Breakdown and Critique of The Daily Reveille’s Opinion Article, “Traditional Marriage is Dead” by Parker Cramer, Tuesday, 26 March, 2013:
I think it’s interesting this person titles the article, “Traditional Marriage is Dead,” when the majority of the planet (yes, there are people in the world outside of the United States) still recognize marriage as a principle, significant, and religious covenant, still have strong commitments to the sanctity of the traditional family, and even go as far as incriminating homosexual behavior. Marriage and family principles are still strong in the world, and the United States is one of only a small number of nations that would even consider this “opinion” paper to represent the majority of the constituents’ own opinions. So, that is just to add a slight bit of perspective as to relevancy of the overall subject.
Now, I am not going to express my own opinions on gay marriage, civil unions, and/or etc. because that is not why I am writing this. All I will say is that God loves lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or whatever else you choose to label yourself, but I believe that marriage is a State’s right under the Constitution of the United States (as it should be), which means the individual states will choose to have their own respective definitions of marriage made into law, and that the residents of those states will abide by them, elect representatives avowed to change them, or get the hell out (as is the scenario with any legal dispute). Again, that is not the concern for my personal disgust with this article. It is the breakdown and criticism of your flawed, ignorant, and remarkably non-factual logic behind your misguided statements about marriage’s supposed irrelevancy, which will be outlined below.
“I believe the decline in traditional marriage can primarily be traced to economic factors.”
Oh, boy, here we go…
“When our parents and grandparents were getting married, the job market was arguably better. People could bank on working for the same company for their entire careers.”
You could seriously not be any more unspecific. I could say the same thing about the nineties (which was in OUR lifetime too, mind you), the same about the fifties, and the exact opposite about the late
seventies. Are you trying to tell me that this is a generational issue and has nothing to do with the economy’s historically accurate trend of rising and falling? Have you not taken just one economics class in your life?
“Today, America faces a broken education system and an influx of highly educated immigrants. The language barrier may be the only thing keeping under-qualified Americans in the job market over more qualified foreigners.”
The language barrier? Really? Lest we forget that the majority of immigrants entering our country are doing so illegally, and that a significantly greater barrier exists in it being illegal to hire an
undocumented, illegal-alien.
And if there is such a resounding number of “under-qualified Americans” holding jobs, why on earth are we not hiring the 22 million AMERICANS who are either unemployed, or are “UNDER-employed” (or in simpler terms, “OVER-qualified” for their current positions)?
“Nobody works for the same company his or her entire career. The American dream consists of odd job after odd job on our way to destiny and prosperity.”
I have a gut-feeling that our definitions of the American Dream are going to be about as good a match as Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries..“Essentially, our generation can no longer bank on the financial safety previous generations enjoyed.”
I dare you to call a baby boomer and ask them how their generation feels about social security, and if they are comfortable enough to “bank on [its’] financial safety.”
“We can barely take care of ourselves, if at all. Why then, in all good conscience, would we voluntarily sign up to provide not only for ourselves, but in a partnership with an equally disadvantaged other?”
Speak for yourself! And who is this “We” you refer to?
I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of people: big business employees, small business owners, and the likes of many other middle-class workers who are concerned with nothing more than doing just that! And if they aren’t effectively doing so already, they would be if it had not been for certain over-reaches of government!
And, giving you the hypothetical benefit of the doubt here, if we can “barely manage to take care of ourselves,” why on earth do we have entitlements that are specifically designed to “take care” of the
over 100 million welfare recipients? Shouldn’t we, like marriage as you say, consider it silly to take care “an equally disadvantaged other?”
“Please remember to safely fasten your oxygen mask before assisting others. We find ourselves amid a plane crash. Maybe when things get better, traditional marriage numbers will go back up.”
I’m going to be 100% honest with you and just say that I am completely missing what this metaphor was supposed to represent… We’re on a plane crash? And you want me to put on my oxygen mask before I unbuckle myself and help everyone else put on their oxygen masks before they unbuckle too?
Maybe you’re just a frequent flyer, and that’s some mile-high humor, because I don’t fly much, and I’m pretty sure I missed your point..“As far as gay marriage goes, Americans are beginning to recognize the ignorance behind the propaganda rhetoric. There is no right and wrong, no moral authority, just a marginalized group that desires the same rights the rest of us enjoy.”
“As far as gay marriage goes, Americans are beginning to recognize the ignorance behind the propaganda rhetoric. There is no right and wrong, no moral authority, just a marginalized group that desires the same rights the rest of us enjoy.”
There is no right and wrong? No moral authority? Seriously?
You do realize that Relativism is a paradox in and of itself, right? You believe that there is no right and wrong, no moral authority, and no absolute truth? The way you, and hardline left-wingers, throw this
around and subject everyone to it all the time really makes it seem like this is some kind of absolute truth we’re all supposed to live accordingly to. There cannot be absolute truth in the belief that there
isn’t one at all. Do you at least see the contradiction?
And are laws not put in place to uphold societal moral values? Are they not to protect the rights of those who live in abstinence of violation of these? A world without moral authority is a world without laws, and I presume you to at least be somewhat capable of realizing this is simply irrational.
“Legislation should not be based on any religious text, plain and simple. It’s what the Founding Fathers intended and a principle we’ve managed to bastardize.
Keep the government out of the bedroom — put it into schools instead.”
Okay, see! Now I’m really lost… Is this an opinion on the fall of traditional marriage, as was suggested by the title? Is it a philosophy paper? Is this an advocacy speech for greater funding of public education, as implied by the remarks of the last line? Or is this simply a rambling, babbling, unorganized attempt to throw around an ill-considered argument for policies that the author, as usual, doesn’t even offer a solution to?
I’m not going to get into religion, the founding fathers’ intentions, and the constitution, but I could. That is a subject to be addressed separately and on a different occasion. I just want everyone to see that this is precisely the kind of nonsense we get from the media every day. Isn’t it time our media outlets started using facts and logic, addressing real problems, and offering reasonable solutions?
And before you get all, “Shut up, Destin! It’s just an Opinion Article,” I’d just like to say that we all know that this very well could have been a Cover Story for The Daily Reveille any day of the week. It’s bitterly biased, hardly factual, and couldn’t pass a lie detector test; such is the case for many of the other articles published by this paper, and the likes of many others. The public, specifically the students of
Louisiana State University, deserve better. As a paper that serves to inform the thousands of students that grace our beautiful campus every day, you should be held to a higher standard. The author,
recognized by the Reveille as an Editor, has the responsibility in this position to supply the readers with articles that meet the criteria mentioned above. But in the end, and in the author’s own words, “there is no right and wrong, no moral authority.” So, doesn’t that make every “Cover Story” an “Opinion Article” anyway?
Destin R. Sensky
Agricultural Business Sophomore
Ambassador of LSU College Republicans
