23
   

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 07:55 am
So, you think the Bloomberg link is a lie, as well? Seriously?

That isn't a left-wing site in the slightest...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 08:01 am
Though why I am surprised by your head-in-the-sand attitude, I don't know; it is consistent with pretty much every other opinion you've presented here.

Foxfyre continually writes:
Quote:
Facts be damned! Full speed ahead with the beliefs!


Here's the full quote:

Quote:
{14:24:36} (MR. INHOFE) AS YOU SEE HERE, AND I THINK THIS IS MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT PROP WE'LL HAVE DURING THE ENTIRE DEBATE, MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN MARRIED 47 YEARS. WE HAVE 20 KIDS AND GRANDKIDS. I'M REALLY PROUD TO SAY THAT IN THE RECORDED HISTORY OF OUR FAMILY, WE'VE NEVER HAD A DIVORCE OR ANY KIND OF A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. SO I THINK THAT MAYBE I'M THE WRONG ONE TO THE DOING THIS ?- TO BE DOING THIS SINCE I COME WITH SUCH A STRONG PREJUDICE FOR STRONG FAMILIES.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 08:15 am
Fox, the video at the first site I linked to does, in fact, work; you need to install apple's quicktime video viewer to see it.

Here's a link for ya, just so you don't have any other excuses:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone.html

And here's a direct link to the video, so you don't have to hurt your eyes looking at that awful liberal anti-bush site which is so offensive to your sensibilities:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/inhofe.320.240.mov

Believe it now, or are your eyes and ears lying to ya as well?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 08:31 am
Sorry, I've got all the video players and I can't get it to work. Maybe a different link? I haven't called anybody a liar at all. I have simply stated that I haven't seen any credible evidence that the quote is accurate. I have, however, many times seen a quote made up by somebody that is eagerly posted again and again on other websites. Until the MSM picks it up, however, I don't give these much credence. The MSM is 100% mum on it so far as I can tell however.

If that is not the case this time I'll acknowledge it. Until then, I'll need to see some proof before I'll believe Inhofe was stupid enough to say such a thing publicly, at least in the way it is being portrayed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 08:40 am
I find it hilarious that on one hand, the MSM is derided by Conservatives as liars, opportunists, liberals and friends of terrorists; but on the other, if it isn't reported in the MSM, it isn't 'news.'

I know the video works, because I just watched it again. Are you positive that you have quicktime? I'll try to find another link for ya today... just so you can see the kind of things Republicans are willing to say in public...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:00 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I find it hilarious that on one hand, the MSM is derided by Conservatives as liars, opportunists, liberals and friends of terrorists; but on the other, if it isn't reported in the MSM, it isn't 'news.'

I know the video works, because I just watched it again. Are you positive that you have quicktime? I'll try to find another link for ya today... just so you can see the kind of things Republicans are willing to say in public...

Cycloptichorn


Hmm, so Inhofe is "the Republicans" huh? And whatever he says in public applies to all Republicans? Does that criteria also apply to Democrats? If so, I have some dandy quotes to throw at you to indict all Democrats everywhere for all time.

And no, I don't have much faith in the MSM to report a whole lot honestly and/or accurately. I have HUGE faith in them to report anything negative about a Conservative if they can, however. This is why I think their non-coverage of this issue makes it suspicious in the way it is being portrayed on the leftwing blogs.

I also have HUGE faith in the Democrats to use such an issue for political advantage and to refer to it again and again everytime they can find a camera and a microphone. It hasn't been happening in this case.

