The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

CoastalRat wrote:

But Omar, Debra is in the legal profession and thus her opinions carry the weight of law behind them. So we must defer to her in this matter. But you are new here and probably did not know this. I have now set you straight.

That's not the funny part. I'm sitting here telling my friend, "she must be a freaking attorney". The reason I thought it? Only attorneys are so slick at misrepresenting anothers statements. To be very honest, I don't find it funny at all. Wait...I do find it funny a supposed adult resorts to the tactics, but I find the tactics unfunny. No, not unfunny, but unacceptable.

What's the point of me saying anything at all if she's going to shred it up & paste it back together how she finds fit? What's the point of reading what she posts if she's going to contradict herself in subsequent posts? I might as well defer to her for my very opinion & agree with her before she submits her own.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. However, homosexuality is different. Homosexuality is not a crime.

At this point, I'm afraid your reasoning gets circular. Would it be acceptable for you to solve this dichtonomy by re-criminalizing homosexuality? If incest and polygamy were decriminalized, would that mean that the people engaging in it would automatically have the right to marry? I suspect your answer is "no" to both.

0 Replies

My comments are in red:

Omar de Fati wrote:

Quote:

Laws that prohibit polygamy have a purpose other than perserving the institution of marriage. The state does not have a compelling interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage, but it does have a compelling interest in ensuring that the parties comply with their duties during the marriage and upon dissolution of the marriage. Accordingly, the state requires that a married person legally dissolve his first marriage to ensure the welfare of the first family before a second marriage may be entered and a second family formed.

This is irrelevant. The question remains, why not three or more persons?

The purposes for which a state criminalizes a specific conduct are always relevant. There are several cases that explain why polygamy is not allowed if you should choose to educate yourself. Your slippery slope argument has no merit. If a group of people want to marry each other and are denied a group license, I suppose the courts will have to decide if the state has a rational, or important, or compelling interest in denying group marriage.

Quote:

Laws that prohibit incest have a purpose other than preserving the institution of marriage. Incest is illegal in order to protect children from becoming victims of sexual abuse within the family unit. The state has a compelling interest in protecting children.

Two consenting adult siblings are not at risk of abusing each other as children. Further, this reasoning that children may become abused with the expectation of later marriage would have us also deny 16 yr olds the a driver's license because 14 yr old might drive illegally. This is a ridiculous defense for supporting SSM, but opposing sibling marriages.

It is not ridiculous at all. In addition to your ad hominem, this is just another slippery slope argument. The state has far different interests involved when it prohibits incest -- the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from incest and other forms of sexual abuse.

The child victim is vulnerable and susceptible to the coercion of the abuser. Under the circumstances, the essential consent to the marriage contract may have been compelled or coerced through years of abuse wherein the victim's will was overborne. The fact that the child victim may someday reach the age of majority and may wish to marry her abuser does not require the state to place its stamp of approval on incest.

It serves absolutely no purpose to compare the crime of incest with underage driving. But, if adult siblings want to get married and are denied a license, they too are entitled to bring their case before a court and have it decided whether the state has a rational, important, or compelling interest that is served by denial of the marriage license.

Quote:

Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. However, homosexuality is different. Homosexuality is not a crime.

Again, with the bait & switch. We're talking about same sex marriage not "homosexuality" itself. And, the question remains, why support same sex marriage but oppose changing the law to endorse polyandry, polygamy, sibling marriages, & a small host of other abnormal relationships?

Not bait and switch at all. That's your game. You are the one who said homosexual relationships were no different than other "abnormal" relationships, i.e., polygamy, incestuous marriages. However, there are differences whether you care to recognize them or not. Therefore, your statement was false.

Marriage is a fundamental right. It is a social contract between two consenting adults. I support same sex marriages because the state has no interest compelling enough to deprive same-sex couples the same right to a marriage license that is granted to opposite-sex couples. You use your slippery slope argument to avoid the only relevant issue: What compelling interest does the state have, if any, to discriminate against same-sex couples?

Quote:

You want to classify homosexual relationship as abnormal. Accordingly, you are making a judgment and denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law based on the judgment you have made about their interpersonal relationships.

