Misinformed debate

The 180-degree spin carried out by columnist Emily Kelly in Tuesday’s “Weighing both sides of gay marriage” is mind baffling. She spends the first half of her article pleading for the church’s rights to marry who they wish, stating that the government should have no part in this ‘religious institution’ that is marriage. “If you do not agree with a particular church’s view, simply do not attend that church,” she states. In an incredible about face, she goes on to argue against the rights of homosexuals to choose who they marry. For an article claiming to present both perspectives on such an important issue, I was shocked at the content of Kelly’s piece. She is misinformed on the debate’s key issues, and the publication of such material does not serve the student body of N.C. State well.

Kelly insinuates that the debate consists of activists forcing churches to marry homosexuals. This is simply not the case. What Kelly unsurprisingly fails to see in her under-researched article is that there are many religious institutions who wish to marry homosexuals. It is the right for these churches to do so that people are fighting for. Religious institutions are also not the only parties capable of marrying two people. At present in North Carolina, ordained ministers and certified magistrates are allowed to marry people. Thus, the issue of marriage is not even so concretely religious as Kelly pretends. Where it is a matter of religion, the debate does not seek to trample on the rights of churches to practice their beliefs. It seeks to extend rights to the other humans currently locked into a societal tradition created by religion and wrongly perpetuated into law.

It was tragically amusing to read on as Kelly attempted to articulate her thoughts on the unnaturalness of homosexuality. She should have stopped at “I am not a biologist.” The suggestion that marriage is for the sole purpose of reproduction has far-reaching implications, many beyond the realms of homosexuality. One glimpse at a heterosexual couple struggling with infertility should showcase the fallacy in this distraction. Our culture does not demonize couples who choose not to have children, so I wonder why it should use this as grounds for the demonization of homosexuals.

As a current student at N.C. State, I wish to promote an environment of inclusiveness. The duty of a media outlet like The Technician should be to inform students, not to dilute their perspective with half-facts and fabrications. In an article titled “Weighing both sides of gay marriage,” I expect to read of both sides of the gay marriage debate. This was not the case here.

Mason Morris

freshman, computer engineering