Collegiate Times

Wow who is Perez Hilton and what happened? I should watch more tv. And what would make Perez think this country was founded on equality? And when did the argument of men and women being the same come about? Man I feel like Rip Van Winkle, what is going on? Anyways, I've been thinking about the whole gay marriage thing and I arrived at a tough point to overcome: could government mandate rules for Communion like it can for marriage? I'd think most people would say no. Why could it impose laws on one religious proceeding but not another? But then it comes to whether marriage is a religious proceeding. It used to be, yeah? When did marriage get jacked from the hands of religion? That was done pretty sneakily. Houdini himself couldn't have pulled that one off. Either way, whoever wins the argument over whether marriage is a religious act will win the rights to how/who can get married.

Marriage was a civil institution LONG before it was religious, at least in the Christian sense that Anonymous at 10:56 refers to (communion and such). Check out the Council of Trent (1545). It's the first time Christianity claimed any spot in Marriage at all. And marriage existed as a means of property transfer LONG before that. So the real question is why should Religion be allowed to hijack a legal status designation? Or to put it another way, "Could churches mandate rules for Voting like it can for Marriage? I'd think most people would say no. Why could it impose laws on one legal proceeding but not another?"

well there it is. religion loses. next case!

Serial killers and bigots: my, what wonderful products your school produces.

I think everyone should be entitles to the same "legal" rights as one another regardless of sex. Question is, at what point do you separate the "religious marriage" from "legal marriage"? In order to do that, there would have had to have been a separate form of marriage FROM THE BEGINNING. One that effected people legally, and one that effected people religiously. In essence, im speaking of two ceremonies. If you had wanted to benefit from marriage legally, marry one way, and if you wanted to ALSO (or in contrary to) benefit through the Church, go through the other ceremony. Thats the only way people would have been able to argue both points and have both be right. BUT i digress... the truth is, its not like that, it never was like that, and it never will be like that. All we're left with is what we have. Which means, the ONE form of marriage we have is supposed to satisfy both points of view and its never going to happen. In the end, its up to the individual churches to decide whether THEY will perform, or even recognize a couples marriage.

It's funny you use the polygamy argument, aka the slippery slope argument, but i will prove to you why it fails. First of all, i wasn't aware gay marriage was "multiple partners". Last time i checked, it was 2 consenting, loving adults. Second, gay marriage has only been legal since recent times. However, polygamy has been observed and legal widely in many places and times in the past, before gay marriage even existed, usually men with multiple wives. So by your logic, you can say heterosexual marriages has a big tendency to lead to polygamy, therefore, we need to eliminate heterosexual marriage altogether. See why your logic fails? Also, in short, hetero marriage also has led to gay marriage, so if you oppose gay marriage AND use the slippery slope argument, then you had better be working to eliminate marriage altogether, since heterosexual marriage has led to gay marriage. In short, if you use the slippery slope argument, it fails, unless you agree that heterosexual marriage should be eliminated, because heterosexual marriage has led to polygamy many times, as well as gay marriage. That's why your "polygamy" argument fails.

We're not serial killers, just mass murderers. Well, maybe serial killers of dogs, I forgot about that one. I don't I think gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think we should allow pleasure marriages. Man this country would really take a turn for the better if we could get the pleasure marriage ball rolling.

Notice how the writer quickly transitions into an assertion: "However, if gay marriage is universally adopted, society must be prepared to accept other forms of marriage." His use of "however" is a hinge, and it's a pass-fake; it isn't qualified in a previous thought. Instead, he uses it as a platform to delve into his poorly-developed argument. I'll give the author this: His vocabulary is a cut above the average CT writer. However, he doesn't seem to understand basic logical reasoning, and his argument thusly falls somewhere between ignorance and bigotry. When will the editors of the CT squash some of this nonsense? Or at least ensure that their writers come from points of principled arguments rather than a complete ignorance of logical procedure or, for that matter, the basics of social construction?

If gay marriage is legalized, then schizophrenics should be allowed to marry multiple people, and people with alzheimers should be able to marry a new person every day without divorce, and people that hallucinate should be able to marry imaginary spiders.

[Anonymous at 9:05 am] was on point with his comment. I was definitely feeling the same way. In my opinion, this whole thing is about freedom. People should be free to do whatever they chose as long as it's not creating bad Karma.

