Marriage in the United States was the primary topic discussed during the Campus Crossfire Debate, a political discussion hosted by Undergraduate Student Government last night.
The majority of the panelists, made up of representatives from the College Democrats, College Republicans, VISION and Catholic Newman Club, felt that marriage should be defined as a union between two consenting adults.
‘The definition of marriage will ultimately be decided by the majority of the people, as long as it is lawfully defined,’ President Mark Ingles of the College Democrats said. ‘But the majority is not always right.’
However, definitions of legal marriage ranged among the panelists.
‘If there’s two people that love each other, that want to spend the rest of their lives together, who want the benefits – that’s the definition of marriage to me,’ said Jessica Tucker, the president of VISION.
But Quinten Wise, the vice-chairman of the College Republicans, offered a different view of governmentally recognized marriage.
‘From a government standpoint, marriage is looked at as a result of subsidiaries given to legally married couples,’ he said. ‘The government plans on getting something in return from married men and women through their offspring, whether it be in political, financial or economic terms.’
In response to this view, Ingles compared the idea of ‘offspring governmental benefits’ to a traditional couple that is unable to reproduce.
‘The whole offspring idea is just bogus,’ he said. ‘In terms of that explanation, it means sterile couples and those that adopt cannot got married.’
This idea was quickly countered by Wise, who said that if a homosexual marriage were to become legal, other forms of marriage would eventually be legalized as well.
‘There is definitely a possibility of this law passing,’ he said. ‘If that happens, then soon people will be able to marry horses or have four partners in one relationship. That’s why it needs to focus on a man and a woman.’
However, Tucker felt that even if the law was modified to include different forms of marriage, it would still be beneficial to those fighting for LGBT equality rights.
‘I’ll admit, change is scary,’ she said. ‘But if we were to change how many adults were allowed in one marriage, it wouldn’t personally affect me and I’m sure it wouldn’t affect a lot of other people too. Many people can’t even handle being married to one other person, let alone four or five.’
However, Ingles felt that allowing homosexual marriage would not lead to any confusion of the law.
‘I don’t understand the slippery slope argument,’ he said. ‘Marriage between a gay couple is clear as day. We’re not marrying pigs, not marrying horses and polygamists need not apply.’
Josh Mocek, the co-president of the Catholic Newman Club, felt that the issue of gay marriage was one that will be looked at humorously in future years.
‘Why is this even an issue?’ he said. ‘Do we want people to live a life of sin, of happiness or of ideals? As long as the family is loving, it shouldn’t matter what sex the couple is.’
Although marriage in the U.S. took precedent, affirmative action, universal health care and the free market in China were also issues discussed by the panel.
