Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  campustules

Cornell College Republicans Bravely Take Gay Marriage Debate To The Place Of Man-Animal Unions

If you attend an ivy league school, the only thing more exciting than watching the lax boys practice with their sticks than watching your campus political parties wage war with each other, as if their opinions mattered. At last night’s “social issues” debate between Cornell Democrats and the Cornell Republicans, gay marriage was among the hot topics. Because this is The View, and euphemisms pass for logic.

The Cornell Daily Sun clues us in on the fun:

Republican Alex Pruce ’13 argued that because marriage is not “necessarily a religious institution as much as one of necessity to propagate society,” gay marriage does not “serve the interests of society.” Throughout the debate, the Republicans cited tradition as the platform for their arguments. “Historically, we’ve only had heterosexual marriages, but is it a right to have a homosexual marriage? No. We cannot have bestial marriages. We cannot have a marriage to oneself,” Pruce said. “There is no fundamental right to homosexual marriage.”

That’s a new one!: No gay marriage because it’ll lead to single-person marriage, with wedding ceremonies staged between a groom and a mirror. From there, society will crumble, and we’ll be living in The Road. Or not, chime in the college Dems. With curse words!

Democrat Tony Montgomery ’13 applied Pruce’s rationale to other situations. “Marriage is an old and sacred institution, but guess what? So was slavery,” Montgomery said. “If we didn’t let black people get married, we’d save costs there, too.” While Republicans said marriage is necessary to continue society, Montgomery responded that if reproduction is the sole purpose of marriage, “then infertile couples should not be allowed to marry.”

Democrat Terry Moynihan ’11 encouraged audience members to challenge the past. “The argument that we should keep marriage defined the way it is is preposterous. We need a federal overturning of state precedents,” he said. However, Republicans said that since marriage is a public act, it is necessary to consider society as a whole in deciding to recognize gay marriage.

The two sides further questioned whether some agencies should prohibit gay couples from adoption. “Right now in the U.S., there are 100,000 children waiting to be adopted,” Montgomery said. “There are a shit ton of kids out there, and the problem is trying to place them. When we’re putting these restrictions on who can adopt who, we’re hurting society.”

Then the two sides went back and forth about who gets to tell women whether they must be forced to have a child or not, and I grew sleepy sleeps.

By:           JD
On:           Apr 8, 2011
Tagged: , ,

  • 21 Comments
    • Alex Pruce
      Alex Pruce

      I did not say that gay marriage was the same as bestial marriage. That is not my personal view, and I am appalled by that insinuation in the article. The Sun writers took things that were said during the debate and turned them into a phrase which is not true. I am pro-gay rights and clarified that I am in favor of civil unions for homosexuals and heterosexuals during the course of the debate.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wyatt
      Wyatt

      STFU Alex. Even IF they got your bestial/human marriage comparisons were misconstrued, your line of thinking is incredibly flawed and illogical, which is even more disgusting knowing you attend an Ivy League school.

      “does not “serve the interests of society.”?

      Please, explain the interests of society.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The sane Francis
      The sane Francis

      Being for civil unions is still be against equality. As for serving the interests of society, anti-gay actions are 100% socially destructive so that line of thinking fails. Lastly, traditional marriage in no way has any connection to what marriage is according to most today. 3 strikes and you’re out.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GetBalance
      GetBalance

      Another debate where silly meets stupid.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      @Alex Pruce: Alex, have you ever seen the certificate that is issued by the governing body of the county or city when two people wish to get married? It says “marriage certificate” or marriage license. It doesn’t say civil union license.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      @Alex Pruce: Alex, have you ever seen the certificate that is issued by the governing body of the county or city when two people wish to get married? It says “marriage certificate” or marriage license. It doesn’t say civil union license.

      Since my parents are past child bearing years, does that mean they should no longer allowed to be married? Should my dearest friend in the world who cannot have children not be allowed to be married to her husband? Should my other friend who doesn’t want to have children be told her 33 year marriage is invalid?

      Grow up and learn something on your own – not talking points pushed by religious institutions or right wing thugs.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lon
      Lon

      “as much as one of necessity to propagate society,”
      What a dumb argument. Humans will have sex and propagate society all on their own without marriage. Heterosexuals don’t need to be married to live together and raise children. It sure helps, but it isn’t a necessity, as claimed.
      What a sad individual.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      It’s nice to see the next generation of Republican idiots are on the way, what an utterly incoherent and dumb argument. “Serve the interest of society,” what the hell does that mean?

