By Meagan Butler
Contributing Writer
The Moral Compass Series was a great step toward creating open dialogue on a wide range of topics on this campus. The topic of homosexuality is completely relevant and necessary.
The purpose of this article is not to stand on a soap box and discuss the moral implications of homosexuality. As I am not a theologian or a queer theorist, I leave the discussion to the experts. Furthermore, my own opinions on the topic might cause the reading public to miss the real message of this article – that dialogue is important.
I appreciate Justin Kerr’s article two weeks ago, although I find it ironic that a person so against dialogue on homosexuality would actually continue the dialogue in such an open fashion. It is misguided to make the claim that a topic is “inappropriate” simply because we hold firmly to our own personal views on the matter.
It is a rare case when dialogue is inappropriate, especially in an academic setting and especially at a school of Pepperdine’s caliber. The only time dialogue is inappropriate is if it is obscene, or if its goal is to hurt people, in which case it ceases to be dialogue and becomes slander.
People may feel that their opinions were not expressed in the Moral Compass Series, making them feel ostracized. This is all the better reason for hosting more forums in order to express a wider range of opinions.
I applaud Pepperdine for bringing in leaders on the forefront of this debate who civilly and respectfully showed disagreement.
Dr. Rick Marrs did an exceptional job presenting varying interpretations on a single source with such limited time. What Marrs did was not inappropriate. We can’t browbeat or “Biblebang” someone into believing anything. However, through dialogue, discourse and disagreement, we can expose our differences. Dialogue forces us to re-evaluate our own opinions and redefine our current beliefs.
Kerr did not see the value in discussing homosexuality, deeming it “a petty issue” that will divide instead of unite. Homosexuality is not a petty issue, nor is any issue that dramatically affects people’s lives. There’s a good chance that everyone will encounter homosexuals in class, the workplace and possibly church. Because of this likely interaction, it is important for the University to show students appropriate ways to respond to homosexuality.
There are several reactions one could have. One could hold a rainbow flag and march in the gay pride parade championing gay rights. On the other end of the spectrum, one could hold a sign saying “God hates fags” like Christian fundamentalist Fred Phelps did at the funeral of gay bashing victim Matthew Shepard. One could also treat homosexuals as they would treat heterosexuals, supporting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” mentality and ignoring the issue. The range of responses is endless. The forum offers open, peaceful dialogue, free from judgment as one appropriate response.
Far too often, homosexuality is a social and religious scapegoat; this is why it is extremely necessary to discuss issues of homosexuality on campus. If we choose to turn a blind eye to this topic, we risk creating a community that fosters homophobia.
Homophobia, the prejudice against, fear, or dislike of homosexuals, is present on this campus and around the world. Anti-gay hate crimes persistently occur, gay suicide rates skyrocket, and anti-gay language has become mainstream.
At Pepperdine one can hear the word “fag” tossed casually in conversation. Even worse, the Bible is often used as both reason and excuse for the prejudice.
Homophobia should not be an option, and the University has tried to make that clear through the Moral Compass Series.
I commend the University for attempting to provide an unbiased lecture series on the topic of homosexuality. However, how unbiased could this discussion be on a campus that explicitly prohibits homosexuality in its student handbook?
Notably, the voice that the discussion lacked was of a proud homosexual’s.
Once again, this voice has been muted, and it is our loss. While some conservative students are appalled at the topic of homosexuality in general, they should note that the majority of the forum’s panel was against embracing homosexuality. Some students thought the discrepancy was fair, stating that as a Christian university, Pepperdine has an obligation to its Christian students to lean to the orthodox side.
In my opinion, the forum was slightly biased against the homosexual viewpoint; however, it was refreshing that the University would take such bold action at bringing this issue to the forefront of the students’ minds.
November 06, 2003