My thoughts after the jump …
Anti-gay church to participate in debate on gay marriage ban
A church known for spewing anti-gay rhetoric and picketing military funerals is slated to debate a state marriage amendment at a forum next week at Florida International University.
The Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church accepted an invitation from the Stonewall Legal Alliance, a gay group at the FIU College of Law. The debate will focus on Amendment 2, the initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot that would add Florida's existing ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution.
The visit has raised concerns from people on both sides of the marriage debate.
Jose Gabilondo, an associate law professor at FIU, plans to argue against the amendment, while two daughters of Westboro Pastor Fred Phelps will speak for it. …
[From Anti-gay church to participate in debate on gay marriage ban : State News : TCPalm]
If you are insecure and feel that you might not win a debate with compelling points and a good presentation … one way to go is the circus route. Just pick arrogant hateful knuckleheads to be your opponent. The resulting Jerry Springer-esque affair will assure that your audience is properly horrified. Not only will you win, you will probably be afforded the award of being the most "brave" person on campus for a day.
Make sure not to throw anything (you know … that has density) at them and you will always be seen as the winner in a debate against those venomous rascals.
FIU, via this campus group, Stonewall Legal Alliance, just stacked the debate in this Associate Professor's favor. Sure there are two Phelps against him but don't be fooled by appearances … all mouth + no heart = bigot brain coma.
In all seriousness, this is not education or a true debate. It will be a freak show and completely unfair to those seeking to know the true arguments for and against the Florida Marriage Amendment. It also bears false witness against well meaning Christians who support the amendment.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
I am with you on this one Randy. Bringing an extreme representative of either side…doesnt show in fairness what other Christian with a more balanced and godly perspective will opt for. It isn't a good representation at all.
I have to mention too though, that I too have seen anti-gay Christian rallies (in the defense of marriage) that have used pictures and names of 'extreme' supergay people, even considered odd in the gay community, to defend a point, which hasn't been fair either in my opinion. Basically, I would have the same general concept in either case and the fact that I have seen it in both sides doesn't make any of them right.
I have attened debates that I have really really enjoyed though in which a variety of people were indeed represented, breaking many stereotypes of what it means to be liberal and conservative, Christian or non-Christian, struggler and non-struggler, and I think presenting a balanced, more common, perspective in all cases in order to proove any point is always much better in order to resolve anything and build any bridges. Those are my thoughts of the day!
You neglect to mention that organizers of the Amendment 2 campaign were invited to debate their side, along with other moderate supporters… and all declined. If the 'well-meaning Christians' won't debate you — does that mean you cancel the debate? Or do you invite whoever WILL debate you? It seems to me that you shouldn't let one side unilaterally CONTROL whether there IS a debate by simply refusing to join in.
Yes, having WBC makes this debate useless in terms of anything useful coming from it.
However, I would say that same is true over here in CA with the anti-gay marriage side using half-truths and scare tactics in their adds. “If you are insecure and feel that you might not win a debate with compelling points and a good presentation … one way to go is the circus route”
It disapoints me when both sides can't just trust that their arguments are strong enough without having to resort to lies or deception. And I expect a higher standard from people who claim to represent Christ but thats not happening here in CA. Christians/Mormons are reciting the same talking points the campaign is handing down and they're all false.
Its no different with our presidential candidates either. During the debates they don't answer a question, they attack each other. So neither of them has my vote
Did they invite the Sisters of perpetual indulgence to represent the pro-gay side? Or perhaps the planning committee for the Folsom street fair? Probably not.
I'm with you guys. It's a really bad idea. But I'd be lying if I said part of me doesn't want to see Fred and his charming family spread their “love” in a lecture hall instead of a cemetery or street corner.
First, just because a group wants to stage a debate, a specific organization is not compelled to join it. If the organizers of the Amendment 2 campaign are extremely busy (what with it being only a few weeks until the election), then they are not obligated to attend every event they are invited to, especially if an invitation comes at the relative last minute, or is relatively unimportant or can't reasonably be expected to be a fair forum (I don't know whether or not these last three things apply in this case, they are just general criteria I would apply if I were deciding whether to attend an event).
The real question in this case would be how thoroughly did the university group attempt to find a suitable, mainstream replacement for the amendment group? Somehow, I don't think that they asked a whole lot of anti-gay marriage groups, because probably somebody would have agreed to attend (unless there is some reason to believe that the forum would be extremely biased). If they extended an invitation they expected to be declined to only a few groups (i.e. only one or two), and then went straight to the Phelps clan, they have acted inappropriately.
I am with you on this one Randy. Bringing an extreme representative of either side…doesnt show in fairness what other Christian with a more balanced and godly perspective will opt for. It isn't a good representation at all.
I have to mention too though, that I too have seen anti-gay Christian rallies (in the defense of marriage) that have used pictures and names of 'extreme' supergay people, even considered odd in the gay community, to defend a point, which hasn't been fair either in my opinion. Basically, I would have the same general concept in either case and the fact that I have seen it in both sides doesn't make any of them right.
I have attened debates that I have really really enjoyed though in which a variety of people were indeed represented, breaking many stereotypes of what it means to be liberal and conservative, Christian or non-Christian, struggler and non-struggler, and I think presenting a balanced, more common, perspective in all cases in order to proove any point is always much better in order to resolve anything and build any bridges. Those are my thoughts of the day!
You neglect to mention that organizers of the Amendment 2 campaign were invited to debate their side, along with other moderate supporters… and all declined. If the 'well-meaning Christians' won't debate you — does that mean you cancel the debate? Or do you invite whoever WILL debate you? It seems to me that you shouldn't let one side unilaterally CONTROL whether there IS a debate by simply refusing to join in.
