<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Amendment 2 Debate with Westboro Baptist</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/26/5175/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/26/5175</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 18:14:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/26/5175/comment-page-1#comment-20334</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=5175#comment-20334</guid>
		<description>My second paragraph above should read:

&lt;i&gt;The Phelps family are exceedingly nasty. I worried about &lt;b&gt;encouraging&lt;/b&gt; and legitimizing their very hateful tactics by inviting them to a legitimate debate. &lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My second paragraph above should read:</p>
<p><i>The Phelps family are exceedingly nasty. I worried about <b>encouraging</b> and legitimizing their very hateful tactics by inviting them to a legitimate debate. </i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/26/5175/comment-page-1#comment-20333</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:08:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=5175#comment-20333</guid>
		<description>Jose,

An interesting reply. However, it never touches the point of my concern.

The Phelps family are exceedingly nasty. I worried about encouring and legitimizing their very hateful tactics by inviting them to a legitimate debate. It is welcoming them as proper debate participants that seems to risk legitimizing an illegitimate agenda. Just how much power the Westboro clan actually has is irrelevant to this point.

Frankly, if you are disinclined to bother with liberal notions of balance,” on the issue of same-sex marriage, I don&#039;t understand why you want to debate the matter.

I don&#039;t doubt you are correct that most opposition to gay marriage is majoritarian overreaching. But as you admit this doesn&#039;t preclude some from having good reasons for their opposition. I think discussion and debate between such people and SSM proponents would be for the best. Debating with the Phelps&#039; hardly fits the bill.

I am afraid of the Westboro Baptist Church. I am also not afraid of the groups you list as examples of &quot;pillars of conservatism.&quot;

I can&#039;t agree with your opinion of the Federalist Society. They are not a political group at all; they are interested in legal culture and proper jurisprudence. And I must confess I don&#039;t know anything about the Christian Legal Society.

As for the GOP,let me just say that both major parties are ancient and self-perpetuating institutions filled with political careerists and let that be that.

Lastly, though it pains me dearly to do so, I have to agree with Timothy Kincaid about the Log Cabin Republicans.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jose,</p>
<p>An interesting reply. However, it never touches the point of my concern.</p>
<p>The Phelps family are exceedingly nasty. I worried about encouring and legitimizing their very hateful tactics by inviting them to a legitimate debate. It is welcoming them as proper debate participants that seems to risk legitimizing an illegitimate agenda. Just how much power the Westboro clan actually has is irrelevant to this point.</p>
<p>Frankly, if you are disinclined to bother with liberal notions of balance,” on the issue of same-sex marriage, I don&#8217;t understand why you want to debate the matter.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t doubt you are correct that most opposition to gay marriage is majoritarian overreaching. But as you admit this doesn&#8217;t preclude some from having good reasons for their opposition. I think discussion and debate between such people and SSM proponents would be for the best. Debating with the Phelps&#8217; hardly fits the bill.</p>
<p>I am afraid of the Westboro Baptist Church. I am also not afraid of the groups you list as examples of &#8220;pillars of conservatism.&#8221;</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t agree with your opinion of the Federalist Society. They are not a political group at all; they are interested in legal culture and proper jurisprudence. And I must confess I don&#8217;t know anything about the Christian Legal Society.</p>
<p>As for the GOP,let me just say that both major parties are ancient and self-perpetuating institutions filled with political careerists and let that be that.</p>
<p>Lastly, though it pains me dearly to do so, I have to agree with Timothy Kincaid about the Log Cabin Republicans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/26/5175/comment-page-1#comment-20142</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=5175#comment-20142</guid>
		<description>If you think that Log Cabin Republicans is either a &quot;pillar of conservatism&quot; or a &quot;threat to our rights&quot; then you are mistaken.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you think that Log Cabin Republicans is either a &#8220;pillar of conservatism&#8221; or a &#8220;threat to our rights&#8221; then you are mistaken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jose Gabilondo</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/26/5175/comment-page-1#comment-20136</link>
		<dc:creator>Jose Gabilondo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=5175#comment-20136</guid>
		<description>Dear Dave,

I understand.  It’s no coincidence, though, that when it  comes to gay marriage, we still think in terms of “both sides” of the issue, something we would never dream of doing so when it comes to both sides of racism or, except in some weird places, both sides of anti-Semitism.  

