just because you say that namecalling is not an argument, doesn’t mean that you aren’t being a bigot. you then proceed to tell gay people that they are illogical and unreasonable. why don’t you go ahead and explain this crap to the entire animal kingdom as homosexuality has been found in numerous other species, or have you not studied the subjects you spout in your hateful rant? while freedom of speach is protected in this country, the daily lobo does have the choice not to print derisive and close-minded hate speech as such. I guess the editors must be sucking that GOP cock.

1. You’re a hateful, bigoted, barely human excuse for a life-form.

2. God does not exist.

Read more …

Hey Sanchez, you’re so right. As you know biology, scads of philosophers, and basic common sense also teach us that women are the weaker sex. As such, they have weaker reasoning powers, weaker brains, weaker everything! As homos are a smidgen of the population but women represent a good 50%, we should focus more on them and make sure they stay in their place. Could you imagine what would happen if we let them vote, drive, or (God forbid) hold down jobs? The negative impact on the family would be devastating to society at large. Think of the children! Awful things could happen. (PS: As a UNM alumnus, I say shame on the Daily Lobo for publishing such intellectually poor opinions as Benjamin Sanchez’s.)

This idot tries to hide the fact that he’s an ignorant braiwashed bigot behind all that “intellectual” crap, as if wow we’re supposed to be impressed that he goes to a university and can use all those big scholarly words! Wow! But the fact is that he has no clue about reality and is a mindless, heartless, backwater hater. I am sick to death of morons like this going around regurgiting the bs that, zombie-like, they have swallowed hook, line and sinker. You wasted your tuition, baby.

If the author of this artical would allow a few moments to look a few facts:
1. there is a portion of our population (world wide) that finds the touch, feel, and scent of a man pleasureable.
2. there is a portion of our population (world wide) that finds the touch, feel, and the scent of a woman pleasurable.
If the author would please concead theses facts i would like him to explain why he object. Does he not fit into one of those catagories? Don’t we all? Give it a rest dude.

I welcome comments and opinions that expose the groundless ignorance of folks like Sanchez. If it weren’t for his moronic stance and its publication we wouldn’t be mired in this discussion. Discourse is essential to the learning experience. It is my fervent hope that we all may learn something from this thread. Thank you, Ben, you twit.

ben your reasoning fails to differentiate between gender and orientation. a male homosexual and heterosexual male are all still male. its amazing that you would put so much importance on choice of gender coupling and errogenous zones, esp as a believer, when you know that the new covenant of christ is about spirit, not about physicalities, about the love of the second commandment of loving ones neighbor(everybody else) as he loves himself.

The question should NOT be whether or not homosexuals should be married, the question should be: Why do we allow special privilages for heterosexual marriage?

The government, in any case, should not be socially engineering society. No rewards (or fees) for heterosexual marriage, period. It should be left up to private institutions. The only thing government should do is to enforce any contracts that are made by two (or more) agreeing individuals. That is their role.

Dear Benjamin Sanchez,

With all due respect, I am afraid to say, you are nothing more than a product of multigenerational inbreeding.

Read more …

All humans wish to propagate their own genetic material. That is the only true expression of sexuality. As a male, I am able to expel genetic material from my body several times a day. It’s advantageous for me to mate with as many different women as possible to maximize survival of my offspring and ensure genetic difference. This is a very roundabout way of saying that biology has forced me to seduce your wife. So, you can’t get mad at either of us.

Anyways. Who says there are only two sexes? What possible universe do you live in that has only XX and XY expressions?