      Apr 9, 2011 at 12:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jay P
      Jay P

      I love that liberals curse. Cursing makes me happy…it warms my heart actually. lol Just makes people seem human.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 1:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      I’m all for Republicans marrying their fellow pigs.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      I love how they come in, say their peace, and bounce. Alex, you aren’t pro gay rights if you are anti gay marriage. End of story.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @Shannon1981: “I love how they come in, say their peace, and bounce.”

      LOL, I know, right?

      Apr 9, 2011 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @The sane Francis: This.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Call it “marriage,” “civil union,” “WTF did I Just Agree To?,” or “Precursor to divorce court,” — or whatever— UNTIL same-sex couples get the same exact rights as opposite-sex couples, we don’t have “marriage equality.”

      Apr 9, 2011 at 6:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Alex Pruce: for the record Alex, no one gives a rat’s behind what you think. And on the “I support gay rights” claim, let’s just say you’re delusional about that, even for a college soph. But don’t worry. It gets better.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 6:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Alex Pruce: So, do you support the Republican platform that says LGB singles or couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt?

      Let me make a disctinction you won’t understand until you’re a Senior (or maybe a senior citizen): supporting “gay rights” isn’t the same as supporting “equal rights” whether that applies to employment, adoption, marriage, military service, housing, etc.

      I realize that concept is a little too complex for you to grasp, but give it a try.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      While Republicans said marriage is necessary to continue society, Montgomery responded that if reproduction is the sole purpose of marriage, “then infertile couples should not be allowed to marry.” Absolute gold, that statement shoots the shit out of about half the “reasons” the frightwing lunatics state for opposing Gay marriage……..

      @Jeffree: In the repugnatican handbook it states if you ever encounter any combination of the words “Gay” “equal” or “rights” you need to immediatley denounce it! :p

      @Alex Pruce: How did you stumble onto Queerty St.? You do know this is a Gay Site *shudders*

      Apr 9, 2011 at 8:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      @TheRealAdam: can’t spend too much time on a gay site, you see. Might make em into one of us.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 9:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 15 · justiceontherocks wrote, “@Alex Pruce: for the record Alex, no one gives a rat’s behind what you think.”

      … but we should care about whether he was quoted correctly. You can’t have any sort of sensible discussion when people make up facts to fit their agendas (think of Republicans versus global warming). Alex has a legitimate reason to complain if he was in fact misquoted – if a person says something rather dumb, at least criticize the guy for what he actually said and meant, not something else, and don’t turn a local matter into international news when it is not really newsworthy.

      During a debate, people sometimes say something that isn’t quite what they intended and that subsequently gets clarified. It is not appropriate to pull mis-statements that were almost immediately corrected out of context to make someone look dumb, particularly when it was a debate between students – you don’t improve if you don’t push your limits and if you push your limits, you are going to make mistakes. A college should be safe place to do that. He or she can learn how to make every utterance bullet proof (the traditional, “Let me say this about that”) if he/she subsequently decides on a career in politics.

      You’ve surely hear someone say, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” The same applies here – poorly worded statements made on campus should stay on campus.

      Apr 10, 2011 at 12:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      Hey I go to Cornell University (College is actually another school) so I’m gonna throw an opinion in.

      The things that were said were for the sake of a Debate on campus where the skills and formality of debate are more important than the message. That being said I think debate for the sake of debate was a foolish choice made by both organizations. Instead of focusing on winning the debate or having the appropriate number of counter-arguments it seems the Republicans should have stuck with a true message that was logically, academically, & morally sound. Instead some of the participants decided to use base & demeaning arguments to fill their allotted time and said things they regret or didn’t really mean.

      Apr 10, 2011 at 8:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      @Nick: I hope they didn’t really mean the things they said, but if you listen to Republicans in office when they talk about gays and abortion, they say some of the most morally bankrupt, reprehensible, ignorant things. So, if these debaters are a reflection of that, I don’t doubt for a second that they meant what they said. Thanks for the perspective.

      Apr 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.