The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Inhofe was not proud that anybody was not in his family, but he was expressing pride in who and what his family was.

I am really proud to say in the recorded history of our family, we have never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship.

Debra_Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

I'm proud that Foxfyre is not part of my family.

But hey, that's not anti-Foxfyre, nor is it the slightest bit of a putdown. Just proud of my family, that's all.

(Does this sound credible? If not, what is wrong with this picture?)

It sounds credible as I am quite certain you are proud not to be related to me. However it is the wrong analogy. Neither statement (Inhofe's or my made-up one) is saying that somebody is proud that somebody is not part of a family. They are simply expressing appreciation for who and what their family is. I see a distinction. You may not.

But how can you see when your eyes are closed?

Thomas already tried that Debra but again Inhofe was not proud that anybody was not in his family, but he was expressing pride in who and what his family was. And as I told Thomas, I see a distinction between the two. Apparently some of you do not.

You see, I like to deal with what people actually say instead of inserting my own interpretation or meaning or different words that I wish they had said so that I could trash them.

That was a great critique of Inhofe's speech Debra.

Foxfyre wrote:

Inhofe was not proud that anybody was not in his family, but he was expressing pride in who and what his family was.

He expressed pride that his family never had a homosexual relationship (that was recorded).

The biggoted Inhofe from the Senate floor said

Quote:

I am really proud to say in the recorded history of our family, we have never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship.

What part of I am really proud... we have never had are you having trouble understanding?

I use the actual quote along with the qualifiers Inhofe provided to accompany it and point out that an honest person cannot draw a firm conclusion from it. Debra and others leave off the qualifiers, change the wording around, use another member in a way that Inhofe did not, and resort to ad hominems and do it all with absolute certainty of conviction that they know the mind of another.

No, I think I'll continue to use the actual quote in context with qualifiers and/or applicable analogies. I prefer my way of judging people which is not to judge when you don't know.

Foxfyre wrote:

I use the actual quote along with the qualifiers Inhofe provided to accompany it and point out that an honest person cannot draw a firm conclusion from it. Debra and others leave off the qualifiers, change the wording around, use another member in a way that Inhofe did not, and resort to ad hominems and do it all with absolute certainty of conviction that they know the mind of another.

No, I think I'll continue to use the actual quote in context with qualifiers and/or applicable analogies. I prefer my way of judging people which is not to judge when you don't know.

So, if I went and searched your posts for your responses to, say, Howard Dean quotes, I'd find that you are very consistent in your consideration of context and qualifiers, right? Right.

Because this quote that we're talking about is ambiguous? Right.

You can keep saying it until you're blue in the face but that won't make it true. I'm sure his intent was what it was. But he said what he said and nothing else in that speech changed his meaning. He's proud that there are no homosexual relationships in his family. He's proud in the context of his opposition to gay marriage. What interpretation do you have for that other than the thinks gay relationships are a negative, a blot on his family's reputation? There is no ambiguity in what he said.

While I don't think he should have expressed his pride in quite those words, I do think y'all need to look at the setting and context. On the Obama thread about his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, the talk there is that since the setting is one in which he is opposing the marriage amendment, his quote cannot be taken to mean he is anti-gay. But yet you wish to ignore the setting of Inhofe's quote and decide he is a bigot.

And I choose not to pass judgment on people, even people I dislike, based on a quote as ambiguous as Inhofe's was in this case.

While I don't think he should have expressed his pride in quite those words, I do think y'all need to look at the setting and context. On the Obama thread about his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, the talk there is that since the setting is one in which he is opposing the marriage amendment, his quote cannot be taken to mean he is anti-gay. But yet you wish to ignore the setting of Inhofe's quote and decide he is a bigot.

Again, I think he should have simply stated he was proud of his family and the values they represented. But what he said does not in my mind mean he is anti-gay or bigoted or whatever else you wish to call him. (He might be, but this is not proof in and of itself that he is)

Foxfyre wrote:

And I choose not to pass judgment on people, even people I dislike, based on a quote as ambiguous as Inhofe's was in this case.

So ambiguous, indeed, that yesterday you suspected thinkprogress.org of manufacturing it to hurt him, and lectured me on the use of Quicktime when I expressed doubts. Right, I remember.

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.