Tuesday, March 17, 1998
Same-sex marriages not a moral issue
This is in response to Steve Markle's letter on March 4 concerning same-sex marriages. Markle appears to follow the logical steps of deductive reasoning by beginning with two broad statements and deriving a conclusion that logically follows.
However, one must remember that the truth of the conclusion is
dependent upon sound premises, which Markle clearly does not have.
His argument is this: If a "right" that takes away the
rights of other people is not a right, and if same-sex marriages
take away the rights of other people, then same-sex marriage is
not a right.
His statement that same-sex marriages would "destroy"
the rights of religious people because they are forced against
their religious beliefs is not only false, it is absurd.
How would same-sex marriages take away the freedom of religious
groups to believe that marriage should be between one man and
one woman? Markle is certainly free to believe whatever he wants
to believe, as is everyone else. No one's rights are being violated
here.
Markle has no logical argument against same-sex marriages, and
therefore resorts to personal opinion, sarcasm and accusations
to make his point.
Instead of clouding the issue, he should admit that there is no
legal basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marriage.
It's not a religious or moral issue, it's an issue of equality.
Kim Deitz
senior-kinesiology
Marriage more than a legal document
You know, it's funny how every year the letters to the editor are riddled with right-wing crud right before spring break, smack dab in the middle of midterms. It's almost as if this is planned to minimize the amount of time those with opposing arguments have to respond.
I am speaking, of course, to Steve Markle and Ryan Drake and their
attempts to explain to us just what, exactly, our rights are when
it comes to marriage and other personal matters.
First, Markle's letter on March 4 began with the obvious argument
that if one person's "rights' violate another person's "rights"
then that first person's "rights" aren't really right
at all. OK, fine. He then went on to try and tell us that same-sex
marriages would violate the rights of "religious" people
who believe that this is wrong.
How is the marriage of two consenting adults anyone's business
but their own? They may not be married in the eyes of your GOD
but they can still be married in the eyes of the state. How does
this violate anyone's "rights?" And what about the rights
of those who want to get married?
And to Drake's letter on March 4 that says that marriage is, in
fact, not a right. What he said was "marriage is a privilege
granted by state governments to whoever THEY choose."
So in other words, in the land of the free and the home of the
brave, it is up to the state to dictate who should and should
not get married. Funny, I thought we lived in America.
Drake tries to invoke the old "They just want to get married
for the medical benefits" argument, citing a few amusingly
anecdotal and oh-so-clever situations that illustrate the absurdity
of such an arrangement. Of course I don't suppose they'd get married
for love.
Both gentlemen fail to recognize that we all have the right to
be with whoever we want and a legally binding contract of marriage
is more than just a legal document. It is a celebratory declaration
of the fact that you want to grow old with someone.
Now of course some people, both gay and straight, will abuse the
sanctity of marriage. But if these are truly your opinions, then
it is you who have lost faith in marriage and have forgotten the
true meaning of it.
David Kilian
senior-biology
NCAA tournament coverage lacking
I have one thing to say: MARCH MADNESS! After an intense week of NCAA tournament games, I was looking forward to reading about the Cinderella stories in The Daily Collegian yesterday morning.
I was disappointed to look and find only the box scores. I bet
that if you asked many students what they did during break, they
will say that they watched the tournament games.
From Thursday to Sunday, 48 games were played. Many people fill
out the tournament brackets for all kinds of pools and probably
most of them were very disappointed in their choices. Although
they may not have picked the winning teams, they did get a chance
to see some of the most exciting games in tournament history.
Ten teams won that were seeded lower than their opponents, including
Valparaiso, who won their first NCAA tournament game in the history
of the school. Ten or more games were won in the last minute of
the game by less than three points! To a basketball fan, this
is a dream!
Many teams were upset in games that they thought they would win
easily. Teams such as No. 3 South Carolina were defeated by No.
14 Richmond. And not to mention the favored champs UNC. They found
themselves in a tough battle between their own affiliated school,
UNC-Charlotte. What a game that was!
So if you didn't want to write about the games like this, you
could have written about the public interest parts of the tournament.
For example, No. 8 Rhode Island upset No. 1-seed Kansas, which
was an event in itself, but the coach of Rhode Island is also
the father of the assistant coach from Valparaiso!
Not only that, but the coach of Valparaiso is the father of the
star on his own team. His son, Bryce Drew, won the game at the
buzzer by an amazing three-point shot!
If you watched the games like I did, then you were also probably
disappointed in lack of coverage. The games are going to continue
in the Sweet 16 round on Thursday.
I will eagerly be awaiting the Collegian on Friday morning to
see the coverage, or lack there of, of the games the night before.
There are people who are interested in sports news other than
just that of the Penn State teams.
Elisabeth Derewitz
sophomore-broadcast journalism
