Kardashian, gay marriage unrelatable

By Emma Scott

This letter is a response to an Nov. 2 article titled “In days of divorce, gay marriage irrelevant no more.”

If you didn’t get a chance to read the article, “In days of divorce, gay marriage on sidelines no more,” let me summarize the introduction for you: Because Kim Kardashian’s marriage lasted 72 days, gay marriage should be legal.

Shew, this gay marriage debate has been going on for far too long. Thank goodness Kim Kardashian put an end to it. I’m glad everything is settled now.

Hold on, what?

The article continues to say, “to those of you who argue against gay marriage, behold the people who represent what you stand for.”

So, Kim Kardashian is the spokeswoman for all those against gay marriage? That’s a little insulting.

To think that any group would pick Kardashian to speak on an issue (other than how reality TV numbs our intellects) is absurd.

Let’s not insult those against gay marriage by having the audacity to honestly imply that this debate has anything at all to do with a reality TV star.

Even once I got through the introduction, the article’s main point — because heterosexuals keep getting divorced, homosexuals should be able to marry — does not make sense to me.

Because doctors keep making mistakes, should we allow more people to be doctors? I’m missing the relationship here.

As a Kernel reader, I’m just asking that complex and serious issues be treated with the respect (and word count) that they deserve.

Instead of oversimplifying either side, let’s have an actual discussion — reality TV show references optional.

Emma Scott is a biology and Spanish junior. Email opinions@kykernel.com.

Jordan Stapp says:

I think you did pretty good trying to stretch a tough example into making a point.

I personally believe that homosexual “marriage” shouldn’t be legal. BUT, what right does the State have to qualify what “marriage”, a religious institution, should be in the first place?
With all the tax breaks, legal rights etc afforded to married couples, how come the state is allowed to exclude everyone else from taking advantage of those same breaks? seems discriminatory. Any two (or more i suppose) individuals, whether they’re a couple, or just good friends, or find it mutually beneficial, should be able to enter into a “marriage” contract-either a generic or custom written contract, if they feel it best serves their desires, protects their rights, etc etc.

However, the push to legalize homosexual “marriage” seems less to be about ensuring that they have the same rights as any other married couple, and more about pushing those who would be opposed to homosexuality (religious institutions) into accepting homosexuality.

it should be left up to the churches, their congregations etc to decide for themselves whether they will recognize and bestow upon a couple the title of marriage. (catholic churches often still won’t allow marriages in the church between a catholic and non-catholic, jewish rabbi’s often refuse to marry jew and non-jew couples, etc)

I don’t think my contention that its pretty silly to not let authors comment on their articles is ridiculous.

You know it doesn’t cost much to be respectful, right?

Alexander L says:

Just because you may believe interracial marriage should be legal, does not mean it should. 

Tyler Hess says:

lol. The Kernel staff told me this; I don’t make the rules people. Your arguments are ridiculous considering I’m just trying to let her know what they told me when I commented on an article a few months ago. blahblahblah

I see absolutely no reason why Emma can’t participate in a healthy dialogue that stems from her contribution to the paper. The Kernel should be pleased as all get out that someone is writing, and that they are even handed, diplomatic, and adult about a contentious issue.

Not every controversial issue gets treated as well in the Kernel. It’d be good if the Kernel did its best to encourage level headed, articulate people to keep participating, instead of trying to silence them.

Jordan Stapp says:

I’d say that, often the articles in the Kernel are decent enough, but many of the topics and statements made are truly complicated and complex issues that are hard to encompass properly in a short article. I agree with the precept of your article that digging a little deeper into topics would well be worth the time and effort. The comments section are often where the real meat of an articles subject can be explored, and it can be an informative, lively (and entertaining) discussion.
I’m not sure why the Kernel discourages allowing those who submit opinion pieces (understandable perhaps in the “news” section), from participating in furthering the conversation-might want to ask for that “rule” in writing. ;-)

The doctor point is a little weak in that I really don’t feel like it is applicable to the issue at hand (civil rights, equality, separation of church and state). But lets run with it.

So the current pool of doctors is doing quite poorly and they make a bunch of mistakes. However, there is another group of people who might like to be doctors, but they are absolutely barred from entering the profession for inane reasons related to…. astrology. They’re all libras or something horrid like that. The only thing wrong with them is that they are libras. Nothing else.

However, by allowing the libras to try and study to become doctors, the pool of candidates for medical schools is expanded. And with a larger group of people applying to get in and become doctors, people who are libras but who are also awesome at being doctors can get in and become doctors. And while there are still bad doctors and maybe even bad libra doctors, that also means there is an opportunity for more good doctors, regardless of their star sign.

