsupported claims(that gay marriage leads to bestiality) is an issue that should be addressed.

Surely that's a man in the picture! OK a cross dressing man, but definitely a man.

WTF is a Jeglum, anyway?

@Hmm:

If you are sure your viewpoint is valid, just address the issue head-on rather than hiding behind nonsense. That you sidestep the core issue suggests that you are not equipped to address it, or that it cannot be addressed successfully because your argument is unpersuasive.

Simply put, jackass, when you ask an adult if they want to have sex, or get married they can say yes, or no because they are experienced, sentient beings with life experience. Animals cannot talk and kids don't know what sex is, or understand marriage beyond what they see in their parents and on TV. That is the only argument needed to shut down these absurdists who believe people are going to marry animals.

Next, the implication in that drawing, is that gay men will marry sheep. The bitch editor could have easily used any other point from the anti-equal marriage writer: polygamy, incest; but she chose bestiality because she did not want to offend straight people who may be inclined to support–or participate–in polygamy, nor would a drawing of a male and female who may be related be any different in appearance from a drawing of a male and female who are not related.

The editor's intention was to slur and insult gay men by equating us with bestiality. And clearly contrary to her assertion, the Daily has been taken over by right wingers and they are suing the school's paper as a bully pulpit.

Do you want to be taken seriously, and to be useful? Then learn how to make an argument like a big boy.

If you'd like to prove how much of a man you are, nameless troll, then reply so that I might render you limb from limb.

The cartoon represented an understandable fear on the part of those who don't understand us.

The drawing represented a ridiculous caricature and myth of gay men perpetuated by those who choose not to understand us, in the face of evidence that contradicts their sacred texts and fallacious beliefs about LGBTQ's.

I don't know what your readership is,

Japhy's readership are intelligent, mostly educated men and women from various classes and races and ages; with further varying life experiences. We are capable of clicking a link and reading an article and taking Japhy's comments into consideration when forming our own opinions. In short we are smart, observant and witty…most of us anyways.

I hope you're happy now that you sucked a half-hour out of my Friday night merrymaking. Dumbass.

Public toilets are open 24 hours a day; you haven't missed out on anything.

I agree wholeheartedly with Paul.

Any attempt to equate same-sex marriage with a man marrying a sheep, a table, a tree, a corpse, a child, or any other such nonsense makes the offensive and erroneous assumption that a sheep, a table, a tree, a corpse, or a child is able to understand the relationship and is in a position to provide informed consent. Sheep, furniture, plants, corpses, and children are not able to enter into any contract, legal or otherwise, because they cannot legally or reasonably be expected to understand it. Gay or lesbian people, on the other hand, can and do consent to loving adult relationships and are therefore deserving of the same respect offered to heterosexual unions. They are fully functioning adults, equal to straight people in every way.

The "man on sheep" drawing is clearly an analog to the nauseatingly racist step 'n' fetchit cartoons of the past, and has no place in any respectable newspaper. If opponents of same-sex marriage can't offer anything more persuasive than absurd and offensive cartoons, then they have no business offering opinions in the debate.

@Hmm:

Question? How do you manage to type with your head up your ass?

Seems like such an awkward position in which to be trolling the gay forums, aside from the fact that it seems to be giving you a very shitty outlook on life.

I'll point out a logical fallacy right here and now. "Slippery slopes" are not arguments, they are logical fallacies. So stop pontificating as if you speak the word of god, because you're acting like a douchebag to gays on a gay site.

@Hmm: This article was posted on a blog called Queerty for a queer audience. We don't need to tell ourselves why it is wrong, we know it is. Only when someone asks for reasons (yourself) do we need to explain (as Paul did). Don't expect us to hash out reasons that are already known to all of us.

@Phil:

Couldn't agree with you more, Phil.

Invoking the "slippery-slope" comment is very much like invoking Godwin's law. It simply shuts down the discussion before it's even been debated.

Of course, the number one show stopper still remains:

"It sez so in the bible."

To which I always reply, "Izzatso? And what do your tea leaves tell you?"

She might turn out to be quite useful in future recruiting videos – that face would scare anyone gay.

@Hmm: The point of the original post on the UW editorial was the use of the cartoon which compared same-sex marriage to man-sheep marriage. The point was NOT a discussion on the pros and cons of same-sex marriage.

There have been untold numbers of posts on that specific issue, on this site and hundreds of other sites.

It is possible to talk abou tmore than one point in this larger debate on same-sex marriage than simply the issue of marriage per se. It is possible to talk about the tactics being used by those in opposition to same-sex marriage, as the original post – and this follow up one – do.

DUMBASS.

I can't understand why people are not laughing at this paper and it's sophomoric argument. Plus, the poor girl looks so unfortunate. She is just looking for attention. The best thing to do is not give her any, because it will make that dream job of her's at Fox news all the more unreachable. Sarah? If you want to join in on the republican pundit's vitriol, you will need a make over first. Just ask Greta Van whatever the hell her last name is…

@Cam: Have any of you actually read the UW Daily? I am thinking you have not, but its very reasonable of you to judge it based on one EDITORIAL it ran… The majority of UW students (myself included) do not agree with the content of that editorial but I am glad I got to a school that values free speech and journalistic integrity enough to allow for opposing viewpoints… This article is just a pointless attack on a newspaper that is actually quite progressive…

@Paul Raposo: A lot of Washington Democrats voiced support for Dino Rossi in the last election due to Governor Gregoire's inefficiency in governing, but then, you wouldn't know that, would you?

this article is a clear example of a logical fallacy called reductio in absurdam. Take something to the most extreme and absurd conclusion you can imagine, and then claim that as the inevitable result of the first action in the chain, therefore making that series of events unthinkable to begin with. But the writer hasn't shown one single example of how you get from marriage equality to legalized bestiality. Even more annoyingly, she herself poses the questions, " Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?"
Why has nobody asked her to answer those questions? It is supposed to be journalism. Questions are not sufficient. Answers are required. We read papers to get information, not to be misled and misinformed.

