Anti-gay marriage rally in Boston

College_geek

Woman on Top
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Posts
10,759
I read in my college newspaper today an article from the Associated Press about a rally against gay marriage that took place in Boston. Apparently some of the people were holding signs that said things like "Let the people vote", "Marriage, ancient, sacred", and "Homosexuality is not normal".

Now, after I got over my outrage at such a thing, it got me thinking. Where have these people been for the last few decades? I started to chuckle a bit at what these signs said.

"Let the people vote": Well, according to that AFA poll (hahaha), even if there was a vote for it, it seems that there would be a good chance that it would go through for gay marriages. Also, as much as I like the people to have a say when something that is restricting is place on us (umm...how about the Patriot Act?), but to allow everyone to decide what is constitutional? Yeesh, that's what the judges are for anyway. I also thought, "hey, if the people were allowed to vote back a century or so ago, they probably would've voted that black people 'aren't a whole person' and don't have the same rights as white people, and as we all know, that is definitely not constitutional."

"Marriage, ancient, sacred": Sure marriage is ancient, but over the last century or so, I don't think it's so sacred anymore, and gay marriages wouldn't really ruin its "sacredness" any more than it already is. Marriage is pretty much a joke to most people now, since divorce rates are 50% and such. So many married couples don't even last one year. It's sad. That's sacred? Like someone said on this board not too long ago, it would probably decrease the divorce rate some, if same-sex couples were allowed to wed.

"Homosexuality is not normal": Where have they been in the last 20 years? In a cave? Homosexuality and bisexuality is a very normal thing, as people who had been hiding it for years finally feel it's safe to come out about it, and from a media point of view it has become a normal and very common thing. Do these people think that there weren't homosexual people centuries ago? Oy.

Okay, that's all I have to say for now. I just felt the urge to write down my thoughts. Feel free to ignore me. :)
 
Zergplex Says

College_geek said:
I read in my college newspaper today an article from the Associated Press about a rally against gay marriage that took place in Boston. Apparently some of the people were holding signs that said things like "Let the people vote", "Marriage, ancient, sacred", and "Homosexuality is not normal".

Now, after I got over my outrage at such a thing, it got me thinking. Where have these people been for the last few decades? I started to chuckle a bit at what these signs said.

"Let the people vote": Well, according to that AFA poll (hahaha), even if there was a vote for it, it seems that there would be a good chance that it would go through for gay marriages. Also, as much as I like the people to have a say when something that is restricting is place on us (umm...how about the Patriot Act?), but to allow everyone to decide what is constitutional? Yeesh, that's what the judges are for anyway. I also thought, "hey, if the people were allowed to vote back a century or so ago, they probably would've voted that black people 'aren't a whole person' and don't have the same rights as white people, and as we all know, that is definitely not constitutional."

"Marriage, ancient, sacred": Sure marriage is ancient, but over the last century or so, I don't think it's so sacred anymore, and gay marriages wouldn't really ruin its "sacredness" any more than it already is. Marriage is pretty much a joke to most people now, since divorce rates are 50% and such. So many married couples don't even last one year. It's sad. That's sacred? Like someone said on this board not too long ago, it would probably decrease the divorce rate some, if same-sex couples were allowed to wed.

"Homosexuality is not normal": Where have they been in the last 20 years? In a cave? Homosexuality and bisexuality is a very normal thing, as people who had been hiding it for years finally feel it's safe to come out about it, and from a media point of view it has become a normal and very common thing. Do these people think that there weren't homosexual people centuries ago? Oy.

Okay, that's all I have to say for now. I just felt the urge to write down my thoughts. Feel free to ignore me. :)

*applauds* Well said... I agree completely.

I just have to say what the fuck?!?! I thought that Boston was relativly openminded, they seemed to be. Then something like this happens to show how closed minded people can be, then again you can't base the thoughts of all on the actions of the few. I can't believe there are still people out there with such outdated beliefs, this is discrimination plain and simple I don't understand why so many people can't see that.