"Marriage is a 'Christian religious institution'? Since when are marriage licenses are only given out just to Christians? That's news to me, and pretty odd, since my parents are married atheists. Anybody who says 'The Bible says homosexuality is a sin' is an ignorant moron. The Bible also says shaving, eating pork, working on the Sabbath, and swearing at your parents are crimes that you should be put to death for. It also condones slavery... So don't talk to me about the Bible being a source of morals.

Wow - what a brave editorial. Just what one would expect from a Southerner. A suggestion for next weeks column - something attacking H. Rap Brown as Exemplar In Chief of pushy black folk who evidently said bad things about some poor white woman whose only offense was that she believed that black people were inferior and in her country shouldn't be given equal rights. Maybe you could throw in something like liberals being required to prove that blacks were interchangeable with whites in order to justify equal treatment. I'm sure it would go down well in your state.

You don't once address the legal hurdles that gay couples face every day, though they are lawabiding contributing members of society (cops, doctors, congressmen, teachers, firefighters, etc.,etc.) The law of the state of Virginia (and 29 other states) today still allows gay people to be fired from those jobs solely on the basis their orientation. Those same doctors, firefighters, etc., and be denied from sitting in a restaurant or being served at business or buying a home in any area of the state by law. I'd be interested in hearing the conservative justification of that. Civil Unions vs Marriage is a legitimate debate, but in 42 states, gay people have neither option. My partner and I are among the 18,000 couples whose marriage was dissolved by plebicite in Prop 8 in California. Yet, I feel, that all legal contracts of union between two people should be called "Civil Unions" and the term "marriage" should only apply to religious rites of marriage. You nowhere address equality and you ignore, or are unaware of, the historical ancestors of your argument used to deny women the vote, property rights in marriage and employment rights. Of course man and women are different. Black people and white people are different from each other. I am different from you. But none of that justifies different treatment under the law -- that's why Justice wears her blindfold.

I read this article about twice and had difficulty finding the weight/strong catch in the argument. I don't see what men and women being proven findamentally the same has to do with my rights as an individual to marry the woman that I love...I don't understand how you can dismiss love as an argument and ignore completely the other (and really, real basis) of marriage which are legal rights to your partner and certain tax breaks--which, I would like to say, as an equal citizen of the United States, I should like to share with the person of my choice. Person.

How about we retire the idea that the homosexual argument is in any way similar to the race argument. Gender is biological; race is geographical.

Race is not 'geographical', it is based on genetics / DNA. If I move to Japan, my race won't become Asian.

This article is just another bunch of irrational bigotry posing as a thought out and reasoned opinion. Tell me, if two people in a relationship want to make that relationship more secure, permanent, and legally protected by getting married, how on Earth is that anyone's business but theirs? The only justification opponents of gay marriage have is their hateful and outdated book of lies and magical nonsense.

The genetics/DNA of race are a result of where the race was located geographically in history. If all humans had lived in only one region for millions of years, there would be no race, but there would still be gender. Snake, at least the article attempts to make a point. I'm not saying I agree with the article, but the only thing you are doing is making gay marriage proponents look bad by rambling without making a point.

There are 400 state benefits and over 1000 benefits at the federal level applied to marriage...it is not a religious institution anymore. By the way...accept the inevitable, in ten years every U.S. state will have legalized gay marriage or gay civil unions. Conservatives WILL lose. It is a fact. This article makes no sense, especially since in the face of criticizing the emotionally charged liberals and claiming to be objective, he shows clearly a regime of truths and does not provide any statistical analysis of the banes of single parenthood, gay couples, or non-traditional families. He has no argument. Obama, the product of a single parent household and a biracial family is a shining example of Gillispie's ignorance and misperception of non-traditional families.

This whole argument about the interchangeability of the sexes is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. I'm not trying to erase sex differences--I wouldn't be gay if I thought those differences didn't exist! However, the way civil marriage is set up in our legal code, sex differences mean very little. Most women have careers outside the home (and men are more and more staying home w/ children); and procreation (the most obvious result of sex differences) has never been a requirement for marriage, or grounds for divorce or annulment; the use of contraception w/in marriage is widespread and constitutionally protected; we even allow the infertile and the elderly marry! So I reject your claim that I must prove that the sexes are interchangeable in order for my family to be treated equally under the law—our laws already treat men and women as interchangeable (except of course when people need to find reasons to deny protection to gay families). I think the burden is on you to show why same sex couples and opposite sex couples should be treated differently under the law when they share the same goals family security), and face the same struggles (raising kids, taxes, end of life decision making, estate planning, etc.). Aside from religion, general disgust of gays, and the irrelevant argument about children (many gays couples have children, many straight couples do not), I haven’t heard any god reasons.

