Jeff Wiggins, a history senior speaking for the angry conservatives, replied in his letter "English should be official language for United States," (SN 6/12), to my letter, "English as official U.S.
A couple of weeks ago, a colleague walked into a meeting late, her eyes shaded by dark sunglasses even though she was inside.
As two bills enter the Michigan House of Representatives, gay parents could potentially be losing the right to adopt children.
In Caitlin Scuderi's column, "English as official language doesn't threaten culture, instead unifies U.S.," (SN 6/6), she argued that making English the official language of the U.S.
Stop watching "Laguna Beach." Please turn off "My Super Sweet 16." If you're going to watch any reality television — and by reality, I obviously mean "loosely scripted" — turn to "The Real World." It didn't happen on purpose, but somehow MTV got socially lucky.
In his recent support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, President Bush stated that the reason we need to preserve marriage as a bond between a man and a woman is that it is the "most fundamental institution of civilization." While I appreciate a good political discussion, I expected the president of the United States and his speech writers to come up with a better argument than that. Aside from discussing what characteristics are used to define "civilization," and which institution might be the most important to it, cross-cultural evidence shows that marriage between one man and one woman is not universal — nor fundamental — to society. Since the U.S.
In response to "Marriage isn't simple equation," (SN 6/8), I would say that the editorial board has missed the point.
So it's no surprise that with the introduction of the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer caused by human papillomavirus, or HPV, comes waves of protest. On Thursday the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, approved Merck & Co., Inc.'s vaccine for use in children and women ages 9 to 26. The vaccine, however, makes proponents of abstinence from sex until marriage wonder what effect the medical contribution will have on sexuality. But preventing the infection of more women is far more important than any obligation to moral standards. It seems those against issuing the vaccine value abstinence so much that the idea of preventing the incidence of this type of cancer is null. Much like the debates surrounding contraception, those against issuing the vaccine think that it will influence young women to become more sexually active because of the belief that they won't be at risk for acquiring forms of HPV. But if young women are given proper sexual education, they should understand that HPV is only one of many risks that come hand-in-hand with sexual intercourse.
I am writing in regards to Jeff Wiggins' letter "English should be official language for United States" (SN 6/12). Before Wiggins berates someone like Dennis Blankenship and calls his argument uneducated, maybe Wiggins should consider how ignorant his own argument sounds. His example is the person using a translator to help fill out a job application at a restaurant.
Once, not so long ago, a close friend of mine who is a professor at MSU (and is black) and I were talking.
I feel that Mara Deutch's column, "Government should stay out of marriage, let religion handle it," (SN 6/09), means well and does touch on key factors in the current marriage debate.
I would like to address Dennis Blankenship's letter "English as official U.S.
I've only been at MSU for one year, but I have already grown tired with The State News' liberal viewpoints. A news source for students shouldn't give just one side of issues and opinions but should present both sides.
That's scary. And it allegedly happened in Hubbard Hall last February. MSU thinks the details surrounding the vicious incident should be withheld from the public.
Whenever I go home for a weekend, one thing is always the same. My parents and I sit around on Sunday morning, sucking down cheap gas station cappuccinos and coffee while thumbing through stores' weekly ads and reading two or three local newspapers.
On immigration, the House and Senate have passed two very different bills. In fact, they're so different, the situation evokes one of those science-fiction movies, in which scientists combine matter from one dimension with matter from another. Usually, the result on film is a big explosion.
Growing up on Barbie and Ken, Uncle Jesse and Rebecca, Zack Morris and Kelly Kapowski, it was thought and, thus, expected that everyone should grow up living the "normal" lifestyle — heterosexuality. Although I wasn't brought up to dislike the differences that humankind reflects, I tend to inquire about why or how our society can be so insecure with itself that it uses something as minuscule as sexuality as a scapegoat for the harnessed problems of our era. My biggest concern is the fact that so many of our politicians who hold seats in our government are allowing their religion to justify the way they decide on certain legislation.
America Online was the first drip of the downpour. The advent of AOL Instant Messenger introduced waves of preteens to the new style of communication — social networking.
In his speech Saturday, Bush again called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Rather than relying on false words, though, Bush based his argument on false premises — reasons with no valid support. Yesterday the Senate saw right through Bush's proposal when the legislators' vote was 49-48 — 11 short of the 60 needed to pass the amendment. While it's easy to rely on naturalistic fallacies and religious premises, there is no factual or scientific evidence supporting Bush's claim that same-sex marriages are "bad," while heterosexual ones are "good." Bush claimed that, "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children." A seemingly commonsensical claim.
I wish to comment on Caitlin Scuderi's column, "English as official language doesn't threaten culture, instead unifies U.S." (SN 6/6) I could not disagree more with her assessment of the situation or of her characterization of it as a means of unifying all people.