@Will:

Have any of you actually read the UW Daily? I am thinking you have not,

Why would we, if we are not students at that particular school, Will? Do you read the U of T's Varsity?

…but its very reasonable of you to judge it based on one EDITORIAL it ran…

It's reasonable to read the link provided in the article and using that info to find the original editorial, as I did.

It's also reasonable to find sites and blogs discussing said editorial and seeing what students think–students who read the Daily and don't like the direction it's taking.

The majority of UW students (myself included) do not agree with the content of that editorial but I am glad I got to a school that values free speech and journalistic integrity enough to allow for opposing viewpoints…

It's not about the content of the editorial, dipshit. Its about the ridiculous drawing the editors decided to use to highlight the editorial and their foolish defense of the indefensible.

And of course, your cries for free speech and journalistic integrity immediately demonstrates your mind set in this situation. Those are the mating calls of the oft seen, but rarely interesting Campus Republican. I really must question whether you do not support the content of the editorial; or do.

This article is just a pointless attack on a newspaper that is actually quite progressive…

Boo-fucking-hoo. Now squirm like the worm that you are, back to your blond haired and blue eyed overlord and inform her you put the queers in our place and defended her Orwellian view of campus life.

@Will:

A lot of Washington Democrats voiced support for Dino Rossi…

I haven't been able to find any articles showing Dems upset with former AG turned governor Christine Gregoire and favoring Rossi.

"What was she doing before? Putting illustrations of black people and monkeys next to op-ed's on evolution?"

It's pretty sad and offensive that you would even make a passing reference like this. Do you guys have ANY black people on the staff? At ALL?

@Will:

Saying being gay an "emotional state" is about as valid as saying blacks are lazy and jews are greedy……..points of view you probably would not find in your local paper because while people are free to epouse them, those views are so far out of the mainstream of public opinion that no responsible editor would print them. There are reseasonable arguments for male/female marriage — though I don't think they are ultimately valid — any of those would have been fine. But to fall back on discredited arguments of 50 years ago and print them — with no supporting factual information — is the problem. Ms Jeglum would be well served to take a few history courses and realize that the same "emotional state" line of argument was made to justify depriving women of the vote and the right to hold positions of the type she now occupies.

@Chris:

>"Ms Jeglum would be well served to take a few history courses and realize that the same "emotional state" line of argument was made to justify depriving women of the vote and the right to hold positions of the type she now occupies."

Sadly, bigoted people like Ms Jeglum NEVER do their homework.

That would take the steam out of their dumb assertions. Liars like this, are never, ever, willing to admit that they are wrong and will argue to the death that they are right.

It's hopeless.

@RLS

that was kind of the point, that the drawing of man + sheep is JUST as offensive. i can't imagine finding one more offensive than the other.

@Chris:

I neglected to add that over 50 percent of the people in this country, are dumb fucks like this cow…and these people vote! The eight year Bush Reign of Stupidity was proof adequate of that.

Little wonder that the LGBT community finds itself in the fine mess it is in. Bigotry and hatred never take a holiday.

They are workaholics.

@Will:

Will, if somebody insults me I believe that I can draw my conclusions about their intentions. Since you are so fired up about this wonderful student paper…good for you. I will let the KKK and Louis Farrakan know that you wholeheartedly endorse their views as well. As for me, I stand by my previous comments. This girl is either a closeted lesbian who hates herself or frankly is in need of a date and a sleepover.

I would rather know that a source is biased toward one side, than to make the irrational and impossible expectation that reporting ought to be unbiased. Originally newspapers were incredibly biased, but both sides were heard. All around the latter system works far better than the one we have now.

My question is, why does their minds immediately go to such sex acts when they hear about "gay marriage"? If we are to believe the notion that people think of others based on nature and nurture, one has to wonder about the nurture of these individuals. Being knowledgeable about farm-life is one thing, but did they have to actively participate in everything that was part of a "farm" life?

As a near life-long real animal lover- zoophile- I'm tired of my orientation being associated with these political slippery slope slams against GAYS! I don't want my relationships to be associated with gayslamming.
The man/sheep image and reference is so freaking old and full of BS stereotypes it's not funny, fact of the matter is, THE most common animal involved with a human sex partner- long term is the DOG not livestock!

As far as references to the slippery slope argument of "allowing" incest, bestiality and pedophilia- it's hogwash, for one thing, pedophilia is a sex CRIME of rape involving a minor, incest; who cares?? if the couple is of age and consenting the who gives a krap what they do in their private lives??? it's not up to anyone else to decide for them!
As far as bestiality goes, my animals, and I for that matter don't give a flying fart about marriage- marriage is a state institution now designed to extract fees for the license, and to control assetts, money, real property, minors and for tax and legal matters.
On the flip side it's a church thing designed to control the dumnb sheeple and extract more money.
Zoophiles don't need or want marriage with our animals, if we did there are well known pagan "handfasting" ceremonies that can be done very easy, no license or approval from anyone required.

there i s already a group in holland pushing for paedophilia to be legalised the bible says nothing against it ! there is an old jewish commentary that says noahs flood desrtoyed the ancient world mainly because they allowed marriage between men now the good news getting ready for town i found $100 strangely in my wallet i drove in , was picked up speeding & fined $100 ! thia was since i'd accepted that all humans will finally enjoy endless life thanx only to yeshua (jesus) so i take it to be angelic endorsement!