And yes, I play other things easily on Quicktime so I don't know what the problem is with this one. I would appreciate a good link to the video, however, and one with the lead in and follow up to the specific quote so I will know it is being quoted in context.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:10 am
This is really pathetic, foxfrye, there is nothing wrong with the link to the Think Progress watch it to the Inhofe statements regarding his family and homesexual relationships. Your claim about left wing sites might be getting it out of context is silly as well considering its his own words out of his own mouth and it couldn't be clearer. I think he meant exactly what he said, in his family there has never been a history of a homosexual relationship.

http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/inhofe.320.240.mov
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:16 am
But in what context did he say it Revel? Did he follow up with something like offering that as an explanation that he doesn't have first hand knowledge of the issue or something? Maybe he followed with something like he realizes his is not the typical family. In other words, does the quote show the context in which he made the statement? There is something definitely fishy about this. I just used Quick Time to look at two other videos and it worked fine. When I access that link however, all I get is the little bar moving across and no sound or picture. So again, I don't know what the problem is.

Okay I found another site with the link and played it. And no context is offered. So the jury is still out wouldn't you think? Given the ease in which video can be manipulated by Quick Time, that is also another possibility. The MSM and the other Democrats on the Hill are ignoring this. That should tell you a whole lot.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:37 am
There is no possible context that would excuse saying that one is proud not to have had any homosexuals in one's family, Fox. It is a sign of bigotry.

I never stated that what Inhofe said applied to all republicans, either. Stop building strawmen.

Perhaps you should try updating to the latest version of quicktime. It only takes a minute, you don't even have to close your browsers to do it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:40 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
There is no possible context that would excuse saying that one is proud not to have had any homosexuals in one's family, Fox. It is a sign of bigotry.

I never stated that what Inhofe said applied to all republicans, either. Stop building strawmen.

Perhaps you should try updating to the latest version of quicktime. It only takes a minute, you don't even have to close your browsers to do it.

Cycloptichorn


Cyclop also said
Quote:
I know the video works, because I just watched it again. Are you positive that you have quicktime? I'll try to find another link for ya today... just so you can see the kind of things Republicans are willing to say in public...


Where is your qualification re Republicans? Wouldn't you say a sentence like that suggests that it applies to ALL Republicans?

If your intent can be so easily misconstrued, and I will accept it if you say that it was, then perhaps you won't be so quick to assume the intent of one Republican with so little to go on than a short clip, unsupported by context, and so easily manipulated by a Quick time editor.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:43 am
What would be a good reason to be proud that there have never been any gays in one's family?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:46 am
So, you flat out claim that this tape was edited to include words that Inhofe didn't say. Unbelievable.

I'm not going to be dragged into a side argument about what I meant when I said 'Republicans.' So you can pretty much forget about trying to change the subject in that sense.

If you cannot prove that the video was edited, then you have nothing other than your lack of willingness to believe to support your contention that he didn't say what he is on tape saying.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:51 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm still waiting for evidence that Inhofe is being quoted accurately and/or in context.

(1) You now have evidence that Inhofe is being quoted accurately. I cannot provide context for you, but I'm curious: What kind of context can you imagine that would redeem the following quote?

Mr. Inhofe wrote:
As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop [the photo] we'll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:54 am
U.S. military acknowledges Iraq anti-gay killings
Exiled leader claims troops involved in Baghdad gay harassment
By LOU CHIBBARO JR. | Jun 7, 6:02 PM

The U.S. military is aware of a rash of anti-gay killings in Iraq during the past eight months and is taking steps to curtail sectarian violence against all Iraqis, including gays, according to a spokesperson for the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq.

At least three men suspected of being gay were gunned down March 20 in the Iraqi city of Ramadi. U.S. forces say they are concerned about the rising number of anti-gay killings in Iraq. (Photo by Bilal Hussein/AP)
"If someone is in danger of being slaughtered or persecuted, we do all we can to stop it," said Army Maj. Joseph Todd Breasseale, chief of the Media Relations Division of the Multinational Corps in Iraq.


Breasseale spoke by telephone from his office at U.S. military headquarters in a section of Baghdad known as the Green Zone.


Faced with a highly volatile atmosphere brought about by warring Islamic factions, the U.S. and its coalition allies must use caution in addressing the issue of homosexuality, Breasseale said.


