The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

That is pure nonsense. Debra did a line by line analysis of Inhofe's speech here which is one that you conveniently bypassed without commenting on.

0 Replies

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.

Not only must Setana define the word "bigot" for you--the definition of which you have consistently ignored--now someone must define the word "intolerant" to you--the definition of which the odds are that you will also ignore.

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

tol·er·ate:

1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
3. To put up with; endure.

in·tol·er·ant: Not tolerant, especially:

1. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
2. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
3. Unable or unwilling to endure or support.

The entire purpose of the proposed marriage "protection" amendment that limits marriage to heterosexual couples is to prevent homosexual couples from getting married.

Inhofe's announced pride of his heterosexual family (I'm really proud to say there have never been any homosexual relationships in my family) unequivocably proves that Inhofe is strongly partial to his own heterosexual group. His support of the proposed amendment to the constitution demonstrates his intolerance--his unwillingness to permit or allow gay couples to enjoy the same marital rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Inhofe is a bigot. See the definition of bigot. Read the definition over and over and over again until such time as you comprehend what it says--or you can continue to ignore the obvious.

0 Replies

I, of course, feel threatened by gay marriage even though the lady diane and meself are not married. Them fags just want to ursurp my rights just like them black folks wanted equal rights meant I would lose my rights by letting them have the same rights. There's logic to this if you just close your eyes, pound on a drum and pour wax in your ears.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn addressing Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Foxfyre used to teach debating. I wonder if selective amnesia was one of the tactics she taught.

0 Replies

Are you serious, Mesquite ? ! ? ! ?

Has she actually claimed to have taught debating?

I swear, she makes this sh!t up as she goes along . . .

0 Replies

I tend to remember that the only thing she taught was Bible Studies.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I, of course, feel threatened by gay marriage even though the lady diane and meself are not married. Them fags just want to ursurp my rights just like them black folks wanted equal rights meant I would lose my rights by letting them have the same rights. There's logic to this if you just close your eyes, pound on a drum and pour wax in your ears.

Then jump in a giant hole and cover yourself with pounds of low grade dog poop. Embarrassed

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I tend to remember that the only thing she taught was Bible Studies.

Nothing wrong with that!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:
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.)

I accept your answer and thank you for it. However, if you cannot brag on your family or anything else without it being construed that you are bashing somebody or something else, there won't be too much positive reinforcement anywhere will there? As I think its great that people, straight or gay, rejoice in who or what they are, I guess I'm just going to have to be bigoted.

-------------------------------------------------------

If you're a bigot in mind only, I dont' care. However, if and when you act on this bigotry, then I'll care.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Cycloptichorn addressing Foxfyre wrote:
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.

Foxfyre used to teach debating. I wonder if selective amnesia was one of the tactics she taught.

One tactic I learned and subsequently taught was not to be tricked into saying something I didn't intend to say or accept being misquoted or be bullied or intimidated into admitting something I didn't say or do. And I taught how to recognize bait and switch techniques such as some will attempt to utilize.

And as a judge I marked down HUGELY for inserting an unverifiable false premise into an argument if the opponent was quick enough to pick up on it. Debra for instance would have lost this debate by attempting to show how being proud of one thing was proof of intolerance for something else. It simply doesn't wash, however, as pride in and of itself does not mean one would not be just as proud of something else. Nor does arguing for a cause one believes to be worthy necessarily void one's concern for all other causes.

Senator Inhofe may in fact be a bigot, but again there is no way to prove it from anything he said in that speech.

I have seen in this forum, however, a strong intolerance for Senator Inhofe and/or his method of arguing a particular point of view.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Debra for instance would have lost this debate by attempting to show how being proud of one thing was proof of intolerance for something else.

Except the thing that he was proud of was the very absence of that something else. Saying, I'm proud of my white skin, is one thing. Saying, I'm so proud my skin is not black, is another. If he had said he was proud there were no divorces and left it at that, there would be nothing to talk about. He clearly sees homosexual relationships as something undesirable for his family, and that's why he is so proud that there is no such undesirable relationship in the history of his family. It's really simple when you're not weaving an elaborate web of made up **** to try to make it sound like something other than what it sounds like.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Debra for instance would have lost this debate by attempting to show how being proud of one thing was proof of intolerance for something else.