This whole argument about the interchangeability of the sexes is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. I'm not trying to erase sex differences--I wouldn't be gay if I thought those differences didn't exist! However, the way civil marriage is set up in our legal code, sex differences mean very little. Most women have careers outside the home (and men are more and more staying home w/ children); and procreation (the most obvious result of sex differences) has never been a requirement for marriage, or grounds for divorce or annulment; the use of contraception w/in marriage is widespread and constitutionally protected; we even allow the infertile and the elderly marry! So I reject your claim that I must prove that the sexes are interchangeable in order for my family to be treated equally under the law—our laws already treat men and women as interchangeable (except of course when people need to find reasons to deny protection to gay families). I think the burden is on you to show why same sex couples and opposite sex couples should be treated differently under the law when they share the same goals family security), and face the same struggles (raising kids, taxes, end of life decision making, estate planning, etc.). Aside from religion, general disgust of gays, and the irrelevant argument about children (many gays couples have children, many straight couples do not), I haven’t heard any god reasons.

Race and gender are exactly the same and we must all agree that separate is not equal. This is why I propose to end the horribly discriminatory practice of separate restrooms for men and women. We certainly wouldn't support different bathrooms for different races anymore and we must end the archaic practice of dividing our people upon imaginary lines.

Oh, and by the way, the reason why he believes the differences between men and women having something to do with this is because like most heterosexuals, he cannot conceive of a gay relationship functioning unlike a hetero relationship. There always has to be a man and woman in his mind. He does not understand that in a gay male or female relationship both partners are male or female and it is far more egalitarian than heterosexual relationships. Due to heteronormativity, however, heterosexuals are constantly trying to make the comparison out of their own ego.

On another note, I love that he elected Perez Hilton as the spokesman for the gay community. Let us use Rush Limbaugh for the conservatives...a man having gone through THREE divorces but talks about the sanctity of marriage. The conservative argument is always one cloaked in objectivism but is in actuality an emotionally charged point, if not more so than liberal arguments. They never answer the questions on the social and legal ramifications of marriage.

wow, who thought letting homos marry would be such a divisive issue? whats the problem with it anyway? if you don't wanna marry another dude then don't.

Evil liberals! Be more tolerant here. Keep in mind that Mr. Gillispie is, quite likely, a product of home schooling or some other sort of church indoctrination. It is not his fault. And eventually he will, hopefully, recover. After all, members of the organized religion can be educated, even if the process is disappointingly slow and may kill educators (e.g., Giordano Bruno). Even the most committed religious fanatics have by now accepted the fact that the Earth is not flat. They even acknowledge that our planet revolves around the sun (and not the other way around). And most of them recognize that the solar system is more than 6000 years old. Some of them even understand that evolving from other species is not necessarily an atheistic statement. Eventually, they will all understand that there is nothing evil about homosexuals and that they should be treated equally. So just be patient...

We can't just be patient, they need our help to move them along. These Bible thumpers can't see past their own nose. We need to keep on actively fighting for our future if we expect it to come any time soon.

this guy's a douche

By your reasoning, granting marriage licenses to the elderly, the infertile, those who choose not to have children, and those who use contraceptives also does not acurately depict equality. Why should they get the benefits of marriage if they're not popping out babies like they're supposed to!

She didn't articulate her opinion in an eloquent manner, and Hilton did call her the C-word.

I don't think gays should marry because it would totally change them. Everybody likes the gays because they are always so happy and jubilant and have such a positive outlook. Once they become married their attitudes will change and they won't be as likable. Stop gay marriage, I want them to stay happy

"I believe that there are people out there - of both sexes, of all ethnicities - that are better than me and are more deserving of certain opportunities than I ever will be." Taking that reasoning a step further it is possible than, that there are two males (who happen to be homosexual) and are more deserving of the opportunity to marry than you are. In fact not only are they more deserving but they can use sound logic when forming arguments.

They should try reverse psychology. "Oh, we can't get married? Fine, we didn't want to anyway. We're going to run around and be promiscuous." Then all the conservatives would wave their arms and go "Mandatory marriage for these lawless gay couples and their sinful lives! That will show them!" I bet $5 it would work.

I'll take that bet you idiot.