Before more flurry of newbie emails against this letter, as a long time observer of what goes on, I think this piece was posted as a kind of diversionary tactic – to keep people diverted from looking at major issues at UNM (ie: the firings, sexual harrassment, the Mike Locksley craziness and sexwork professor Lisa Chavez, etc.) Clever ruse. But not so much, since many see through it.

you are so uneducated it makes me sick. have you ever spoken to a doctor about there being only two sexes? do you know how many people each year are born with ambiguous genitalia. read ann fausto-sterling’s “sexing the body” for starters. then go talk to an obgyn and ask how many babies are delivered every year with ambiguous genitalia, doctors usually have to modify their sex for them, and end up choosing the wrong gender. if there was a “right” way to look at anatomy and reproduction and a “right” mode of use for our reproductive parts, people wouldn’t be born in the gray area between female and male. that’s just to respond to your main argument. secondly, anatomy has nothing to do with the union of two people who love each other…and you never even addressed the same-sex marriage debate.
third, where the hell is unm? I’ve never even heard of this school…

DEAR BENJAMIN SANCHEZ:

Do you know any Gay individuals or couples? If so, have you ever asked them for THEIR perspective on the “truth” of human sexuality? Maybe it’s about time you did. Just as being lefthanded is a naturally-occurring variation on manual dexterity, so being Gay is a naturally-occurring variation on human sexuality. There is no moral or ethical imperative at work here, it is simply part of life. Likewise it is both natural and moral for Gay individuals to form intimate relationships with other like-minded people of same sex, just as it is natural and moral for Straight individuals to form intimate relationships with other like-minded people of the opposite sex.

Read more …

You have the full right to believe what you believe. It is sad that your so-called reasoning is homophobic, discriminating and bigoted, but that is your right. What is the most sad of all is that you hide behind your so called reasoning to try and mask your bigotry. We would probably respect you more (maybe not agree with you)if you just owned your bigotry. Just own it dude, just own it.

Ahh, religion and biology together under a flimsy pretense of logic and truth. I think the other comments address rather well the absurdity of your claims. The “truth” is that sex may perhaps serve a purpose other than reproduction. I imagine your lover/lovers would appreciate you considering this in the future. The straight marriage only enthusiasts have been saying the same things for a while now. For instance “God says marriage is between 1 man and 1 women” If this is the word of God then perhaps the state has no business in marriage. I mean, doesn’t that make it a religious matter and beyond the scope of the state? Under this “logic” th state should refrain from marriage licences all together and simply offer civil unions to anyone, right? The sanctity of marriage is a bit of a farce too. Until very recently in history law treated women and children as their husband’s chattel. Marriage was seldom th result of love or mutual affection. Is this the type of marriage you are attempting to defend? Nowadays most people I know marry for love. Most of us consider this a good thing. If that love takes a form that makes both parties happy, then why would we want to stop it? If your wife were found barren, since she couldn’t perform her truthful biological duties, would that be grounds for annulment? Or perhaps you should just be allowed to drown her in the river.

This article was asking for a response-storm :)

my comment:
I’m not denying that men and women are made for each other / complimentary to each other. That part is obvious.
However, if two men or two women want to marry each other, so what?

As an earlier comment already pointed out, this letter was designed to make such over-the-top statements so that there is a response storm. It’s a common practice these days.

“Before more flurry of newbie emails against this letter, as a long time observer of what goes on, I think this piece was posted as a kind of diversionary tactic – to keep people diverted from looking at major issues at UNM (ie: the firings, sexual harrassment, the Mike Locksley craziness and sexwork professor Lisa Chavez, etc.) Clever ruse. But not so much, since many see through it.”

If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same gender/sex. In the meantime, shut the hell up. No one cares what you believe.

