I would like to thank Tommy Maranges ("A clear misunderstanding,"?Feb. 19) for bringing some sense and reason to the debate about homosexuality, which has recently featured far too much rhetoric and far too little logic. I fail to see why the refusal to promote an idea is seen to be tantamount to rejecting, denying, or even hating that idea.
Bridget Flores, Mary Dewey and Jackie Emmanuel ("Catholic teachings,"?Feb. 19) would have you believe that anyone who does not own an "Ally" or "Gay? Fine With me" T-shirt dislikes or discriminates against homosexuals. While this is ludicrous to the average reader, many find it acceptable to believe that the University is discriminatory against gays, just because the mission statement does not explicitly denounce it.
The problem with the Queer Film Festival is that it does nothing to eliminate the isolation described by Flores and Co. Instead, organizations and events tailored specifically towards homosexuals only serve to highlight our differences and create the very isolation that Flores so gravely dreads. If a gay movie was banned or censored during a sexuality-neutral film festival, an outcry against discrimination and isolation would certainly be appropriate, but using a gay-only film festival to fight isolation is the equivalent of using a male-only film festival to improve gender relations. If a demographic wishes to separate themselves from the population with specific events just for them, they lose the right to blame the majority for the divide that will inevitably arise.
In conclusion, a refusal to promote gay-specific activities is not anti-gay. Rather, it is the University acting on a religious foundation to not to promote a lifestyle deemed to be morally disordered. "Pro-gay" and "anti-gay" are not the only options. Supportive of homosexuals but not actively promoting the lifestyle, the University is fulfilling its duty as a Catholic institution of higher learning.
Nathan Furtado
sophomore
Dillon Hall
Feb. 19
