RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceWhen students vote in the USG election this weekend, they will encounter two opposing referenda. The first, initiated by Jacob Candelaria '09, would require the USG to ask the Board of Trustees to file an amicus brief opposing California's ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Wow, way to think outside the Orange Bubble, Daily Prince staff. It's absurd to assert that the University as a whole is not affected by Proposition 8. Everyone in this country is affected when a civil liberty is denied to some of its citizens. Besides, even if you genuinely believe that the entirety of Princeton is unaffected, that is no reason to wash your hands of an issue. We need to fight this tendency to be so fiercely inward-looking. This institution holds so much sway--we need to harness our clout and intellectual power for the common good. Your argument about expertise is silly; the administrators of this university are brilliant, socially and politically aware individuals, and are certainly in a position to make an educated statement about the issue, especially when it reflects the will and passion of the student body. It's time for Princeton to man up and make a statement, realizing that we're all in this struggle for equality together.
You are correct in asserting that everyone is affected by a re-definition of marriage. However, we are far from reaching consensus on this issue. What you are essentially advocating is that the University takes *your* side of the issue.
i fail to understand why so many intelligent people still oppose same-sex marriage. i am straight (and somewhat older...) but it just seems like a no-brainer to me. the fundamental aspects of a gay relationship are exactly the same as a heterosexual relationship, and i know plenty of gay people who are great parents. i'm not sure what the hold up is besides that people aren't willing to rethink the norms that they grew up with even when it is perfectly reasonable and logical to do so.
then again, i am not sure if it's the place of the university administration to be making far-reaching statements. leave it to the individual students and faculty members to make up their own minds!
"Everyone in this country is affected when a civil liberty is denied to some of its citizens."
"It's time for Princeton to man up and make a statement, realizing that we're all in this struggle for equality together."
See that's the problem, just turn anything you want into a "civil liberties" or "equal rights" issue. The idea being that only people against "equal rights" would be against it. I don't know of anybody who is against "civil liberties" or "equal rights". The question is what is a right and what is not a right.
@@tiger'09
it seems to me like it's a matter of equal rights - straight people can get married, gay people can't. that's certainly not equal and i don't think most gay marriage opponents would argue with that fact.
the question, rather, is should gay people have the same rights as straight people. i guess a lot of people would say no because they think homosexuality is 'messed up' or that gay people are bad parents.
i think gays should have equal rights though - seems kind of unfair to discriminate.
"it seems to me like it's a matter of equal rights - straight people can get married, gay people can't."
nobody looks at the sexual orientation of the man and woman when allowing them to get married.
"that's certainly not equal"
It's also not "equal" that I can't marry two other people at the same time. It's also not "equal" that I can't marry myself. It's also not "equal" that I can't marry a corporation. Liberals use "equal" to push their Global Socialist equal MISERY agenda just like neoconservatives shout "freedom" for their Imperialist agenda.
"and i don't think most gay marriage opponents would argue with that fact."
1. is it even a "fact"?
2. i just argued with it anyway.
"the question, rather, is should gay people have the same rights as straight people. i guess a lot of people would say no because they think homosexuality is 'messed up' or that gay people are bad parents."
Let's poke at some more straw men, shall we? It has nothing to do with whether or not anything is "messed up".
"i think gays should have equal rights though - seems kind of unfair to discriminate."
More of that "equal rights" nonsense. Like anybody is against "equal rights". That's no different than shouting "freedom" every time you want to conquer another country like Iraq or Afghanistan. Only people who hate freedom would be against those conquests, right?
"nobody looks at the sexual orientation of the man and woman when allowing them to get married."
that's because marriage currently presumes heterosexuality -- that is, it's so hegemonic it need not even be named. that is, the assumptions are so deep, that hetero-normative people like yourself don't even see the privilege of the unmarked category. but the history of race and sex in america should teach us, if anything, about the dominance of the unmarked majority.
"that's because marriage currently presumes heterosexuality"
That's because heterosexuality presumes the ability to make babies. Babies are future taxpayers (the only reason Democrats care) and soldiers (the only reason Republicans care) for the government. Without taxpayers or soldiers the current form of government could not exist. The government is investing in its own future by creating favorable conditions (special tax breaks, etc.) for making babies, and those conditions go by the name "marriage". The government couldn't care less about anything else. It really does come down to who can make babies and who can't.
@@comeonnow
good thing gays are just as good at raising children as straight people. if that's all marriage is about, they should have let gay people get married a long time ago!
American Psychological Assoication:
"Patterson's and others' findings that good parenting, not a parent's sexual orientation, leads to mentally healthy children may not surprise many psychologists. What may be more surprising is the finding that children of same-sex couples seem to be thriving, though they live in a world that is often unaccepting of their parents."
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html