There are good arguments against gay marriage.  Some radical feminists and others see marriage as a tool of hierarchy.  And elevating these little dyads – encouraging their self-absorption – leaves a lot of people (the unmarried and the unmarriable) out in the cold, wondering what it would be like to have a relationship that is also a fortress in a generally uncaring society.  

No doubt there are other good arguments against gay marriage, but these aren’t the reasons behind the defense of marriage initiatives.  What motivates these initiatives – at their best – is majoritarian overreaching, a kind of ordinary selfishness and a lack of empathy needed to step out of one’s position that comes from a lifetime of not having had to individuate away from society.  That’s at their best.  At their worst – these initiatives reflect a more intentional form of hostility.  

So I don’t actually think that there are any legitimate arguments advanced against gay marriage, at least none that survive non-homophobic scrutiny.  Again, there may be some out there, but these aren’t the arguments that motivate the new Right.  On this issue, then, I wouldn’t bother with liberal notions of “balance,” because doing so probably legitimates an illegitimate agenda.

The other point is that Westboro is not really a threat to our rights.  Granted – verbal assault hurts.   Being called “fag” as I walk down the street is probably still the most upsetting thing that happens to me, so I understand feeling hurt by this language.  But ask yourself which institutions, individuals, and concepts hurt you most directly on this score.  It’s not a marginal group like Westboro.  You should be worried about the pillars of conservatism – the Federalist Society, the Christian Legal Society, the converted GOP, and the many other respectable voices of the new Right, including, frankly, the Log Cabin Republicans.

If you wait until you see the whites of their eyes, it will be too late.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Dave,</p>
<p>I understand.  It’s no coincidence, though, that when it  comes to gay marriage, we still think in terms of “both sides” of the issue, something we would never dream of doing so when it comes to both sides of racism or, except in some weird places, both sides of anti-Semitism.  </p>
<p>There are good arguments against gay marriage.  Some radical feminists and others see marriage as a tool of hierarchy.  And elevating these little dyads – encouraging their self-absorption – leaves a lot of people (the unmarried and the unmarriable) out in the cold, wondering what it would be like to have a relationship that is also a fortress in a generally uncaring society.  </p>
<p>No doubt there are other good arguments against gay marriage, but these aren’t the reasons behind the defense of marriage initiatives.  What motivates these initiatives – at their best – is majoritarian overreaching, a kind of ordinary selfishness and a lack of empathy needed to step out of one’s position that comes from a lifetime of not having had to individuate away from society.  That’s at their best.  At their worst – these initiatives reflect a more intentional form of hostility.  </p>
<p>So I don’t actually think that there are any legitimate arguments advanced against gay marriage, at least none that survive non-homophobic scrutiny.  Again, there may be some out there, but these aren’t the arguments that motivate the new Right.  On this issue, then, I wouldn’t bother with liberal notions of “balance,” because doing so probably legitimates an illegitimate agenda.</p>
<p>The other point is that Westboro is not really a threat to our rights.  Granted – verbal assault hurts.   Being called “fag” as I walk down the street is probably still the most upsetting thing that happens to me, so I understand feeling hurt by this language.  But ask yourself which institutions, individuals, and concepts hurt you most directly on this score.  It’s not a marginal group like Westboro.  You should be worried about the pillars of conservatism – the Federalist Society, the Christian Legal Society, the converted GOP, and the many other respectable voices of the new Right, including, frankly, the Log Cabin Republicans.</p>
<p>If you wait until you see the whites of their eyes, it will be too late.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/26/5175/comment-page-1#comment-20024</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=5175#comment-20024</guid>
		<description>A good post, professor.

However, I remain unconvinced that the good that is done by fully examining both sides of an issue justifies an invitation to the likes of the Phelps family.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A good post, professor.</p>
<p>However, I remain unconvinced that the good that is done by fully examining both sides of an issue justifies an invitation to the likes of the Phelps family.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
