Subscribe to Fourth Estate Watch our YouTube Channel Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook

Letters to the editor: In response to ‘Compassion creates bias for gay marriage’

April 24, 2013
Filed under Opinion

Response 1:

By: Rory Cowart

President of the Sexuality and Gender Alliance

In response to Mr. Dorn’s article, I must wholeheartedly disagree. Not only because the study that he cited promoting the idea that same-sex parents are harmful to their children was completely unfounded due to researchers’ errors, bias and incredibly small sample size, but on overall principle.

Marriage, as Erik Dorn put it, was between one man and one woman. However, that isn’t the traditional form of marriage. Being that the now accepted traditional form of marriage is monogamous and between a heterosexual couple means that the concept of traditional marriage has already changed.

It was also stated in the beginning of the article that the article was not anti-gay, but that’s apparently not true. Saying one group of people doesn’t deserve equal rights and fair treatment with no proof, besides a poorly done study, is in fact anti-gay. I’m rather curious as to where Dorn gets the idea that people wanting to marry their same–sex partners is a misunderstood sense of fairness.

If a person in the LGBTQ community isn’t receiving the same treatment, opportunities and rights as someone who is heterosexual (if this is considered fair), I don’t think those advocating for the marriage rights of the LGBTQ community have a misunderstood sense of fairness. This isn’t about getting special treatment, but the basic and equal treatment that is given to all others.

Finally, college is a place for ideas to thrive, grow and be shared, but when they put down, marginalize and oppress a group of people, then, of course, negative labels will fly toward those who think that way. What impact, if at all Mr. Dorn, will two men or two women getting married have on you? Why is it any of your concern?

Response 2:

By: Michael Witzeling

Senior Mathematics Major

Which version of traditional marriage are we talking about?  Is it the one in Genesis, where Abraham marries his sister?  Deuteronomy, where an unmarried virgin’s rapist is allowed to marry his victim if he pays 50 shekels of silver?  In Chronicles, where King David had eight wives? Is that the traditional marriage we’re talking about?  Or do we mean to take after King Solomon, who had approximately 700 wives?

Marriage is not a Bible-exclusive idea, as the Native American tribes throughout the U.S. have plenty of their own marriage traditions, and more than a few of these include what you would define as gay marriage.  They’ve been around here for much longer than we have.

Barring gays from marrying is simply illegal, according to the 14th amendment.  Married couples have access to rights that unmarried couples do not, and not letting gays have access to these rights because your superstitions say gays are an abomination is silly.  It’s discrimination, plain and simple.  Marriage is not something that was invented by the Bible, and it shouldn’t be defined by the Bible.

This country was founded on a philosophy of separation of church and state. Please, give me a reason why two women who love each other shouldn’t be able to have the benefits of marriage with some argument that doesn’t boil down to “because the Bible says so.”  Your Bible isn’t the foundation of this country, nor should it be.

As for your study, Mark Regnerus took funds from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley foundation, both conservative groups, and the director of Witherspoon was highly involved with the project, according to emails released by the University of Texas.  This wasn’t an unbiased study.

You might also want to Google “Slippery Slope Fallacy.”