So another goofy comparison is made :) But hopefully this makes sense and you can kind of see why opening up the field might allow for more people to be better at it, whether its doctoring or marriage.

David Shepherd says:

The ‘straw man’ fallacy according Wikipedia (parenthesis
mine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man:
1. Person A has position X (e.g. opposition to gay marriage).
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X (e.g. opposition to gay marriage) and instead presents the superficially similar position Y (e.g. proposing heterosexual relationships are, in contrast, life-long). Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in
several ways, including:
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly (Kim Kardashian, or unpopular hard-line conservative) as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments (or mistakes) — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
However, Kim Kardashian is not a spokesperson for heterosexual marriages. Her show-biz marriage is not representative of those who oppose gay marriage. On the contrary, she is a staunch advocate for gays: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf9tcxHnVds

Guess what? Citing Kim Kardashian’s marriage woes is a ‘Straw man’ fallacy.

Elliott Heimel says:

Unconditional Love..!! Some of this will end up in my blog..thanks…http://marriageinfo.net

Eli Edwards says:

The author didn’t mention her religious beliefs once in the article.  While you certainly make a valid point, it seems irrelevant here.  She doesn’t even condemn gay marriage in this article.  She simply asks the debate be taken more seriously than including a discussion centered around the marriage of Kim Kardashian.

Eli Edwards says:

I think you are missing the point of Ms. Scott’s article. She is not writing to give an opinion either way about gay marriage. She is merely saying the debate over this important issue should be treated with more respect than giving one side a spokesperson that is not truly representative, and as ridiculous as Kim Kardashian.

As far as her logic, her essay is formatted in the following manner: (1) summary of previous article, (2) commentary on ridiculousness of previous article, (3) quote from previous article, (4) commentary on absurdity of quote from previous article, (5) main point of previous article, (6) comparison to show insensibility of main point of previous article, (7) call to action. This logic makes a lot of sense to me. It is probably the most well structured Letter to the Editor that I have read in a while.

Her doctor comparison that you cannot find sense in makes perfect sense to me because it is structurally parallel. The previous author basically said heterosexuals are not doing something right (by standards of divorce), so we should let homosexuals give it a try. Ms. Scott applied the same logic to see if it makes sense that because doctors are not doing something right (by standards of mistakes), we should let others give it a try. I would not consider this comparison inane. Perhaps your failure to see the merit in Ms. Scott’s comparison is similar to her failure to see the logic in the article she is responding to. You are criticizing her for doing something that you, yourself are doing in your comments.

Also Mr. Hess, your points 1 and 2 are contradictory. The Kernel wants to give a voice to people but doesn’t want authors to defend their articles? I believe that would be taking away their voice.

Tyler Hess says:

1. The Kernel usually asks that authors don’t online comment on their own articles. Idk why, but they told me that recently.
2. Yea, almost all of the articles in the Kernel could be done better. Check the two other rash writings in today’s paper. One is a christian bantering about how atheism is based on myth. The other mentions how pregnant women shouldn’t come to protests. Students on this campus often do not put out high quality writing all the time. But the Kernel is still right to publish it since it gives voice to people, and there really isn’t much being submitted. 
3. I would recommend that if you critique other people’s writing about it’s lack of clear argumentation, that you should actually provide some kind of argument and structure yourself. For example, the inane comparison to doctors making mistakes – as if that’s equivalent to a profitable divorce..
I agree that the previous writings could have been better written. But bantering in short rhetorical sentences is not really the way to “have an actual discussion.”

Emma Scott says:

This is a clearly expressed point that makes sense.  I’m not slamming gay marriage; I’m just asking for an article that takes this point a little bit more seriously and argues it in a clearer fashion.  Your line of argument I think would make a great article.  Thanks for the input.

Anonymous says:

The ultimate point of your LTTE may carry some weight but the route you choose to take in getting to it is shaky, at best. While it may be true that it’s inappropriate to assert that KK represents all those who are against gay marriage, you’re missing the point. It’s not that she speaks for those against gay marriage, it’s that one of the most basic canons of the anti-gay marriage movement is that allowing gay marriage will undermine the stability/sanctity/what have you of traditional marriage. The point is if that’s an actual concern, what do we do about marriages such as KK’s? It’s not as if these types of ridiculous displays happen only in the celebrity world; they happen every day. Look at the bigger picture. 

Hind Kasem says:

just because you may believe same sex marriage should be illegal, does not mean it should.
just because your religion says homosexuality is a sin, does not mean anyone cares or your beliefs matter.

Anonymous says:

Who?