DISQUS

Ana · 1 year ago

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! :)

Randy · 1 year ago

and good thoughts, as usual, they are. Thanks Ana.

Tim · 1 year ago

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.

B.T.Carolus · 1 year ago

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.

Randy · 1 year ago

Yeah! what she said. :)

Pomo · 1 year ago

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

Randy · 1 year ago

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.

Mensley · 1 year ago

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.

Randy · 1 year ago

Could you imagine? The indulgent ones with the Phelps tribe? I think the universe would be torn in half.

Alex · 1 year ago

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.

Ana · 1 year ago

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! :)

Tim · 1 year ago

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.

Pomo · 1 year ago

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

Mensley · 1 year ago

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.

Alex · 1 year ago

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.

RThomasETC (Randy Thomas) · 1 year ago

Florida International University Replaces Proper Debate with Hateful Infotainment http://tinyurl.com/5q287t

George · 1 year ago

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!

Randy · 1 year ago

thanks George.

Ellie · 1 year ago

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.

Randy · 1 year ago

and good thoughts, as usual, they are. Thanks Ana.

Randy · 1 year ago

Yeah! what she said. :)

Randy · 1 year ago

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.

Randy · 1 year ago

Could you imagine? The indulgent ones with the Phelps tribe? I think the universe would be torn in half.

ChaplianChas. · 1 year ago

Thanks for the info. May God have mercy on us all.

George · 1 year ago

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!

Brady · 1 year ago

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.

Randy · 1 year ago

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.

ChaplianChas. · 1 year ago

Thanks for the info. May God have mercy on us all.

David L. Wylie · 1 year ago

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!

Brady · 1 year ago

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.

Randy · 1 year ago

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.

Randy · 1 year ago

thanks George.

lifes cience articles · 9 months ago

great post guys

aallamas0617 · 9 months ago

nice article! nice site. you're in my rss feed now ;-)
keep it up

DavidLWylie · 1 year ago

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!