The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Foxfyre wrote:

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?

If he said it in the process of arguing for a law that outlawed straight marriage and made frequent divorces compulsory -- absolutely!

(That's just my opinion of course. I can't speak for Debra.)

If he said it in the process of arguing for a law that outlawed straight marriage and made frequent divorces compulsory -- absolutely!

That depends - is he saying it during a speech in which he is attempting to deny rights to straights or divorcees? In which case yes, he would be putting down the people he was trying to deny rights to.

Fox, I'm going to have to call bullsh*t on you yet again. I did answer your question.

Here's Thomas' answer, which you said you appreciated:

Quote:

If he said it in the process of arguing for a law that outlawed straight marriage and made frequent divorces compulsory -- absolutely!

Here was my answer to the same question:

Quote:

That depends - is he saying it during a speech in which he is attempting to deny rights to straights or divorcees? In which case yes, he would be putting down the people he was trying to deny rights to.

This is essentially the exact same answer, worded differently, yet you claimed mine wasn't an answer and Thomas' was an answer.

Please cease claiming I didn't answer your question immediately, because it is quite obvious that I did.

Cycloptichorn

Sweetie, if you think that is the 'exact same answer', I think you need a different university.

Shrug. All answers now have to have no conditions attached to them? What kind of black-and-white world do you live in?

You see, the original quote wasn't delivered without context; it was given in context, as a part of a speech intended to show why gays should have rights denied to them in the constitution.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that anyone else would not have the context of their speech known to the answerer of the question either.

Cycloptichorn

Or is an unsubstantiated inference of a person's intent in such matters more evidence of prejudice and bigotry than anything that person said?

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.

I was going to delete this until I read your last post, Fox:

Quote:

Or is an unsubstantiated inference of a person's intent in such matters more evidence of prejudice and bigotry than anything that person said?

You may or may not be a fool, but it is impossible to tell by the things you write in this thread, Fox; though an intelligent person can make a pretty good guess given the overwhelming evidence you've provided.

It's really incredible; you are willing to mince any words, take on any argument, and forgive anything said by a politician you support, and you don't care how wrong you are proven, ever; you just have to have the last word, always.

Arguing with you on any subject is like punching a pillow; you never get anywhere, no matter how many jabs or right crosses ya land. For example, you know I answered your question; you just couldn't admit it if you tried. You are incapable of doing so.

You defend bigots, and are probably a bigot yourself. It is a waste of my time to talk with you any further, and so I am done.

But I will add for the record that this is something like the fourth time that you have been proven completely wrong on a topic, and refused to back down even when all the evidence shows that you are incorrect. And it isn't just me who believes this, but many on this site. You really should try and do better, but I know you won't.

And you're right, I'm no sweeter than you are, sweetie.

Cycloptichorn

There is no evidence in that speech that Inhofe is intolerant of anybody. He was arguing for preservation of traditional marriage and nothing more. If you assume his arguing for the amendment is intolerance of gay people, then in fairness you have to assume that arguing against the amendment is intolerance of the traditional family. Both are absurd.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no evidence in that speech that Inhofe is intolerant of anybody. He was arguing for preservation of traditional marriage and nothing more. If you assume his arguing for the amendment is intolerance of gay people, then in fairness you have to assume that arguing against the amendment is intolerance of the traditional family. Both are absurd.

What is absurd is the inferential assumption in this drivel that homosexual marriage threatens traditional families--an assumption for which there is no basis.

The statement that has some panties in a wad here is that Inhofe bragged on the values that he appreciated in his strong family.

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.

Foxfyre wrote:

The statement that has some panties in a wad here is that Inhofe bragged on the values that he appreciated in his strong family.

And from where did you get that "his strong family"?

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.

Setanta wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no evidence in that speech that Inhofe is intolerant of anybody. He was arguing for preservation of traditional marriage and nothing more. If you assume his arguing for the amendment is intolerance of gay people, then in fairness you have to assume that arguing against the amendment is intolerance of the traditional family. Both are absurd.

What is absurd is the inferential assumption in this drivel that homosexual marriage threatens traditional families--an assumption for which there is no basis.

Perhaps, but no such inference has been made by Inhofe or anybody else. The statement that has some panties in a wad here is that Inhofe bragged on the values that he appreciated in his strong family. That's all he did. All the other stuff people are inferring from that statement and there is no basis from which to make such inferences.