Say the words 'civil union amendment' and people panic. I have come to accept this. However, I have problems with politically charged uses of 'biology' and 'research' ... especially in the Dec. 13 article 'Biology, family values mandate same-sex marriage ban.' Many of the statements are blantantly untrue and smack of old eugenic philosophy. Please, be careful.
I'd like to throw out two ideas that I hope you will keep in mind when speaking about the amendment, regardless of what side you fall on.
First, homosexual marriage exists with or without our approval. Every month, there are individuals who engage in long-term homosexual pairings. Considering this, the question begins to revolve around giving rights to these committed individuals, not about the 'traditional' definition of marriage. The status-quo isn't changing, just the ability for a wife to see her dying spouse in the hospital in an emergency, etc.
Secondly, 'biology' doesn't have moral quandry with homosexuality. In fact, it is a common occurence throughout higher organisms. Homosexual pairings tend to not pass on their own genetic material, and yet they exist. Seems that life is willing to expend great amounts of energy to keep homosexual relationships around. It becomes apparent that 'Biology' isn't 'mandating same-sex marriage ban,' as the argument stated. On top of this, did you get your sociological data from the politically-charged 'research group' that wrote the article next to yours? Am I the only one that questions the validity of sources like this?
So, please, vote as you feel as needed. It's your right and responsibility to do so. However, be careful when you pair 'biology' and 'family values' together in an argument that makes grand generalizations about the nature of a specific type of person. I'd rather not see our society go down that dark road again.
John Alaniz
Senior, UW-Madison
Genetics
