The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Debra_Law wrote:

RECORDED history? That's nice. What has gone unrecorded? What does he have hidden in his family closet?

Good point, Debra, it is a nice hedge.

I think that anything that has gone unrecorded would not be pertinent to the point I think that Inhofe was attempting to make.

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

RECORDED history? That's nice. What has gone unrecorded? What does he have hidden in his family closet?

Good point, Debra, it is a nice hedge.

I think that anything that has gone unrecorded would not be pertinent to the point I think that Inhofe was attempting to make. You would also have to allow for the possibility of such being unadmissable in this court of public opinion as a man's pride in his family is generally unimpeachable on the face of it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

RECORDED history? That's nice. What has gone unrecorded? What does he have hidden in his family closet?

Good point, Debra, it is a nice hedge.

I think that anything that has gone unrecorded would not be pertinent to the point I think that Inhofe was attempting to make. You would also have to allow for the possibility of such being unadmissable in this court of public opinion as a man's pride in his family is generally unimpeachable on the face of it.

Yes it is good to have pride in your family. But tell me this, what if there had a been a "recorded history of a homosexual relationship or divorce" in his family. Would he not then be proud of his family?

It is not bigotry to against homosexuality or even divorce because of religious or other reasons, it is however, bigotry to hold something against someone because of it. (hate the sin, love the sinner)

The context of the speech does not change the statement. It's a point blank statement. Also, it appears that think progress or quick time did not do any editing.

Debra_Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix just beat me to posting the context Foxfyre required, thanks!

Now, Foxfyre let me ask you two questions:

(1) Which passages, if any, has Think Progress edited?

(2) How does the context of the quote bear on the quote itself, and on whether it is bigoted?

My own answers are (1) none, and (2) they sound more bigoted, not less, when read in context.

Bigoted? Huh. I thought the context added quite a bit to the single quote. It's amazing how different glasses allows people to see the same thing difeerently.

I think the full context neither confirms whether Inhofe is bigoted nor proves that he is not. The full context was within the scope of his debate on a specific subject and the comment was made within the scope of whether his life situation qualified him as an authority to debate it. As I speculated previously, I took it that he was admitting his life experience is different from others. His full argument was well done, however, and seems to be studiously ignored by any on the Left who are determined to make Inhofe a bigot. I also think the Quick Time piece is dishonest in not providing the qualifying statement(s).

I don't expect you to take off your blinders. You routinely make similar statements and proclaim you're not bigoted either. His statements were, without doubt, the product of ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice. STRONG PREJUDICE.

I sure hope you don't argue your law cases with such certainty on so little evidence. Inhofe admits strong prejudice in favor of strong families. So do I for that matter. I don't think he admitted any other strong prejudice in that speech and any conclusions drawn re any bigotry is highly speculative. If he is to be damned for favoring strong families, I will be happy to share hell with him.

I am proud to say that their are no marriages to black people in my family's history.

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

RECORDED history? That's nice. What has gone unrecorded? What does he have hidden in his family closet?

Good point, Debra, it is a nice hedge.

I think that anything that has gone unrecorded would not be pertinent to the point I think that Inhofe was attempting to make. You would also have to allow for the possibility of such being unadmissable in this court of public opinion as a man's pride in his family is generally unimpeachable on the face of it.

Yes it is good to have pride in your family. But tell me this, what if there had a been a "recorded history of a homosexual relationship or divorce" in his family. Would he not then be proud of his family?

It is not bigotry to against homosexuality or even divorce because of religious or other reasons, it is however, bigotry to hold something against someone because of it. (hate the sin, love the sinner)

The context of the speech does not change the statement. It's a point blank statement. Also, it appears that think progress or quick time did not do any editing.

I think the interpretation of his intent by many anti-Bush/GOP/Inhofe people will be negative with drawn conclusions unsupported by anything other than their own prejudices. I think more objective people will realize there is no way to know whether he was intending to express anything other than pride in his family. There was no mention of sin of any kind in the speech, so your focus on that is your own issue and not relevant.

