The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

What I see are assumptions made in both cases. Personally, I don't see any of their statements as being indicative of their true feelings. Both are probably playing politics and saying what they think the voters want to hear. For all I know, they are both bigoted and anti-gay, or they are not.

Inhofe holds a set of values that tells him homosexuality and divorce is wrong and is proud his family represents those values. So what? Now if he comes out and starts calling homosexuals names and what not, then I'll go along with y'all and believe he is a bigot or whatever. But that is not what he did here. He did choose a way of stating his pride that could be seen as being a bit insensitive and could certainly indicate that he may well be bigoted. But the comments in and of themselves does not prove that.

Since he does not represent me, I really don't care much either way. In the end, it will be the voters of his state who will have to make the judgement on him.

CoastalRat wrote:

What I see are assumptions made in both cases. Personally, I don't see any of their statements as being indicative of their true feelings. Both are probably playing politics and saying what they think the voters want to hear. For all I know, they are both bigoted and anti-gay, or they are not.

Inhofe holds a set of values that tells him homosexuality and divorce is wrong and is proud his family represents those values. So what? Now if he comes out and starts calling homosexuals names and what not, then I'll go along with y'all and believe he is a bigot or whatever. But that is not what he did here. He did choose a way of stating his pride that could be seen as being a bit insensitive and could certainly indicate that he may well be bigoted. But the comments in and of themselves does not prove that.

Since he does not represent me, I really don't care much either way. In the end, it will be the voters of his state who will have to make the judgement on him.

Ok, but I'm not sure (I haven't read all the way back) that someone actually called him a bigot but we have said that his comments are bigoted, and I still think they are. I suppose that's just a matter of opinion. The argument now I think is just a useless exercise in trying to get Fox to acknowledge that the words meant exactly what they sounded like they meant. And that he actually said them.

The link takes you to another anti-Bush/GOP website. The 'watch it' link doesn't seem to work. Have a better one?

Changing the subject aren't you? I'm still waiting for evidence that Inhofe is being quoted accurately and/or in context. Since the MSM isn't picking up the comment, I still think it is highly suspect. So, lets see some proof before we automatically condemn somebody based on unsubstantiated Leftwing screeds.

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.

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.

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.

Freeduck I don't know. Why would anybody be proud to say that there have been divorces and homosexual relationships in their family?

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.

CoastalRat wrote:

What I see are assumptions made in both cases. Personally, I don't see any of their statements as being indicative of their true feelings. Both are probably playing politics and saying what they think the voters want to hear. For all I know, they are both bigoted and anti-gay, or they are not.

Inhofe holds a set of values that tells him homosexuality and divorce is wrong and is proud his family represents those values. So what? Now if he comes out and starts calling homosexuals names and what not, then I'll go along with y'all and believe he is a bigot or whatever. But that is not what he did here. He did choose a way of stating his pride that could be seen as being a bit insensitive and could certainly indicate that he may well be bigoted. But the comments in and of themselves does not prove that.

Since he does not represent me, I really don't care much either way. In the end, it will be the voters of his state who will have to make the judgement on him.

Ok, but I'm not sure (I haven't read all the way back) that someone actually called him a bigot but we have said that his comments are bigoted, and I still think they are. I suppose that's just a matter of opinion. The argument now I think is just a useless exercise in trying to get Fox to acknowledge that the words meant exactly what they sounded like they meant. And that he actually said them.

He did choose a way of stating his pride that could be seen as being a bit insensitive and could certainly indicate that he may well be bigoted. But the comments in and of themselves does not prove that.

Quote:

The link takes you to another anti-Bush/GOP website. The 'watch it' link doesn't seem to work. Have a better one?

Source

Quote:

Changing the subject aren't you? I'm still waiting for evidence that Inhofe is being quoted accurately and/or in context. Since the MSM isn't picking up the comment, I still think it is highly suspect. So, lets see some proof before we automatically condemn somebody based on unsubstantiated Leftwing screeds.

Source

Quote:

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.

Source

Quote:

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.

Source

Quote:

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.

Source

Responding to Freeduck's question: 'What would be a good reason to be proud that there have never been any gays in one's family?', 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?

[url=]Source[/url]

Quote:

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.

Source
I think a reasonable reading of your quotes on the matter reveals the following:

(1) In you did not state explicitly that you suspect Think Progress of manipulation.

(2) Unlike today, you considered Inhofe's quote a proof of stupidity -- a point on which Debra, FreeDuck, and I agree with you.

(3) Your posts reveal a chain of insinuations and innuendo casting doubt on the legitimacy of the sources others provided.

With all this in mind, I stand by my assessment.

What I see are assumptions made in both cases. Personally, I don't see any of their statements as being indicative of their true feelings. Both are probably playing politics and saying what they think the voters want to hear. For all I know, they are both bigoted and anti-gay, or they are not.

Inhofe holds a set of values that tells him homosexuality and divorce is wrong and is proud his family represents those values. So what? Now if he comes out and starts calling homosexuals names and what not, then I'll go along with y'all and believe he is a bigot or whatever. But that is not what he did here. He did choose a way of stating his pride that could be seen as being a bit insensitive and could certainly indicate that he may well be bigoted. But the comments in and of themselves does not prove that.