Ok sorry for the little rant, I shall go sit in my corner and brood.

-Zergplex
 
I don't really see the point of rallies for anything anyway. Do people honestly think someone is going to change thier mind on an issue because they walk by someone carrying a sign? I guess it's supposed to "raise awareness" but it just seems like a waste of time to me. On lots of issues there are protestors for one side and protestors on the other, so does it really make a difference or does it just make the participants feel better? And that's fine if that's what it's for, but it just seems like a big tug-of-war to me.
 
The article said that there were some counter-protesters as well, so yeah, it is pretty much like a tug of war. And it can raise awareness, I believe, but changing one's views...I doubt that, but it probably depends on the person and how easy he or she is to persuade.
 
Zergplex Says

College_geek said:
The article said that there were some counter-protesters as well, so yeah, it is pretty much like a tug of war. And it can raise awareness, I believe, but changing one's views...I doubt that, but it probably depends on the person and how easy he or she is to persuade.

Would you really want someone who was that easily swayed by a simple protest to be on your cause? They would just as easily leave for another cause if pressured. I think raising awareness DOES work with rallies, but for causes like this people are already well aware. At this point it's just salving the people's ego's, making them feel like they are making a differance. Weither they really are or not is irrevelent.

-Zergples
 
I'm in boston...

There was just as big a counter protest several days ago. Today was the pro-gay rally, with a counter protest.

Boston IS very liberal...but there are plenty of people outside the city (and in it i'm sure) who are...misguided (or stupid, to be blunter).

My favorite thing about making it a voter referendum is that people seem to not get that even if people voted against gay marriage the state supreme court could turn around and overturn
THAT too. Our state constitution is very clear...NO second class citizens. Period.

Of course, had the vote gone the other way, with a one vote majority against gay marriage, Mitt and his people would be singing a very different tune. But when it's a one vote majority for gay marriage, they think it's too close a margin.
 
In my medical ethics class yesterday, we were talking about typical argument fallacies, and for one of them, as an example, one of the girls in the class (who I'm liking more and more...I like the way she thinks) used the argument some people are trying to use against gay marriages, where they say "if same-sex marriages are legal, then everything will be legal: beastiality, etc.". So we basically talked a bit about how that's a poor argument and I couldn't help but laugh. And I started thinking...are there any good arguments against gay marriage? I mean, basically every one I have heard could be argued against very successfully and most likely win, from an logic, rights, and probably even ethics standpoint. *shrugs* I could be wrong...I just haven't heard any decent arguments against it.
 
Zergplex Says

deliciously_naughty said:
No there are no good arguments against it...there are just "i don't like it, lalala" arguments.

Those are the most effective arguements though. If someone is using logic then they can be convinced of their fallicy, but when someone is against something for absolutely no logical reason then it's nearly impossible to change their opinion. We can just hope their children will learn from the parents mistakes.

-Zergplex
 
Re: Zergplex Says

Zergplex said:
Those are the most effective arguements though. If someone is using logic then they can be convinced of their fallicy, but when someone is against something for absolutely no logical reason then it's nearly impossible to change their opinion. We can just hope their children will learn from the parents mistakes.

-Zergplex


one of the best things about being a teacher...I have a chance to help shape a more accepting and open next generation.

BTW I've been watching the debate for most of the past 7 years...I'm waiting for the next vote. The finneran amendment was shot down (which would've been a marriage as man and woman, with some idea that maybe in the future there could be civil unions). the current amendment being debated concurrently is defense of marraige and creation of civil unions...the most conservative and most liberal people have been viciously against it. We'll have to wait and see which, if any, amendment is the one that will get passed and voted on next year.
 