I have seen what video editing can accomplish and skilled editors can make the more gullible believe just about anything. I agree that given the transcript of the speech provided, the video does not appear to be edited. I do think it very dishonest however that the video only shows a clip designed to provide fodder for the more gullible and/or opportunistic anti-Bush/GOP/Inhof people while omitting the accompanying sentences that very much modify the statement.

To the credit of the MSM and the opposition on Capital Hill, they were not so dishonest as to cherry pick a phrase out of context for the purpose of political attack.

Foxfyre wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix just beat me to posting the context Foxfyre required, thanks!

Now, Foxfyre let me ask you two questions:

(1) Which passages, if any, has Think Progress edited?

(2) How does the context of the quote bear on the quote itself, and on whether it is bigoted?

My own answers are (1) none, and (2) they sound more bigoted, not less, when read in context.

Bigoted? Huh. I thought the context added quite a bit to the single quote. It's amazing how different glasses allows people to see the same thing difeerently.

I think the full context neither confirms whether Inhofe is bigoted nor proves that he is not. The full context was within the scope of his debate on a specific subject and the comment was made within the scope of whether his life situation qualified him as an authority to debate it. As I speculated previously, I took it that he was admitting his life experience is different from others. His full argument was well done, however, and seems to be studiously ignored by any on the Left who are determined to make Inhofe a bigot. I also think the Quick Time piece is dishonest in not providing the qualifying statement(s).

I don't expect you to take off your blinders. You routinely make similar statements and proclaim you're not bigoted either. His statements were, without doubt, the product of ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice. STRONG PREJUDICE.

I sure hope you don't argue your law cases with such certainty on so little evidence. Inhofe admits strong prejudice in favor of strong families. So do I for that matter. I don't think he admitted any other strong prejudice in that speech and any conclusions drawn re any bigotry is highly speculative. If he is to be damned for favoring strong families, I will be happy to share hell with him.

I'm not arguing a case. I'm stating a fact that is known to most of the people on this forum who have read your anti-gay posts. Where you and Inhofe are concerned, it's the blind leading the blind. Inhofe is NOT advocating for "strong families," he's advocating the writing of bigotry into our Constitution.

Every word of his speech, from beginning to end, smacks of prejudice against gays. Not one thing he said was rational or legitimate. Nothing he said demonstrates how gay marriages will somehow make families in general--or YOUR family--or his self-proclaimed ideal family--weak. I openly acknowledge that YOU will never open your eyes to see the truth because, if you condemn Inhofe for his obvious prejudice, you would have to condemn yourself.

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

RECORDED history? That's nice. What has gone unrecorded? What does he have hidden in his family closet?

Good point, Debra, it is a nice hedge.

I think that anything that has gone unrecorded would not be pertinent to the point I think that Inhofe was attempting to make. You would also have to allow for the possibility of such being unadmissable in this court of public opinion as a man's pride in his family is generally unimpeachable on the face of it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

RECORDED history? That's nice. What has gone unrecorded? What does he have hidden in his family closet?

Good point, Debra, it is a nice hedge.

I think that anything that has gone unrecorded would not be pertinent to the point I think that Inhofe was attempting to make. You would also have to allow for the possibility of such being unadmissable in this court of public opinion as a man's pride in his family is generally unimpeachable on the face of it.

"Look at this all-American family--not one single recorded homo among them--I'm so proud."

He said he was proud that he didn't have any recorded history of any homosexual relationships or divorces in his family. If all he wanted to do was express pride, he would have just said he was proud of his family without adding all that bit about homosexuality and divorces.

You are making this a big deal by trying to take the words out of his mouth by claiming that all he did was express pride in his family. Why not just admit that he said he was proud that there was no homosexual relationships or divorces in his family and then we can move on.

