YOUR VIEW: Benefits for Same-Sex Couples at AU Not Fine With AU Alumnus
2 years ago | 2527 views | 8 8 comments | 18 18 recommendations | email to a friend | print


Editor, the Auburn Plainsman



The Plainsman editors argue that Auburn adopt a same-sex benefits policy. But the editors seem more interested in approbation for homosexual unions than in ideals of equality.

They criticize other school guidelines as too vague because they want it made clear that gay unions, not a nebulously defined class, is at stake.

Their passion for gay conduct is puzzling. Do they lack appreciation for other lifestyles?

After all, the advantage of vague language might also mean benefits for pedophiles, polygamists or, perhaps, ones who engage in bestiality.

And why not benefits for adulterous heterosexual couples too?

No, actually, the editorial staff “like some institutions”suffers from an epidemic of political cowardice: a failure (or refusal) to acknowledge a natural order of life since the dawn of mankind. MARRIAGE is a sacred relationship between one man and one woman, a miraculous bonding where two become one flesh, perpetuating humanity.

None of the editors is the product of a same-sex union.

Nevertheless, they have no reservations about equating such with the parents that gave them life and sacrificed so they might attend Auburn where they lobby for sexual practices that inure only to prurient interests.

Do the parents of these budding journalists know their enlightened darlings equate their love, pain and sacrifice with the pusillanimous lust of individuals?

On the bright side, they should have no trouble finding work in modern media where honesty and critical analysis are no longer required for a job.

The editors’ pitiable commentary is, again, evidence that Auburn teaches students what to think, not how to think.

They’re either brainwashed or they simply lack the courage to speak truth; and are easily led through the gates of intellectual slaughter. So much for The Plainsman’s catchphrase “A Spirit That is Not Afraid.”

Jeff S. Barganier

Class of ‘78
Comments
(8)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
frathard247
|
March 22, 2010
plainsmen editors are for same sex equality b/c they are all fags
alsoooooo
|
January 21, 2010
what the hell does politics have to do at all with what the editorial is even about??

you really are that stupid aren't you?
wowwwwwwwwww
|
January 21, 2010
@thecomments

I will just let your post speak for itself.

go google something. It really is sad your keeper allows you on a computer.

try harder. fail
@thecomments
|
January 21, 2010
I believe you are merely showing your ineptitude and lack of intelligence. Instead of debating anything that he said, he attack him because he uses words that you can't understand.

I'm sure all of you are the same type who think that Sarah Palin is a moron because "....well, because, uh, because she was a governor of Alaska. I mean who can be smart from there?"

I'm sure all of you are the same type who think that Glenn Beck is stupid because "....well, uh, I mean, who uses a blackboard to create a flow-chart of facts? Idiot!"

I'm sure all of you are the same type who think that Jon Stewart is the most astute political mind of our age, second, of course, to Barack Obama. "Dude, he is sooooo right, and his jokes are hilarious!"
JeffSucks
|
January 17, 2010
Jeff uses big words so that it doesn't seem like he's as much of a bigot as he really is.
NotAFanOfJeff
|
December 03, 2009
"Do the parents of these budding journalists know their enlightened darlings equate their love, pain and sacrifice with the pusillanimous lust of individuals?"

I never thought of lust as being "pusillanimous". Thanks for the laugh, tryhard.
LOL@Jeff
|
December 03, 2009
"easily led through the gates of intellectual slaughter"

please tell me that because of writing like this, and your other comment on here, that they have made you full time gatekeeper to the land of idiots who try and use big words!

typical
Ben Schwartz
|
December 03, 2009
If only Jeff Barganier's parents had been same-sex, we never would have had to suffer from his clunky grammar, misuse of vocabulary and poorly formed, bigoted opinions.