Gay marriage, revisited

Terrorism, racism, religion, and gay marriage make up a large portion of our newspaper headlines these days. In the debate of marriage there are so many viewpoints that I imagine many people opt to not even read the newest articles in our newspaper. I imagine this because some become bored reading the same dry arguments over and over again. The two ends of the marriage spectrum are made of people who either genuinely feel that gay couples have the unalienable right to marry, or that the nature of marriage as an institution does not allow for such a change. The beginning of Jack Grimes' column on March 16 looked promising because he promised not to "try to argue [his] own conviction" but simply help the opposing sides of the gay marriage issue "understand each other a little better."

Unfortunately I was disappointed when I finished because of the discovery that I had indeed read the same article that every conservative talking head has used since the beginning of gay liberation. What was different about this article was that objectiveness was promised as one of the major themes; a promise that undid itself at the end. Mr. Grimes' method of equalizing was replacing the terms "liberal" and "conservative" (terms that can be confused and interrelated, especially in topics of sexuality) with the more diplomatic "ally" and "realist," respectively. In the paragraph devoted to "allies," the motives of such activists are fighting for the good of others by giving that malnourished group "whatever they most deeply want" in order to love them.

This conclusion, about a seventh the length of the article, is short, sweet, and devoid of any mention of the moral values and convictions of those people who feel that gay and bisexual individuals deserve the right to marry. Mr. Grimes next examines the perspectives of the conservative, or "realist" not in a single paragraph, but he instead presents many points.

The author wanted to immediately clear up any misconception that conservatives only like ideals because they are old and established: indeed they like them because they are "true." This buzzword that casually defines the rest of Grimes' points is never defined: in his contexts the reader generally takes it to mean "correct," but also generally "positive, good," or "conform[ing] to the nature of reality." He uses human rights as the prime example of the last definition.

After happily plodding through the article at a friendly pace, Grimes removed the floor from under me and I plunged into a dark chasm of subjectivity. Being quite the acrophobic, I was not emotionally prepared for such a long fall into arguments that had been dismissed even by many "realists" in the past 10-15 years. Grimes stated as a fact that conservatives are opposed to gay marriage when "he discovers that gay marriage is indeed not true -- not conformable to the nature of reality."

In what small pamphlet on objectivity did Grimes read that the statement of an opinion become working grounds for an objective discussion of opposing arguments? He claims that marriage is not human invention, but the inherent "design" that only intends for men to "be" with a woman, and vice-versa. Is Grimes really talking about a contractual institution that unites two people together as a single unit in the eyes of the law, or is he talking about gay sex? What Grimes cannot outwardly say due to squeamishness or some moral obligation is that he essentially cannot comprehend why a male would prefer to receive anal intercourse from another male, or any other sex practice that is not heterosexual (and probably missionary).

Therefore, from this personal conclusion, he states that it must be wrong or "harmful" and realizing this makes him a "realist" and not "conservative sexual puritan." Jack Grimes' credibility as an objective author falls to pieces here. I tried throughout the article to suppress my knowledge that he writes every week a column on Christianity and its many facets, which end up being conservative in opinion. I believed originally that he would use his abilities as a debater and writer to show discrepancies in our views of liberals and conservatives. I thought that his conservative outlook probably would not make its way into the article.

Instead, he outwardly states the opinions that a religious conservative Christian has about the nature of marriage. The arguments and similes he uses to try and prove his point are inherently based in the opinion that our fundamental institutions are backed and supported by the one and only God, who protects and guides humans to the path that is most "right" and most "true." His opinions are never supported by evidence or even detailed explanation of why gay unions are unnatural, or why Scandinavia and Norway (a country in Scandinavia) have been morally destroyed by gay marriage.

The vague pronouns in his statements are a poor mask for his own views of a God that, among other things, created marriage for the benefit of everyone who was lucky enough to be born a normal heterosexual man or woman (the question of male/female marriage totally neglects the transgender community and the number of issues that stem from that point of view). They neglect and ignore the opinions of non-Christians from Atheists to Zoroastrians, the separation of Church and State in our government, and the scientific evidence of gay animals that raise young when given the opportunity. When Jack Grimes says "Realists believe that," or "gay marriage is not true," he is really saying "I believe that," and "I think that gay marriage is not true."

I will admit that I myself am an atheist liberal who sees marriage as a civil institution that should not bar its applicants based on concepts that stem from religious belief. I also admit that I am personally invested in the gay marriage decision as a gay man. I will also admit that ad hominem comes into play in my article. The truth is that I wrote this viewpoint with the intent of attacking the argument and not the author, until I realized that the argument was the author. His views were disguised behind sheets of objectivity, those of a traditional man who can not bring himself to say what Amber Madison always can: that "since sex is...a significant part of marriage...and [since] gays don't have "real" sex...gays should not be able to have real marriages."

Maybe Mr. Grimes should brush up on his basic male anatomy and learn about how when stimulated through the anus, the prostate gland (located at the base of the abdomen in front of the rectum) can elicit major orgasms in many men. Regardless, he at least knows that I and many others do not believe for one minute that his goals were ever objective in the creation of his article.

Joseph Alexiou is a sophomore majoring in History