Except the thing that he was proud of was the very absence of that something else. Saying, I'm proud of my white skin, is one thing. Saying, I'm so proud my skin is not black, is another. If he had said he was proud there were no divorces and left it at that, there would be nothing to talk about. He clearly sees homosexual relationships as something undesirable for his family, and that's why he is so proud that there is no such undesirable relationship in the history of his family. It's really simple when you're not weaving an elaborate web of made up **** to try to make it sound like something other than what it sounds like.

No, he clearly sees being straight as a good thing. Seeing being straight as preferable to being gay is not ncessarily intolerance of gay people any more than seeing being tall as preferable to being short is necessarily intolerance of short people. If he had said something like he was proud of his tall, good looking sons, would that have been bigotry?

Maybe its because some of YOU think there is something wrong with homosexuality that makes you so sensitive about his statement? It could be just as easy to infer that, but I would have no basis for stating that as fact.

If you want to GET somebody, nobody is perfect and you can probably find something valid to gig them on. But Inhofe's statement is simply too inconclusive to produce honest certainty of his evilness.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Are you serious, Mesquite ? ! ? ! ?

Has she actually claimed to have taught debating?

I swear, she makes this sh!t up as she goes along . . .

I assume that coaching does involve teaching.

https://able2know.org/topic/123710-1#post-3430830

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Debra for instance would have lost this debate by attempting to show how being proud of one thing was proof of intolerance for something else.

Except the thing that he was proud of was the very absence of that something else. Saying, I'm proud of my white skin, is one thing. Saying, I'm so proud my skin is not black, is another. If he had said he was proud there were no divorces and left it at that, there would be nothing to talk about. He clearly sees homosexual relationships as something undesirable for his family, and that's why he is so proud that there is no such undesirable relationship in the history of his family. It's really simple when you're not weaving an elaborate web of made up **** to try to make it sound like something other than what it sounds like.

In his speech supporting the passage of an anti-gay marriage amendment to our country's constitution, Inhofe announced that he was REALLY PROUD to say--in the entire recorded history of his family--there HAS NEVER BEEN a homosexual relationship.

The above is ample evidence of Inhofe's intolerance of homosexuals.
This is the epitome of bigotry. As another poster pointed out, this isn't rocket science.

We witnessed a political gay-bashing session in our nation's capitol. I bet you're REALLY PROUD, foxfyre.

0 Replies

Another thing that gets people marked down in debates is repeating a fallacy in a broken record fashion. It's consisdered bad form.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Another thing that gets people marked down in debates is repeating a fallacy in a broken record fashion. It's consisdered bad form.

What do you allege to be a fallacy?

You repeat your anti-gay talking points like a broken record. You repeat your untenable defense of Inhofe like a broken record.

Physician, heal thyself.

0 Replies

Point to Debra!

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Another thing that gets people marked down in debates is repeating a fallacy in a broken record fashion. It's consisdered bad form.

What do you allege to be a fallacy?

You repeat your anti-gay talking points like a broken record. You repeat your untenable defense of Inhofe like a broken record.

Physician, heal thyself.

It is a fallacy to draw an unproven inference from a statement and declare it to be fact.

It is further a fallacy that being in favor of or proud of one point of view, policy, value, process, etc. is evidence that the person is intolerant of other points of view, policies, values, processes.

It is a fact however, that some on this forum seem to have a very difficult time arguing a weak case without being personally insulting to others.

0 Replies

Only a complete fool wouldn't understand the difference between being proud of BEING something and being proud of NOT BEING something.

You know for a fact that if you replaced the word 'homosexual' with the word 'inter-racial' that it clearly would have been a bigoted comment. You just don't believe there's anything wrong with being bigoted towards homosexuals, is why you keep defending this position.

How do you expect people to react, when you display such willfull ignorance post after post after post?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Debra, please see Cyclops post for an excellent example of an insulting fallacious argument.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know