Jerusalem is one of the most pro-Gay cities in the world. That's because Judaism is so pro-Gay. We talked about how great the Jerusalem pride celebration has become in our campus Hillel meetings.

Anyone who says Jerusalem is anti-gay is just anti-semitic.

yea right. unless your name happens to be natalie sikavi, then your religion is a crutch for you to lean on when you need to an excuse to hurl bigoted, homophobic invectives at the people you hate.

i'm not saying she's a bigot because she's jewish. she was already a bigot to begin with, she just also happens to be jewish and spends all of her goddam time talking about how great her religion is. that she can't seem to think of anything else to write about is representative of the simplistic and narrow lens from which she views those around her.

i would be equally critical if she wrote four articles praising how great her dog is because that would demonstrate the same level of profoundly idiotic dialogue that she chooses to engage in. nobody cares about how much she loves god or going to mass. if she wants to write about that, she can start her very own godblog, but university students aren't going to tolerate that shit being printed in our newspaper anymore.

Okay, wow. Race has no biological basis at all, unless you're talking about how different people look. That alone automatically knocks down whatever semblance of credibility he may have had before that.

Persinally, I would like to know why Bellevue Ave's panties are so in a wad. It must be something juicy for him to ultra-pissy. Can someone fill me in?

Guess I should really preview my comments before I post instead of trusting my obviously lacking typing skils...

@99, thanks for the heads up about the articles that Natalie Sikavi has written. From your posting those, I went to look at the other articles that she has written. Her religious articles seem to avoid any mention of same-sex marriage, but interestingly, she herself wrote an opinion piece saying that same-sex marriage should be protected.

http://dailyuw.com/2008/5/22/same-sex-ma…

While I think John Fay's opinion piece was badly written, I think this argument is tough enough without a bunch of grudge-wank sprinkled on it. Grow up.

#94:

I'm a bad, bad man. Please don't read my blog comments.

We're not all bad at UW! It's just the people who write for the Daily- which no one takes seriously anyways. The rest of us donate to HRC, worked for Obama, and attended the prop. 8 rally downtown. And we support the arts too! See? See world? We aren't all bad!

Right? Guys?


Hello...?

@38: "If someone had written this at Evergreen, they would have been torn limb from limb on red square and possibly burnt in effigy."

I agree this kid is an ass. But please man, we just had a colleague light himself on fire in red square three weeks ago. I see the flowers still every day as i walk though the square. That is something not to be laughed about.

Natalie Sikavi and Dan Savage are the only writers in Seattle to stand up for Judaism in the sea of Christian idiots that is Seattle.

Judaism is the only TRUE religion. Islam and Christianity are cults for idiots.

It is anti-semitic not to like Natalie's writing. There are many Jewish writers at The Stranger, and most of them are pro-Israel and observe the major holidays.

Seattle had better get used to a pro-Jewish voice. It is racist, Christian and homophobic to say anything bad about Judaism or Israel. Not to mention anti-semitic.

Now that Obama has selected Rahm Israel Emanuel as chief of staff, America will be even more pro- Israel that ever. Anyone who doesn't like it is a Christian, anti-semitic idiot.

we;; bellevue ave @ 98
..while it might be true as you state that
" i expect savage to continue beating this drum for the next 24-48 hours or at least get his minions at The Stranger to do it. ", why not hold your rants until AFTER this happens.
i'm not a minion , but you really do sound like an off topic ass with an personal ax to grind.

@109: I don't think the comment was any sort of reference to that. No need to be the sensitivity/thought police.

Race, incidentally, is not a biological state. Just thought I'd point that out.

Race, incidentally, isn't a biological state. Just thought I'd point that out.

He likes Malcolm in the Middle. That explains it. Does he like According to Jim and King of Kings too? I can't stand any of those shows...