I was talking to this kid who used to live on my floor until he went crazy during a riot and was arrested and moved to a different living area (yeah, he's a nutcase) last week, and I started talking about the protest (because I was reading the paper at the time). He said that he had heard that the Republican Club was considering staging a demonstration of their own at the school, but they decided against it for some reason (he didn't tell me). I chuckled and said it was probably because the Gay/Straight Alliance, the Democrat Club, and the Radical Student Union would've beaten all three of them up. (Of course I was overexaggerating...there's more than 3 people in the Republican club, I assume, but I think there's more of the other 3 groups, since I hardly see any advertising for the Repub. group.)
 
deliciously_naughty said:
But when it's a one vote majority for gay marriage, they think it's too close a margin.

That's not just regarding gay marriage, authorities do taht for anything. Over here, there was one helluva lot of propaganda going on before the election for whether or no Sweden should join the EMU. One of the most beautiful interviews with a politician I've ever seen said that considering how important this election was, we really SHOULDN'T leave it up to the people to decide. They didn't now enough about it to realize how important it was that they said "yes". It WOULD be much better if we didn't have an election at all, but instead left the decision to the politicians.

Sadly, there still hasn't been a revolution.:( But we DID say "no" in the election, which made all the politicians and society professors sneer like kids whose mother tell them that they mustn't steal that toy from their baby brother.

Afterwards, the prime minister and all his allies said things like "well, we TRIED to tell you how to vote, but you wouldn't listen! Suit yourself, then!"

And our economy is much stronger than that of many EMU-countries...:cool:
 
Svenskaflicka said:
But we DID say "no" in the election, which made all the politicians and society professors sneer like kids whose mother tell them that they mustn't steal that toy from their baby brother.

Afterwards, the prime minister and all his allies said things like "well, we TRIED to tell you how to vote, but you wouldn't listen! Suit yourself, then!"

Arg, I hate when politicians get like that! It makes me think, "why do we have these people running (or ruining) the country?" :mad:
 
College_geek said:
Arg, I hate when politicians get like that! It makes me think, "why do we have these people running (or ruining) the country?" :mad:

"The problem with democracy is you have people running things that aren't much better than thier constituents." Jubal Harshaw, Stranger In A Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein

Ergo, we have only ourselves to blame.
 
Last edited:
College_geek said:
Arg, I hate when politicians get like that! It makes me think, "why do we have these people running (or ruining) the country?" :mad:


It made me laugh. It was such a dare. "OK, so we said NO. Well? Are you gonna follow the rules, or are you gonna come out and openly ignore the will of the people? Just say the word, and we'll be there with our trucks and guns..."

And to rub the yes-voters face in their defeat, me and the other no-sayers in my town danced in the streets, high-fived, and sang "Seiern er vår". (Norwegian song originally, meaning "Ours is the victory".):D
 
Bitchslapper said:
"The problem with democracy is you have people running things that aren't much better than thier consituents." Jubal Harshaw, Stranger In A Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein

Ergo, we have only ourselves to blame.

Yes, and I like that. I'll take an idealistic amateur for a prime minister over a greedy professional politician, any day.
 
Svenskaflicka said:
Yes, and I like that. I'll take an idealistic amateur for a prime minister over a greedy professional politician, any day.

I agree on that...at least from the limited experience that I have.
 
There are no good arguments against gay marraige.

The one about marraige being sacred crumbles when you look at the divorce rate in America. And the one about people marrying cows and animals is just absurd.

But that doesn't mean that people won't look to logical fallacies and half-truths in order to rationalize their bigotry.

We live in illogical times. People fail to see the parallel between this whole controversy and miscegination laws (forbidding interracial marraige).

And out politicians are not much smarter than the constituents they represent. Our Congressional representatives voted in favor of renaming french fries "freedom fries" after France pushed for more inspections in Iraq.

To me, that kind of jingoism is just ignorant. We are supposedly bringing democracy to the world with the Iraqi war, yet those who vote in favor of the war are not in favor of a democratic international body like the UN. Illogical, no?

I am going to run for Congress one day as an independent. Maybe I will be a senator. I will use my head and not fall victim to the opium of nationalism.

-Peace
 
Back
Top