BEST OF 2002-2003
Only the right antidote can protect your life
God's love is alphabetically revealed in random languages
FDA should continue to ban gay sperm and ignore editorials opposing them!
Ramesh C. Reddy
Editors Note: This column is a rebuttal to the May 18, 2005 editorial in the Pitt News called 'Gay sperm equally good for reproduction.'
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be commended for being willing to ban gay sperm donations and not wither to editorials that oppose them. Especially since anyone who opposes legislation that favors homosexuals are automatically deemed homophobic.
It is preposterous and laughable that people who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle are labeled homophobic. Now this same label is being used against the FDA. The strength of character of an individual or an organization is shown whether they stick to their principles without withering under pressure or labeling.
What FDA has done has major implications for other people who want to stick to their principles. At the University of Pittsburgh campus, you would be hard pressed to find individuals who want to go against the minority view and write on issues that they do not agree with.
Why? That’s easy to respond to!
Sadly, a lot of people do not have a backbone and do not want to put themselves in the line of fire. Especially, knowing that line of fire includes labeling that may not be true such as ‘they are bigots, homophobic, racist’ etc.
We live on a university campus that has a campus paper that no one I have talked to has denied how leftist it has become. People in power have also told me that but they continue to read it to see how further they would go.
It is an independent paper but the writers in no way are independent. Their views are so left that many on campus could agree with but there are those minority that do not agree with 99% of their opinions section and 90% of their news section.
It would be wonderful to have the campus paper that would really represent all the views on campus and not just the majority view since it reaches so many people. If there was a viable competitor to the paper that presents the other side, then the campus would be presented with both sides but there is not a viable competitor to the campus paper.
The campus paper started in 1906 but the closest paper to challenge their views started in 2001 as a print edition and now has been running successfully as an online edition and newsletter for almost three years. We do cover the opposite side and write views that are contrary to the campus paper.
If you look at the contents of the campus paper objectively, especially if you are a conservative, it would be hard pressed to find articles you agree with especially in their opinions section and news coverage. Their news coverage has omitted time after time conservative speakers and Christian religious events.
The paper is archived so you do not need me to tell you that but can find out yourself.
They may have a token of a conservative writer but that would be a ratio of 1:9 in my opinion. One reason could be that conservative writers do not want to go against the majority to save their own hide. It could also be that conservative writers could be shot down in the application process.
I challenge the campus paper to provide both sides in their coverage of opinions and news. I will even help them out by agreeing to write for them if their argument is that they cannot find conservative writers.
There was a time that my writings were the most conservative and religious in nature in their paper that is targeted towards a liberal audience but liberals alone do not inhabit Pitt. Eventually, I was not brought back when there was an application process introduced. That was ok because I had the honor of serving with some of the best editors in the Pitt News in the years I wrote for them. When the new board rejected my application in Sept 2001, the Pittsburgh Standard wanted me to come write for them. This day I am the publisher of the paper and hope to give the campus an alternative view to the Pitt News.
We are less than three years old online but we are making tremendous strides. When students have come to me and asked me when the Pittsburgh Standard would bring a print edition to campus again because they are tired of reading the left rhetoric, I tell them to go online and read the paper at http://www.pittsburghstandard.com. We also print newsletter at certain times.
The Pittsburgh Standard endorsed five candidates for Student Government Board and we were honored to see the campus vote for those five candidates who won in that order.
Is this a wake up call for a campus paper that yields to leftist views or was that just a coincidence?
We may never know! This we do know that the Pittsburgh Standard will never shy away from addressing any issue we feel appropriate whether the majority of the campus agrees with us or not.
A person who writes or speaks his conscience would be much happier in the long run than one who wants to please everyone and become a politician. I am no politician but am publisher of an alternative paper to the Pitt News.
Our hope is that we do not need this paper on campus if the campus newspaper can be read by Conservative Christians like me and be said, “The Pitt News is fair and balanced”
Until that day the Pittsburgh Standard will be chugging away at issues on campus as a political advocacy organization.
Feel free to oppose the FDA ban on gay sperms. There is nothing wrong with voting your conscience and going against editorials such as the Pitt News.
We need to ask ourselves if the AIDS virus would not have come into the picture as much if it were not for homosexual activity. This is not hate speech but based on facts.
Yet, sympathizers want the FDA to accept gay sperm donations but the FDA should not yield to any editorials or homophobic labeling.
Not accepting someone’s sperm because they are gay does not make it a civil rights issue or a discrimination issue. It makes it a health issue. Just because a blood bank does not accept someone’s blood does not make them discriminatory. Let us be brave enough to accept the FDA’s position and not make it more than it is.
Ask yourself honestly whether you are liberal or conservation: ‘If you knew that the sperm someone was getting was from a gay person who has engaged in sexual activity and statistics show the AIDS rate is higher, would you in good conscience want that sperm donation for that someone?’
If you are honest, I cannot see how you could answer, ‘Yes’. If it were up to me, I would not even accept heterosexual sperm from people who have had more than one partner so this is not just a gay issue for me. It is a health issue to prevent the recipients from having to face AIDS or other STD’s. Remember, whether a person is tested positive for a disease would not be known immediately so a infected person could be giving sperm and not even know it.
Voting for neither major party candidate is going
to bring us closer to God!