This article makes me sick to my stomach! This guy needs to be fired from the UW Daily. This is unacceptable writing and should not be endorsed or tolerated by the UW. We are a lgbt friendly city and this is pure bigotry. Email and call the UW Daily and make complaints. Get the word out and let the UW know about this homophobic excuse of a human being! I am sick and tired of morons spewing hate.

Yay, Issur's back. Is that the real Issur?

While I know that gay couples are just as bonded as straight couples, without the perspective that the opposite sex brings, same-sex marriage is a pale imitation -- two salt shakers with no pepper in sight. All yang and no yin. More like the world's smallest frat house than anything else.

@ 117: Because, obviously, all men have exactly identical personalities to all other men, and all women to all other women. There is, of course, no pair of heterosexuals with similar personalities that just encourage their shittier tendencies: short temper, impatience, etc. And there are no gay couples in which each partner has a mind of his or her own. This is why my girlfriend and I agree on everything. Ever. Fucking dumbass. "Penis" and "vagina" are not personality traits, and do not determine the quality of the relationship.



@ Dan: I love how he has to specify it's a 70 yo man that wants to marry all those underaged girls. Because, apparently, if he was 30, it wouldn't be so bad?

This is a clear example of the right wing mentality that "gross" and "wrong" are the same thing. To him, the reason that pedophilic polygamous situation is wrong is because it's gross, not because, say, it's wrong for anyone to fuck a 10 yo, because 10 yos have a right to live their lives without penises in them.

This is probably also, at the core of it, his argument with gay marriage, and with abortion. "Ew, gross, so it's wrong."

asdf @ 27: Yes, many of the liberals got too lazy and quit. I'm one of them. But Sarah Gaither wrote a lovely piece taking the opposite position. Go and cheer. Maybe the editors will realize they don't need to publish this idiotic tripe to get page views:

http://dailyuw.com/2008/11/25/propositio…

I know this jackass personally. It was really just a matter of time.

@6: It's when straight people like this assclown states AUTHORITATIVELY what homosexuality is ALL ABOUT. Oh, he doesn't need any information from real, live gay people about what gay life is like, because HE KNOWS!! And how does he know?

"Takes one to know one"? I've decided that the anti-gay social conservatives spend every minute of every day fighting their urge to have sex with another man, and the rest of us just don't understand their daily moral struggle against their own forbidden desires.

0700: Wake up. Want to get fucked by a dude, but choose not to ask for it, because IT'S WRONG.
0800: Eat breakfast. Think dirty thoughts about the sausage, but don't do anything about it, because IT'S WRONG.
0900: Go to class, think about screwing the football player in the front row in the ass, but don't, because IT'S WRONG.

etc.

I really feel sorry for them that they have to struggle against that emotional desire all the time, knowing that they'll be damned to hell for doing it.

Oh, and posting this kid's info = not cool. Posting it to Lustlab = really not cool. He has to struggle with his brain's allergy to reason and his "emotional" impulses - punishment enough.

Like The Daily is Shit and Everyone Knows It I'd like to point out that there are liberals who have worked for (or in my case) are still writing for the UW Daily. This should not be a reflection of the Daily as a whole (although I feel that there has been an increasing amount of conservatism displayed in the paper lately).

However when the author's argument includes the Simpsons, the "incest, bestiality" line of thinking...which is completely ridiculous...notable difference between two consenting adults and 1 consenting adult + 1 might not be consenting (or human) other), and religion, I tend to lose faith in the validity of their argument.

With this in mind, I would not censor an article because it has conservative viewpoints that I disagree (strongly) with. Like Director of Student Publications Kristin Millis stated in a recent e-mail, I too believe in free speech, the First Amendment, "dialogue and robust discussion". I am in favor of more thoroughly reading over articles that might go in the opinions section, and sincerely hope that someone writes a very strong rebuttal (and that the Editorial Staff prints the article).

When the author's argument is that "Being homosexual" is "a problem that needs to be dealt with" I think that the Editorial Staff should expect a significant amount of negative feedback.