Yes, having WBC makes this debate useless in terms of anything useful coming from it.
However, I would say that same is true over here in CA with the anti-gay marriage side using half-truths and scare tactics in their adds. “If you are insecure and feel that you might not win a debate with compelling points and a good presentation … one way to go is the circus route”
It disapoints me when both sides can't just trust that their arguments are strong enough without having to resort to lies or deception. And I expect a higher standard from people who claim to represent Christ but thats not happening here in CA. Christians/Mormons are reciting the same talking points the campaign is handing down and they're all false.
Its no different with our presidential candidates either. During the debates they don't answer a question, they attack each other. So neither of them has my vote
and good thoughts, as usual, they are. Thanks Ana.
Yeah! what she said.
I know for a fact that those talking points are not false and the people putting together the ads and church events don't just mindlessly recite what they hear.
Talk about a cynical generalization.
And if you are honestly equating what the Christians in California are doing with Phelps … I don't even know what to say.
Could you imagine? The indulgent ones with the Phelps tribe? I think the universe would be torn in half.
Did they invite the Sisters of perpetual indulgence to represent the pro-gay side? Or perhaps the planning committee for the Folsom street fair? Probably not.
I'm with you guys. It's a really bad idea. But I'd be lying if I said part of me doesn't want to see Fred and his charming family spread their “love” in a lecture hall instead of a cemetery or street corner.
Florida International University Replaces Proper Debate with Hateful Infotainment http://tinyurl.com/5q287t
Randy, you hit the nail on the head. The invitation of the Phelps will prevent any real discussion and mutual respect from taking place. I suspect, as you do, that it was an intentional move. *sigh*
Keep up the good work!
First, just because a group wants to stage a debate, a specific organization is not compelled to join it. If the organizers of the Amendment 2 campaign are extremely busy (what with it being only a few weeks until the election), then they are not obligated to attend every event they are invited to, especially if an invitation comes at the relative last minute, or is relatively unimportant or can't reasonably be expected to be a fair forum (I don't know whether or not these last three things apply in this case, they are just general criteria I would apply if I were deciding whether to attend an event).
The real question in this case would be how thoroughly did the university group attempt to find a suitable, mainstream replacement for the amendment group? Somehow, I don't think that they asked a whole lot of anti-gay marriage groups, because probably somebody would have agreed to attend (unless there is some reason to believe that the forum would be extremely biased). If they extended an invitation they expected to be declined to only a few groups (i.e. only one or two), and then went straight to the Phelps clan, they have acted inappropriately.
Thanks for the info. May God have mercy on us all.
and good thoughts, as usual, they are. Thanks Ana.
Yeah! what she said.
Burke, I know for a fact that those talking points are not false and people don't just mindlessly recite what they hear.
Talk about a cynical generalization.
And if you are honestly equating what the Christians in California are doing with Phelps … I don't even know what to say.
Could you imagine? The indulgent ones with the Phelps tribe? I think the universe would be torn in half.
Randy, you hit the nail on the head. The invitation of the Phelps will prevent any real discussion and mutual respect from taking place. I suspect, as you do, that it was an intentional move. *sigh*
Keep up the good work!
The only difference between Janet L. Folger at Faith2Action, a proponent of Amendment 2, and the two Phelps sisters invited to attend the debate? LIPSTICK!!!
Remove the veneer of a coifed hairdo, the haute couture and the refined and well rehearsed false argument that Amendment 2 is only about protecting the sanctity of marriage from the likes of Janet Folger & those of her ilk, what do you have? Shirley & Margie Phelps!!!
The offer to participate was made by the debate organizers to numerous, more ‘mainstream’ of the Amendment 2 Supporters but alas, they declined.
So now we get to see the debate framed in its proper context: Hate & Homophobia at the expense of the thousands of Senior citizens who’ll be hurt by Amendment 2 vs. sound legal arguments defending the equality of all citizens of the State of Florida. Sounds like a great debate! I’ll be there!
Randy, I just thought of something…what's going on with you guys in Florida? First a city council meeting doesn't manage to draw a single person to speak against the marriage amendment, and now this University can't manage to get a real group to speak in favor of it?!?
Ok, seriously, I'm just kidding, but it did strike me as rather odd.
Thanks for the info. May God have mercy on us all.
that is a funny observation. Not sure how to answer it either. I don't think they are necessarily the same thing … but it is funny to think about.
thanks George.
The only difference between Janet L. Folger at Faith2Action, a proponent of Amendment 2, and the two Phelps sisters invited to attend the debate? LIPSTICK!!!
Remove the veneer of a coifed hairdo, the haute couture and the refined and well rehearsed false argument that Amendment 2 is only about protecting the sanctity of marriage from the likes of Janet Folger & those of her ilk, what do you have? Shirley & Margie Phelps!!!
The offer to participate was made by the debate organizers to numerous, more ‘mainstream’ of the Amendment 2 Supporters but alas, they declined.
So now we get to see the debate framed in its proper context: Hate & Homophobia at the expense of the thousands of Senior citizens who’ll be hurt by Amendment 2 vs. sound legal arguments defending the equality of all citizens of the State of Florida. Sounds like a great debate! I’ll be there!
Randy, I just thought of something…what's going on with you guys in Florida? First a city council meeting doesn't manage to draw a single person to speak against the marriage amendment, and now this University can't manage to get a real group to speak in favor of it?!?
Ok, seriously, I'm just kidding, but it did strike me as rather odd.
that is a funny observation. Not sure how to answer it either. I don't think they are necessarily the same thing … but it is funny to think about.
thanks George.
great post guys
nice article! nice site. you're in my rss feed now
keep it up