As a member of Amherst Christian Fellowship (ACF), I have been struggling with whether or not the vigil for life tonight is apolitical and non-partisan. For something to be apolitical, it can't be concerned with government or policy. The organizers are not asking for the government to ban abortion. This vigil has no governmental policy implications; Congress and the Supreme Court aren't going to care that a few hundred students held a candlelight vigil on the campus of Amherst College. I think we need to be very careful not to misconstrue opinions to be equivalent to politics. Just because an event is based on one opinion or another doesn't make it political. Politics become involved when there is an active, intentional attempt by people to change a government's policy. 

Is the vigil non-partisan? Abortion is an issue that transcends the party line, although the official Republican platform embraces the pro-life stance, while the Democrats are officially pro-choice. I think it is absurd to assume that everyone in an organization agrees 100 percent with the decisions of the leadership. Not all members of either party would consider their party's platform to be their own philosophy; you find the party you agree with a majority of the time, and you get involved with them. I am a Republican who is adamantly against abortion, but is pro-choice. Personally, I consider the loss of an unborn child to be a very sad thing, and I reserve the right to go to a vigil and demonstrate that belief. But I do not try to impose my morality on others; that is entirely against the principles of our nation. 

Finally, I hope that people do not make assumptions about ACF based on our co-sponsorship. Some of my closest friends within the fellowship are pro-choice. Our co-sponsorship does not suggest that all members do, or necessarily should, take a pro-life stance. It just means that we supported this at the organizational level because we believed it would be an apolitical event that a majority of our members would support. 

Robert M. Godzeno '06 

Solutions to parking troubles

The recently announced plan to address the parking shortage on campus should be rejected. If President Anthony Marx and the AAS are resigned to the notion that only money can solve this problem, the money should at least be used in a more logical manner.

The bulk of the money should go to carpooling incentives. Returning students who intend on bringing cars should give campus police a list of other students with whom they will share their vehicle. Students submitting such lists should be given a credit of $5 per passenger, towards the cost of their parking permit. All those who register, either as passengers or as drivers, should then be entered into a lottery for a lump pay-out. This ensures that all students, not just drivers, have a fair chance at the cash.

The remainder of Marx's money should be applied to investigating possibilities for a permanent solution to the campus parking shortage. The time may be near for the College to consider building a parking garage at the Hills Lot site. Also, dedicated visitor parking, most needed at the admissions office, Alumni Gymnasium and Mead, is long overdue, and I would be the first to flog the designers of the new geology museum if they haven't planned for nearby visitor parking.

J. Robinson Mead

The author is currently dismissed from the College.

Homosexuality is not unnatural

A troubling pattern appears among Conservative thinkers. It seems that these "moralists" craft their arguments by starting with their conclusions and working backwards. They justify, in hindsight, the views they already hold. This practice evades the peril a true philosopher faces when venturing towards an uncertain conclusion. 

Ryan Raskopf '05's denunciation of gay marriage exemplifies this backward methodology. Raskopf begins with his conclusion-gay marriage is immoral-then backtracks, inventing premises that will justify this view. 

The linchpin of Raskopf's argument is a nebulous claim that "marriage and [hetero]sexual coupling have a natural correspondence." In Raskopf's view, heterosexuality is the a priori and "natural" form of human sexuality. Given this restriction, homosexuality is "unnatural" and hence immoral. 

This purportedly "rational" and "objective" argument hinges upon a dubious premise. Contemporary evolutionary biology suggests that homosexuality is in fact a natural phenomenon. Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" provides strong counter-evidence to Raskopf's claim. In fact, homosexuality is found in hundreds of different animal species. This evidence suggests that the Darwinian paradigm's conception of sexuality, in which sex exists solely for the purpose of procreation, does not adequately explain the true purpose of sex. Contemporary evolutionary biologists note that if the "natural" function of sex were solely procreation, the world would surely disintegrate into a Malthusian nightmare. The purpose of sexuality is more complex than mere population regeneration.

Given the ambiguity in Raskopf's claim that human sexuality is "naturally" heterosexual, perhaps he means human nature is distinct from "animal" nature-human recourse to agency perhaps endows us with a "higher" sexual sensibility. However, in this case, Raskopf's equation of "natural telos" with heterosexuality becomes a theological claim. It may be affirmed by an external authority, such as a religious text. However, this converts a "principled" argument into an argument about human nature driven by faith-a claim that can't be made universal.

Conservative ideologues brandish their dispassionate reasoning as a justification for their idiosyncratic views. Conservatives claim that, unlike the "unprincipled" arguments of the Left, they hold a monopoly on moral authority. After a cursory glance, however, it appears readily obvious that their own reasoning suffers from a zealous adherence to tradition. While Conservatives may espouse sound arguments, they are not valid. Their intricately constructed moral edifices are built upon unstable ground, and will not withstand the test of time.  

Christopher Chambers-Ju '04