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.
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 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.
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.