Help
Add Reply
QUOTE(TheTastyGreek @ Nov 18 2009, 04:10 PM) 
I believe we have a winner!
TheColonyEagle has a point, and it's exactly what I first thought as well... just stop running King & Queen as a couple, hold individual elections like every other school I'm aware of, and done. In fact, not realizing how big this thing would get and having some time to kill on campus, I made this suggestion two weeks ago on the NT Daily website in response to the editorial board endorsing voting "YES". However, that was not a suitable solution for those who disagreed with the SGA's initial decision. For perspective, here are some reader comments from the Daily's website on why the split vote wasn't acceptable:
Jake R. says:
November 18, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Because to those who it really affects and opens doors for, deciding to revert back to individuals running for homecoming court is the same as saying, “Now that it’s a big issue, I’m uncomfortable with handing out equal opportunity for all so we’re going to SWEEP this under the rug, IGNORE the civil liberties issue altogether, and HALT this particular kind of advancement for LGBT people at UNT.” Homecoming is such a simple thing. If equal opportunity can’t be given on that stage, I wonder where my equal opportunity will be forbidden next at this university. Why should I not want equal opportunity at any and every level? If LGBT people and our friends cease asking and/or demanding our equality at the smallest levels, we might as well start giving away what little rights the majority of Americans have ‘blessed’ us with because those rights are small too. Long before homecoming courts were a tradition, it was an American tradition to spred the equality, equal rights and protections, and equal opportunity to the next Americans who were denied and LGBT people should take equality like a flag of a nation that is rightfully ours too.
Luke says:
November 3, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Splitting the couple vote fixes nothing. Gay copules should be able to run because as a school we shouldn’t be saying gay couples cannot represent UNT. The idea that a man and a woman are the only or better choice for a family is demonstrably false as well as offensive
Luke says:
November 3, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Also, the idea that gays are represented by running as a heterosexual pairing is blatantly false. We need to allow gays to run as same sex pairs so that we are not continually stating that heterosexual pairs are superior.
Luke says:
November 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm
CG, a split run still sends the mesage that heterosexual couples are the only couples that represent UNT because it is a heterosexual pairing. So a agy man and gay woman winning still sends the message that it takes a man and a woman to be a couple that represents UNT. This is exclusionary and false. Letting same sex couples run is the only non exclusionary choice.
People fighting for gay rights aren’t trying to win a game. They are trying to get rights that gays already are entitled to
David S says:
November 3, 2009 at 8:59 pm
The number of articles on this issue should be indicative of how strongly people feel about this, and hashing things out is anything but an “epic timewaste”. In fact, I think it’s obscene to call it an epic timewaste considering that this is taking place within the context of a society which inflicts institutionalized oppression against queer people.
As I said in another thread CG, your “split vote” compromise changes absolutely nothing. The argument that your proposed gender binary is the only way to properly represent the student population at UNT does not reflect reality. Folks who do not fit neatly into these categories simply want the opportunity to represent alternative forms of human expression. And as long as forces exist which seek to actively suppress these alternative forms of human expression, there will be conflict. Keep in mind that the very notion of queer identity wouldn’t exist had it not been at least in part for the collective realization of a group of folks with a common interest that they’re all being screwed over for the same reason.
Please understand, I don't consider myself to be anti-gay. And though I disagree with this whole thing, I realize that I can't possibly appreciate the perspective that has led certain people to feel the way they do. My distaste for the whole thing is simply the making of an issue for the sake of making an issue. There is no actual "progress" to be gleaned from such an insignificant, trivial thing, and I feel the whole thing is a waste of time, energy, and advantageous timing. Protesting for gay marriage - I get that. Protesting for partner's benefits - absolutely. But this, IMHO, is missing the point, and was compounded by an impotent SGA and scared or oblivious administration... because no matter how silly you think it all is, it's the biggest story about our university in a while, and it sticks to the name and the degree - at least for a little while. Do I think it hurts recruiting?? HA. We could have an all male sailor-themed baby oil party in the Union every Friday night and it wouldn't hurt recruiting more than Football Trilli has. I am, however, concerned about the potential impact on older alums and certain potential donors... I think it's a foolish time to take an insignificant moral stand that risks alienating some important people, especially given UNT's position.
On the other hand, it could be exciting that a couple of kick-ass frat dudes could now run together for the hell of it. Or a pair of smokin' hot chicks, fresh from the sorority house pillow fight.
MultiQuote