"It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, when we're in a fledgling time like this, to go in and say, 'Here's these issues that are going to repel 80 percent of the population and this is what we want to inflict on you,'" he said. "We're trying not to get into too many values judgment type issues and just do the right thing."


Breasseale's comments came in response to questions about how the U.S. was responding to a decision last October by a powerful Islamic leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to issue a fatwa calling for the killing of gays in Iraq. Bush administration officials have cited al-Sistani as a moderate voice among Iraqi Shiites.


Islam considers homosexuality sinful. A website published in the Iranian city of Qom in the name of Sistani, says: "Those who commit sodomy must be killed in the harshest way," according to BBC news reports. The statement appeared in an Arabic section of the website dealing with questions of morality, but not in the English-language equivalent.


A network of gay Iraqi exiles in Europe reported that the fatwa triggered a flurry of assassinations, kidnappings and death threats against Iraqi gays.

Ali Hili, founder and spokesperson for the exile group LGBT Iraqis U.K., said Islamic death squads came to life in response to Sistani's fatwa and brought about an atmosphere of terror among gays. He said some death squad members arranged meetings with gays through chat rooms by posing as gays themselves, then captured and sometimes assaulted or killed their targeted victims.


A call for action
International human rights groups, including the U.S.-based International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, complained that the U.S. and its coalition partners in Iraq did not appear to be taking any action to stop the anti-gay killings.


In a May 11 letter to IGLHRC executive director Paula Ettelbrick, a State Department official said the American government was troubled over reports of violence against gays in Iraq and said the U.S. embassy in Baghdad would meet with gay rights groups to address the problem.


The letter came in response to a letter from IGLHRC calling on the State Department to speak out against the anti-gay killings in Iraq.


Breasseale's comments mark the first time a U.S. military spokesperson in Iraq has publicly discussed the anti-gay killings there.


"The problem is it's such a widespread [and] concerted effort of violence against so many disparate groups and organizations," Breasseale said. "It's essentially anyone who runs afoul of anyone who has a mind to do it winds up getting killed. So we're very much aware of it, and we take both the murders and the political assassinations very seriously.


"When it's possible, we work to investigate and try to track down who did it. But as you can imagine, it's a massive, massive concerted effort we're up against."


Claims of anti-gay abuse by U.S. military denied
Breasseale's telephone interview comes shortly after American military authorities disclosed they were investigating allegations that a Marine Corps unit intentionally shot and killed 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha, a rural farming town in the Upper Euphrates Valley.


Hili, the head of the gay Iraqi exile group in London, alleged that in two cases, U.S. soldiers verbally abused and, in one case, assaulted gay Iraqis during routine searches of houses in Baghdad. In yet another incident, Hili said he learned through contacts in Iraq that a gay Iraqi was killed by one of the death squads after U.S. officials refused his request to gain access to the Green Zone for protection.


"We try to attack these issues as they come up, and all accusations of misbehavior that is attributed to bigotry are taken very seriously," Breasseale said in discussing Hili's reports of abuse against gay Iraqis by U.S. soldiers.

Breasseale called on Hili to provide more details about the incidents, such as dates, locations, and descriptions of the soldiers involved.


"All I can do at this point is reassure your readers that these allegations are taken very seriously, and that our soldiers ?- the vast 99.9 percent of them ?- do their jobs with honor and integrity day in and day out in what is easily one of the world's most grueling situations," Breasseale said. "And I can assure your readers that when allegations pan out, service members and their leadership are held accountable," he said.
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=7336
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:55 am
Freeduck I don't know. Why would anybody be proud to say that there have been divorces and homosexual relationships in their family? There have been both in my family and I have been disappointed in the divorces and neutral on our beloved gay relatives. That's my ideology. I don't know whether Inhofe would be tolerant of a gay relative or not. If he experienced such, he might or might not be more understanding and tolerant. I don't think you can make a case for bigotry on one out-of-context statement. I choose not to judge people in such matters.

