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.