Since he does not represent me, I really don't care much either way. In the end, it will be the voters of his state who will have to make the judgement on him.

big·ot (bĭg'ət) n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

CoastalRat wrote

Quote:

He did choose a way of stating his pride that could be seen as being a bit insensitive and could certainly indicate that he may well be bigoted. But the comments in and of themselves does not prove that.

coastal rat, most people here have just said that his statement seems bigoted against homosexuals and people who get divorces. He said that he was proud no one in his family had any homosexual relationships, the logical honestinference a person should draw from the statement he made is that having homosexual relationships in his family is undesirable to him since he is proud that no has had any homosexual relationships. Its not rocket science for heavens sake.

Of course you stand by your assessment. You have said, by virtue of your assessment of Inhofe's quote, that you can judge that a person is bigoted by one statement. That puts you squarely in the camp of the other members from the Left in this discussion.

Foxfyre wrote:

Of course you stand by your assessment. You have said, by virtue of your assessment of Inhofe's quote, that you can judge that a person is bigoted by one statement. That puts you squarely in the camp of the other members from the Left in this discussion.

Well, you found it hard to believe that Inhofe was stupid enough to say such a thing in public. That puts you firmly in our camp for we find it hard to believe too. So nice we can end this on a note of agreement.

revel wrote:

CoastalRat wrote

Quote:

He did choose a way of stating his pride that could be seen as being a bit insensitive and could certainly indicate that he may well be bigoted. But the comments in and of themselves does not prove that.

coastal rat, most people here have just said that his statement seems bigoted against homosexuals and people who get divorces. He said that he was proud no one in his family had any homosexual relationships, the logical honestinference a person should draw from the statement he made is that having homosexual relationships in his family is undesirable to him since he is proud that no has had any homosexual relationships. Its not rocket science for heavens sake.

The logical honest inference is that he believes (maybe for religious reasons, but for some reason) that homosexuality and divorce is wrong and he is proud his family has upheld those values. Again, I think he could have said this a bit differently and not caused a fuss at all.

But, just for the sake of a2k peace, I will admit that the remarks themselves could sound a bit bigoted upon first hearing them, but probably does not reflect what he intended to express.

Now we can all make nice-nice.

FreeDuck wrote:

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.

And I am no longer surprised that you on the Left are so 'sure' of these things.

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.

Oh, and Thomas, if posting that I am skeptical of an unsubstantiated source along with the reasons I am skeptical makes me hardnosed or irrational or unacceptable in your eyes, expect to have that opinion reinforced a lot.

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Of course you stand by your assessment. You have said, by virtue of your assessment of Inhofe's quote, that you can judge that a person is bigoted by one statement. That puts you squarely in the camp of the other members from the Left in this discussion.

Well, you found it hard to believe that Inhofe was stupid enough to say such a thing in public. That puts you firmly in our camp for we find it hard to believe too. So nice we can end this on a note of agreement.

It is refreshing to agree on something. Yes I didn't think it likely that he would make a gaffe like that, but he did say it. It was not a politically correct (or smart) thing to say. It could mean that he is bigoted. It could also mean that he thinks being straight is a good thing and he is proud that his family is without intending any animosity toward gays. Or he might have been thinking of something else altogether. There simply is insufficient information in that one sentence to determine his intent.

My objection has been in the absolute certainty of some posting here that he is a bigot based on that one sentence. And it also reflects my own prejudicial belief that many or most on the Left will jump on a Conservative with certainty of conviction of their evilness while giving a Liberal a pass on something equally as stupid.

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Of course you stand by your assessment. You have said, by virtue of your assessment of Inhofe's quote, that you can judge that a person is bigoted by one statement. That puts you squarely in the camp of the other members from the Left in this discussion.

Well, you found it hard to believe that Inhofe was stupid enough to say such a thing in public. That puts you firmly in our camp for we find it hard to believe too. So nice we can end this on a note of agreement.

It is refreshing to agree on something. Yes I didn't think it likely that he would make a gaffe like that, but he did say it. It was not a politically correct (or smart) thing to say. It could mean that he is bigoted. It could also mean that he thinks being straight is a good thing and he is proud that his family is without intending any animosity toward gays. Or he might have been thinking of something else altogether. There simply is insufficient information in that one sentence to determine his intent.

My objection has been in the absolute certainty of some posting here that he is a bigot based on that one sentence. And it also reflects my own prejudicial belief that many or most on the Left will jump on a Conservative with certainty of conviction of their evilness while giving a Liberal a pass on something equally as stupid.

You missed Setana's post:

big·ot (bĭg'ət) n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Again, Inhofe's statement was made in the context of a public debate with respect to an anti-gay marriage amendment to our constitution. He argued in support of the anti-gay marriage amendment. He is intolerant of gays--who differ from his alleged ideal family--and equates societal tolerance of gay marriage with societal tolerance of incest, pedaphilia, and polygamy. He claims that gays/gay marriage causes children to be born out of wedlock, causes children to be born without families to support them, causes children to become welfare recipients, causes the state to bear the burden for raising children.

There is no doubt that Inhofe is strongly partial (really proud) of his own self-proclaimed "ideal" heterosexual family and is intolerant of those who differ--intolerant of gays.

So Debra, I'll ask you the same question Cyclop refused to answer. If Inhofe had said that he was proud his family had been able to weather divorces and had many homosexuals, would that be a slam against happily married people or straight people? If not, why then would the reverse automatically be so?