Debra_Law wrote:

I'm not arguing a case. I'm stating a fact that is known to most of the people on this forum who have read your anti-gay posts. Where you and Inhofe are concerned, it's the blind leading the blind. Inhofe is NOT advocating for "strong families," he's advocating the writing of bigotry into our Constitution.

Every word of his speech, from beginning to end, smacks of prejudice against gays. Not one thing he said was rational or legitimate. Nothing he said demonstrates how gay marriages will somehow make families in general--or YOUR family--or his self-proclaimed ideal family--weak. I openly acknowledge that YOU will never open your eyes to see the truth because, if you condemn Inhofe for his obvious prejudice, you would have to condemn yourself.

In order to have any credibility, you'll have to come up with a single anti-gay post of mine. You can find plenty of posts in which I support the traditional deifnition of marriage, yes, and that I think a loving mother and father in the home is the best possible circumstance for a child. But anti-gay? Nope. You won't be able to find a single quote. Because none exists. Anywhere. On this forum or anywhere else.

Foxfyre wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

I'm not arguing a case. I'm stating a fact that is known to most of the people on this forum who have read your anti-gay posts. Where you and Inhofe are concerned, it's the blind leading the blind. Inhofe is NOT advocating for "strong families," he's advocating the writing of bigotry into our Constitution.

Every word of his speech, from beginning to end, smacks of prejudice against gays. Not one thing he said was rational or legitimate. Nothing he said demonstrates how gay marriages will somehow make families in general--or YOUR family--or his self-proclaimed ideal family--weak. I openly acknowledge that YOU will never open your eyes to see the truth because, if you condemn Inhofe for his obvious prejudice, you would have to condemn yourself.

In order to have any credibility, you'll have to come up with a single anti-gay post of mine. You can find plenty of posts in which I support the traditional deifnition of marriage, yes, and that I think a loving mother and father in the home is the best possible circumstance for a child. But anti-gay? Nope. You won't be able to find a single quote. Because none exists. Anywhere. On this forum or anywhere else.

You just acknowledged that you have posted plenty of anti-gay posts and then you challenge me to identify those same anti-gay posts.

Until you understand that your posts are in fact anti-gay, there would be no point in indentifying the entire litany of your anti-gay posts. You would still blindly deny that your posts on this issue are the embodiment of ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice.

You have to be willing to open your own eyes. I can't force them open with a crowbar even if I tried.

Supporting the traditional definition of marriage = anti-gay?

Poor Obama. Why does he hate the gays so?

Revel writes

Quote:

He said he was proud that he didn't have any recorded history of any homosexual relationships or divorces in his family. If all he wanted to do was express pride, he would have just said he was proud of his family without adding all that bit about homosexuality and divorces.

You are making this a big deal by trying to take the words out of his mouth by claiming that all he did was express pride in his family. Why not just admit that he said he was proud that there was no homosexual relationships or divorces in his family and then we can move on.

The only one who is making a big deal out of this are you on this forum who are anti-Bush/GOP/Inhof. Thomas did put the quote in context and drew a different conclusion than I and presumably McG drew, but at least he was honest about it. The rest of you refuse to consider any possibility than that the one statement taken out of context is his full and complete opinion about divorcees and homosexuals. It is your prerogative to draw that conclusion and it is my prerogative to conclude that it is judgmental and intolerant to draw such a conclusion. In other words, it strongly appears to be the pot calling the kettle black.

Foxfyre said that Inhofe's remarks were made in the context of explaining that he is not an expert on the issue he is addressing. She is correct.

Cyclop and others say that Inhofe's remark is a put down of homosexuals. They are right.

One statement does not cancel the other. While explaining that he was not an expert on homosexual marriage, Inhofe made a statement which put down homosexuals.

It is simply inconceivable that anyone would fail to see that when someone says that in the history of his family there has not been one instance of something, that something is being presented as being extremely undesirable. Otherwise, there would be no reason to be so proud it didn't happen in his family.