Cyclop, please post the exact quote in which I made any such claim. You know it really helps if you don't deal with what you seem to hope I said so you can attack it. Probably if we stick to what I specifically said, the debate would be more coherant. It also helps if you can focus long enough to stay on one subject for more than one post.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:58 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Freeduck I don't know. Why would anybody be proud to say that there have been divorces and homosexual relationships in their family? There have been both in my family and I have been disappointed in the divorces and neutral on our beloved gay relatives.


So I take it you wouldn't stand up with a picture of your family in front of a bunch of people and claim how proud you are of that then?

Quote:
I don't think you can make a case for bigotry on one out-of-context statement. I choose not to judge people in such matters.


Can you give me a plausible context that would make that statement not bigoted?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 10:01 am
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm still waiting for evidence that Inhofe is being quoted accurately and/or in context.

(1) You now have evidence that Inhofe is being quoted accurately. I cannot provide context for you, but I'm curious: What kind of context can you imagine that would redeem the following quote?

Mr. Inhofe wrote:
As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop [the photo] we'll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.


Have you ever looked at the Quick Time program? It was designed to be able to play videos and also edit them. And believe me, a great deal of mischief can be accomplished by doing that. So again, we have what sounds like an authentic quote. We do not have the sentences leading up to it or anything following it, so even if it is accurate, we don't know whether it was qualified by what follows.

No, I don't have any evidence. And I'm guessing, since neither the MSM nor the Democrats on the Hill have not capitalized on this, neither do you or anybody else. Are you jumping on the bandwagon to condemn Inhofe because you want to believe he is a homophobic bigot? I don't know whether he is nor not. I am not willing to condemn anybody--Left, Right, or Martian--on such skimpy evidence as is offered here, however.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 10:03 am
It isn't 'out-of-context' in the slightest. Here the man is in front of the Senate arguing against Gay marriage, and he states that he is proud that there are no homosexuals in his families. That's context! You are trying to find some defense for the man, I understand that, but there really isn't any defense for bigoted statements such as this.

Quote:
Cyclop, please post the exact quote in which I made any such claim. You know it really helps if you don't deal with what you seem to hope I said so you can attack it. Probably if we stick to what I specifically said, the debate would be more coherant. It also helps if you can focus long enough to stay on one subject for more than one post.


This coming from the person who accused me of claiming that 'all' republicans felt the exact same way about gay marriage? Obviously, I never said this, yet you pounced upon it to try and accuse me of making blanket statements because that was your 'interpretation' of what I said.

You state

Quote:
Given the ease in which video can be manipulated by Quick Time, that is also another possibility.


And in your next post

Quote:
If your intent can be so easily misconstrued, and I will accept it if you say that it was, then perhaps you won't be so quick to assume the intent of one Republican with so little to go on than a short clip, unsupported by context, and so easily manipulated by a Quick time editor.


And you construe this to mean that you are not forwarding the theory that the video was edited? Or stating that you simply won't believe it because there is a possibility that the video was edited?

Sheesh. Talk about mendacity.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 10:06 am
Quote:
And I'm guessing, since neither the MSM nor the Democrats on the Hill have not capitalized on this, neither do you or anybody else.


You're wrong, we do have evidence - a perfectly good video of the Senator himself stating exactly what we are claiming he stated. You are the one who is saying the video can't be trusted, but have forwarded no proof at all that this is true.

You can't discount evidence just because you don't want to believe it is true.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 10:10 am
Cyclo, I don't have Quicktime on my computer here at work. So could you tell me if this was a floor speech? Or was it some comment he made on the sidelines.

Foxfyre, assuming Cyclo's answer to my last question is "yes", his speech will show up in the congressional record soon. If he is sure the quote is accurate and in-context, and you are not, why don't the two of you bet on it? 10:1 maybe, to account for the fact you're not sure? How about it?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/28/2026 at 12:29:13