Dublin Core
Title
Letters to the Editor: King Might Have Supported Gay Rights as Human Rights
Description
"In response to a letter to the editor from Treston Wheat in response to [previous column]"...
Creator
Joseph Greene
Source
University of Tennessee Daily Beacon
Publisher
Knoxville, Tenn. : University of Tennessee
Date
2009-01-23
Language
English
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
I am writing in response to a letter to the editor from Treston Wheat in response to Arika Dean’s Wednesday column.
Dean’s column did not openly present the idea of Martin Luther King Jr. supporting gay marriage as a fact, only as a “feeling” which he so eloquently quoted later in the paragraph. To say that just because King was a Christian means that he would not support
Gay rights is not only misleading about the message of Christianity but is also openly abusive to those members of Christian circles, like myself, who believe it is alright to
support rights for homosexuals and call Christ their savior.
Narrow-mindedness, though rampant and casual in the present, is not universal. King spent his life fitting for a group of people who were discriminated against often based on being “different.” As a matter of fact, slavery was often justified using biblical texts, calling African-Americans descendants of Cain. King, I'm sure, knew better.
Obviously King was not fitting for gays while he was alive, as he was concerned with civil rights for African-Americans. The question Dean raises is not whether or not he was fitting for gay rights, but rather, whether or not he would. A man with such love for his fellow man, with a deep sense of equality, probably would not have shunned the gay community the way Wheat seems to think he would. As far as rights go, we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not harm anyone for a homosexual to keep an occupation, thus their right to have a job to advance themselves does not impede on the rights of others.
Also, dictionary.com defines homophobia as an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” I'm sure Dean was not implying that Tennessee is afraid that homosexuals will, through a concerted effort, destroy us. She probably more meant that Tennessee consistently shows an aversion to progress based on archaic mindsets. It is 2009, after all.
I will, however, agree with Wheat on one point: sexual orientation is not a civil rights issue... well, at least,that’s not the issue we’re talking about here. We’re talking about human rights, and no church, no activist and no letter to the editor can debate the fact that homosexuals are human. Why shouldn’t every human be afforded the same human rights?
Joseph Greene
Junior in English
Dean’s column did not openly present the idea of Martin Luther King Jr. supporting gay marriage as a fact, only as a “feeling” which he so eloquently quoted later in the paragraph. To say that just because King was a Christian means that he would not support
Gay rights is not only misleading about the message of Christianity but is also openly abusive to those members of Christian circles, like myself, who believe it is alright to
support rights for homosexuals and call Christ their savior.
Narrow-mindedness, though rampant and casual in the present, is not universal. King spent his life fitting for a group of people who were discriminated against often based on being “different.” As a matter of fact, slavery was often justified using biblical texts, calling African-Americans descendants of Cain. King, I'm sure, knew better.
Obviously King was not fitting for gays while he was alive, as he was concerned with civil rights for African-Americans. The question Dean raises is not whether or not he was fitting for gay rights, but rather, whether or not he would. A man with such love for his fellow man, with a deep sense of equality, probably would not have shunned the gay community the way Wheat seems to think he would. As far as rights go, we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not harm anyone for a homosexual to keep an occupation, thus their right to have a job to advance themselves does not impede on the rights of others.
Also, dictionary.com defines homophobia as an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” I'm sure Dean was not implying that Tennessee is afraid that homosexuals will, through a concerted effort, destroy us. She probably more meant that Tennessee consistently shows an aversion to progress based on archaic mindsets. It is 2009, after all.
I will, however, agree with Wheat on one point: sexual orientation is not a civil rights issue... well, at least,that’s not the issue we’re talking about here. We’re talking about human rights, and no church, no activist and no letter to the editor can debate the fact that homosexuals are human. Why shouldn’t every human be afforded the same human rights?
Joseph Greene
Junior in English
Original Format
Print Newspaper