Although the column under scrutiny merits criticism, I would argue that the larger problem is the paper's emphasis on diametrical opinion pieces. These point-counterpoint, liberal-conservative, Christian-Muslim-Jew are incredibly sophomoric and no sort of dialogue. They simply promulgate the polarized positions most Americans have become accustomed to in the popular media.

We ought to expect more deliberate and thoughtful expressions of opinion from ourselves, and our fourth estate.

Dear Dan Savage,

I used to work at the Daily last year. I don't what has happened since then, but I am glad someone respectable is voicing their thoughts. The Daily has long floated on inflated egos stemming from all its 5-year seniors who don't realize they STILL work for a campus paper. I am very happy someone is putting them in place and setting them straight (er, no pun intended).

I almost hope Fay is a secret closeted homosexual and simply wrote that article because he is in fear of coming out. Perhaps I could forgive him then. Sadly, this is probably not the case.

John Fay's article must be taken into prospective. His purpose was to create controversy, as he stated when he ran to be President of the UW College Republicans. It appears he succeeded.

From his Facebook Group page:
John Fay For President of UW College Republicans http://www.facebook.com/directory/groups…

"6. Controversy: As Republicans and as Americans we must be proud of who we are because we have something to be proud of. We must never let unkind and dishonest people shame us or cow us into quiescence. I know some folks hesitate about our seeking controversy but frankly that is the best way to get the word out about our club and hey, we actually believe in what we are doing anyway. If the Horowitz Foundation repeats Islamo-fascist week we should be a part of that. We also should work with the SCCC again if they do another empty holster protest. But there were lots of other ideas we didn't pursue this year, like global warming awareness, an affirmative action bakesale etc. We should plan on at least one major controversy per quarter. I don't know about you guys but I always sleep with a cleaner conscience after being called a fascist by a bunch of out of work hippies."

114 - depends on your definition of "race" and "biological." If for race you mean the color of skin, facial characteristics, and perhaps even some physiological differences, between say, Asian people and African people, or Caucasian and Latino folks, then it is absolutely a genetic, and therefore "biological" state.
Culture, on the other hand, is a state of mind, and not transmitted via biology.

"Fact is, the state usually has very different concepts about a lot of things—usually broader concepts, to accommodate social and religious differences—than any one church or faith might."

That one statement, right there, gets to the real heart of so many contentious issues, not just this one. I really wish that more people could understand that what a government should or shouldn't allow is very different from what a particular idea, belief, church, or faith should allow. The First Amendment gives you the right to speak your mind, to make your views known, without fear of reprisal from the government but not necessarily from people who disagree with you. That's there to protect everybody, not just you. And that's how government--the state--should strive to act at all times. It's there to support and protect everybody, not just your idea or your belief or your faith.

In this case, if your particular faith cannot accept the idea of two men getting married, then the government should allow you to deny them a place at your altar, your place of worship, but not at the expense of denying them a place at any altar, anywhere. That's what freedom of religion means: you get to have your religion and everybody else gets to have theirs, even if it's different than yours.

When did colleges stop requiring a course in logic for admission.

#127:

Probably about the same time they stopped requiring a course in punctuation.

I am ashamed that this hateful and ignorant article was published in my school's paper. Not all UW students are like John Fay.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.…

If we put as much energy into winning marriage equality as we do attacking neanderthal opinions such as Mr. Fay's (whom I believe to be a lonely virgin), we might actually WIN marriage equality. When you argue with a fool, the fool wins. Standing up and fighting for your rights is not the same thing as pointing out a fool's foolishness. Do not be distracted from the struggle.

OMG where to start!
what an ignorant, privileged idiot!
Although I disagree with EVERYTHING said in this article; I'm a little glad it was published, maybe the feedback will teach him and idiots like him a thing or two. (probably not)

oh yeah
race is not biological
and neither is gender!

Puerile.

All my love,
justwally

I'm new to the stranger blog..but i got linked here after reading the fay article. Spot on! What he said was just mean spirited and wrong.