LETTER: Conservative lacked facts
Editor,
In light of a recent letter, I wish to clarify a number of ill-stated facts geared toward attacking the Pride! Alliance. First, I would like to point out that if the writer only heard swearing from the opponents of traditional marriage during the traditional marriage rally some weeks ago, he has an amazing sense of selective hearing. This may come as a bit of disappointment to him, but Republicans swear, too. They did at the rally; I heard them. It’s all part of free speech in this country. So what?
Secondly, the writer has seemingly lost count of the number of times the Pride! Alliance has been approached by the College Republicans with the offer to conduct a debate, as the organization has only been approached once.
The leadership of the Pride! Alliance thought through the idea and then presented it to the members of the club. The idea was turned down wholeheartedly. It was not done out of fear of losing a debate such as this, nor was it done out of fear of physical attacks. The Pride! Alliance opted against a gay/traditional marriage debate because the speech and debate team had already conducted a debate on this very topic not more than three weeks prior to the traditional marriage rally. That debate was well-organized with both sides well-represented, and another debate of an identical nature was not needed.
Lastly, I question the writers idea that the Pride! Alliance finds it “easier to debate with curse words, than with reasoned arguments.” Members of the Pride! Alliance presented solid arguments on the organizations behalf at the Rally for Peace and Justice.
During the time I was at the traditional marriage rally presented by the College Republicans, I failed to hear any statistics, data or solid evidence supporting why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Most of what seemed to be said was something about a “silent majority being silent no longer.” Perhaps debates in the future could be possible if the proponents of traditional marriage could actually form a reasoned argument.
Scott Astin