Much more to marriage and sex

The piece you printed "Marriage is the right way for sex" (Friday, Feb. 2) is a load of elephant hockey.

The first point that needs to get clarified is yes, you do have the ability to control your own happiness and that is not debatable. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to blame the devil and get out of self-responsibility.

In the third paragraph it was written, "There is, of course, nothing wrong with being single, and there are many people who live happy lives," which sort of negates the entire opinion piece. About half the people in this country who are single may not be totally happy, but that is not because they are not married.

The divorce rate in this country is 51 percent only because half the people in this country don't know how to be happy with themselves, let alone know how to make another person happy.

He tries to define marriage as equaling sex, which makes the whole union cheap and shallow. You might as well say that any two people who sleep together are married.

Brian Beardsley

Web information specialist, School of Nursing

Brandon Dennis makes the cheap assumption that single life is somehow debilitated in comparison to a marital lifestyle, and marriage leads to more happiness. That is simply foolish.

Dennis says that people are born with the innate desire for marriage. Ludicrous! If anything, sociology, anthropology, psychology and common sense show us that people are born with the innate desire for communication and networking. To say that that equates to a traditionally accepted religious institution is to completely disregard the huge contribution of social precedents and constructions.

I would also like to point out that marriage in and of itself does not lead to a better life for children. No sociologist would agree that marriage equals better childhood. A positive, nurturing atmosphere is preferable, but not marriage necessarily.

The author's assumption that casual sex is actually a cry for a marital union is a severe distortion. If people were seeking marriage, it would make more sense that sexual outings would probably be more monogamous. That is hardly a trend. Maybe casual sex is actually just a cry for enjoyment on a Saturday night. Or, maybe it is done as an act of true, genuine love?

The author quotes a "former groupie." Well, I can quote a million former wives and husbands who will talk about the stress and agony marriage can put someone through.

The way Dennis addresses casual sex as between "a guy and his girlfriend" disregards the choices of far too many people.

I find it interesting that the next source he quotes is from a Catholic sociologist. If it isn't obvious how a Catholic feels about this, I'm glad that he used this source to help point out the obvious.

Wade Scott Caves

Freshman, pre-major

Rants and Raves on the wrong sides

I usually find myself agreeing with most of the Rants & Raves in the opinion section. However, two of the four itemsin the Feb. 6 issue seemed to be on the opposite sides from where they should have been.

Why was the "Naked Sunday" exercise program at an Amsterdam gym worthy of a rant? What exactly is wrong with exercising naked? Especially in a country as socially liberal as Holland, why is this bad? Who is hurt by this proposal? There is a difference between nudity and pornography, and one does not necessarily have to involve the other.

More importantly, why does the mandatory inoculation of girlsagainst an STD get a rave? I would think thata governor completely ignoring freedom of choice and mandating that students get inoculated against something against their will and their parents' would justify a rant like little else. This is not a partisan comment: If Gov. Gregoire had donethat here, I'd be just as outraged. Inoculations are great, but theymust be voluntary, especially when concerning children.

The presence of mutually acceptable nudity in a socially liberal country is bad, yet forcing youngsters to take a drug whether they want to or not is good. Talk about confusion.

Cory Newell

Senior, drama