Purely Opinion

I understand that the Viewpoint section is purely opinion and is not a reflection of the Technician’s opinions, or even a reflection of reality, for that matter. That said, I thought Emily Kelly’s letter on gay marriage was contradictory and factually and logically flawed. The title of the letter is “Looking at both sides of gay marriage,” but I could find only one side represented and would argue that Ms. Kelly did little more than peek at the opposing side.

Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that state or federal governments should not be involved in marriage because it is a religious institution. I am of the opinion that this opinion is absurd. We can trace the roots of marriage and will find that it had more to do with forging military and trade alliances than religion. If we want to stick to marriage’s “roots,” then love should be cast aside completely. The issue here is not that gay couples are seeking recognition from any religious organizations. The issue is that marriage, now, is a legal contract that grants couples certain legal rights and withholding these rights from a tax-paying segment of the population is discrimination. A legal contract has nothing to do with religion, which is why people can, and do, hold secular marriage ceremonies.

Also, Ms. Kelly presenting an argument against gay marriage on the basis of an inability to procreate is almost tragic and certainly counterproductive. There are heterosexual couples who cannot procreate due to barrenness or infertility, and there are older couples beyond their childbearing years. Do we deny them marriage as well?

Lastly, what is Ms. Kelly’s basis for claiming that homosexuality is unnatural? Writing is unnatural. Driving a car is unnatural. Dying your hair is unnatural. If deeming something unnatural is based on the idea that the majority do not do it, then modern humans are very unnatural when compared to the rest of nature. That aside, we have plenty of documented cases where animals have engaged in behavior that Ms. Kelly finds unnatural.

I do applaud the columnist for sharing her opinions with a large audience, especially when those opinions may not be popular. It takes courage to do so and is a great way to begin dialogue about an issue. However, we should always think before we speak, or in this case, before we commit our thoughts to paper.

John Pierre Craig

senior, communication media