Dear Mr. Sanchez, I’m glad to read your try at putting reason to work as the categorical justification for banning same sex couples from both (exlusively heterosexual) marriage … and even civil unions for extra rational good measure. The catch with your argument (so far as it goes) is, what? Well, as the IT Help desk is always reminding me when I call them for computer help: Garbage in, Garbage Out. How does this saying apply to your claim that your arguments are rational? Simply this, your starting presuppositions are not obvious, clear, simple, essentially rational closed facts; but rather very dubious assumptions, some of which fly in the fact of the rather widely published modern empirical facts. You start off, simply presuming that anatomical sex is always categorically either male or female. A close reading of biology, psychology, and cultural studies will quickly show us that a huge overlap exists between male and female bodies, such that we can pretty readily identify them as biologically belonging to the same species, not separate species. Dig a bit deeper, and we find that even the distinct differentiations are biologically built on top of, and developmentally (especially in fetal growth) out of … the same or similar biological mechanisms and origins. All fetuses start out female, fetally speaking; only strong surges of male and other hormones at critical periods can result in what we call a male fetus. Your starting assumption simply presumes that your distinctions of exclusively male/female exist, right from the beginning, biological, given, obvious. Plentiful intersex phenomena show us exactly what you leave out, and what your start ideas seem to exclude from even being possible. Further, you simply presume that male/female distinctions trump or stand in for, all that makes us human at all levels. Too much published date in the human and social sciences exists for me to repeat it all, here; suffice it to say, a whole lot of solid data gets left out of your claimed complete human categories. All the gay folks stuff, for one thing. Then you simply switch to presuming – without really explaining your data or your reasoning – that probably a gay man is no longer a real man (ditto, lesbian women?). You then presume again that we can best be rational at that point, by arguing in a closed circle. A real man shows his maleness and completeness of humanity by exclusively being involves with women who reciprocate, closed, at multiple levels. This is so striking that I suspect you are trying to repeat traditional Roman Catholic theology, translated into non-religious and allegedly scientific-rational ideas.

At this point, let’s all note: Neither Aristotle, nor Cicero, nor Thomas Aquinas had any true access whatsoever to modern peer reviewed science data about the real distinctions among sex, gender, sexual orientation, and healthy human functioning. Similarly, none of your three classic authorities had any access whatsoever to the true modern data about same sex behaviors and even same sex pairbonding (seasonal, or lifelong as the species cases may be?) among too many animal species to list here.

Read more …

Well, good old Mr. Sanchez has expressed his hatred of homos and of women many times on these pages, so this is nothing new.

I will submit, however, that recent history has shown overwhelmingly that the folks who decry gay rights the most vociferously are also the biggest closet homosexuals. Mostly religious zealots and ultra right-wingers just like you, oddly enough.

Read more …

This nonsense doesn’t become fancy just because you dress it up with lazy citations to esteemed figures from history. It is rational, logical, and “reasonable,” to conclude that homosexuality is a natural permutation on sexuality because (1) it occurs in animals and humans, (2) if humans had a choice, many fewer people would have chosen homosexuality given the level of anti-gay persecution in the past (and in the present from people with your mindset). Given that homosexuality happens (as evidenced in such things as real life) and has happened for millenia (see literature, history books), the choice heterosexuals have is how to treat homosexuals. You could treat them as inferior, sinful, and targets of disdain, or you could treat them as equal and legitimate members of humanity who do not need to be fixed, rehabilitated, or otherwise changed. How you treat gays says more about your character than it does about gays. And this letter and it message say bad things about the writer’s character.

I agree with the previous blogger….

See Through – Before more flurry of newbie emails against this letter, as a long time observer of what goes on, I think this piece was posted as a kind of diversionary tactic – to keep people diverted from looking at major issues at UNM (ie: the firings, sexual harrassment, the Mike Locksley craziness and sexwork professor Lisa Chavez, etc.) Clever ruse. But not so much, since many see through it.

I find it interesting that in an opinion piece about a legal issue he managed to quote Thomas Aquinas but not the Constitution of the United States.

Duh, regarding my comments above, that should be, “‘weigh’ on your conscience…” instead of ‘way’…and ‘semester’, rather than ‘sememster’.

Stupid brain! I be a student!

Read more …

Thanks to the people who gave their comment in a civilized manner. To the others, it isn’t a surprise, as I stated in the first paragraph of the letter to the Editor. I simply want to make a few points.

Here is a quote from Aristotle:

Read more …