It's abnormal because it's *not* normal. Do you not know what the word "abnormal" means? Nobody is denying same sex couples eqaul protection. They have the same protections as any of their counterparts.

Having a relationship (or a sexual relationship) with the person of the same sex might not be normal for you, but it is normal for members of our gay and lesbian population. Most states deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Accordingly, they do not have the same protections as opposite-sex couples.

Quote:

The state has no legitimate, important, or compelling interest in denying equal rights under the law to same-sex couples simply because some people may find their interpersonal relationships to be abnormal.

Nobody is denying same-sex couples equal rights "simply because some people find" whatever the hell you said. You're so dishonest, & barely slick, it's crazy.

Again, most states are denying same-sex couples the right to marry. Accordingly, most states deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law. This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

When you resort to an ad hominem argument, that means you have no rational argument.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us."

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

0 Replies

My comments are in red: I didn't read your comments in red because I don't read sloganese or because they were desperately poor misrepresentations my words, what did you say (in english)? Were you even responding to something I actually said?

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

Sentanta

Have the courtesy to spell my name correctly if you please, it is a small thing, but one with a good deal of social freight.

Quote:

No, I'm not "all over the road" at all. It's bewildering how you managed to miss the bulk of what I said in favor of responding to a parenthetical comment. I mean...that's it?

Apart from that phrase, "preserving the sanctity of marriage," not having been introduced by you parenthetically, as is demonstrated here, in a direct quote of the passage to which i refered:

Omar de Fati, on page 64, wrote:

No, no, no, no. That's no homophobia. Maybe it's religious zealotry, but it's certainly not homophobic. Preserving the sanctity of marriage also means disallowing polygamy, marriage between siblings, between children & adults, & a small host of other inventive relationships. Homosexuality is one of many ways people carry on relationships. The uniqueness of homosexual relationships are no more "different" than any abnormal relationship is "different" (except homosexuals are squeakier hinges, which by the way, doesn't mean they *deserve* to be oiled).

In fact, the phrase "preserving the sanctity of marriage" as you have used it here is crucial to an understanding of the feeble reasoning you are using. Your subsequent arguments hinge upon its use. Hence, i focused on it.

Quote:

I don't have religious scruples. I used the phrase "preserving the sanctity of marriage" in the exact manner *you* used it--i.e. in response to someone else's use of it. That's why it appeared in quotes. So have we both tipped our hand about our own religious scruples, etc., etc.?

I put "preserving the sanctity of marriage" in quotes, you didn't. It was the opening phrase of the fourth sentence of that paragraph. You did not refer to anyone else's use of it, you simply used the phrase. This is one of the reaons i say that you are all over the road--you're backpedalling, making it up as you go along. You have now said that your use of the expression was parenthetical--it wasn't. You have now implied that you used the expression in quotes--you didn't. When you use a term such a sanctity, which only has a religious meaning, you can expect that your religious scruples will be questioned.

Quote:

What do you have going here, a religionist radar with a trigger finger? Within the context of this discussion, please consider me an atheist. I suppose if I have to be religious to defend a religious concept against unjustified allegations, that makes everyone for SSM a homosexual! Done deal.

No deals are done on my behalf. If you are an atheist in the context of this discussion, why did you predicate a string of objections to altering the form of marriage upon the phrase "preserving the sanctity of marriage?" This is another example of you being all over the road. I have dealt with the phoney allegation that marriage is a religious issue in a previous post, and if you are an atheist, truly without god, you never have any reason to be religious, even in such a lame attempt to defend an indefensilbe position. It does not follow that because one is charged with religious scruples after having referred to the "sanctity of marriage," a religious concept, that those who support gay marriage are automatically homosexual. Damned odd choice of phrase by someone who claims to be atheist.

Quote:

I don't know how my "comments about marrying near relations" are hilarious. I never made one. I said "marriage between siblings" & was not even marginally inclusive of all "near relations". I made the point about siblings to help show how *other* abnormal relationships are disallowed by the "preserving the sanctity of marriage" concept, not just homosexuality (which itself goes against the allegation the concept is homophobic).

You're tipping your hand again. You use, repeatedly, the term abnormal. But just as you are in no position to dictate to us or anyone else that the concept is same sex marriage as though that were somehow opposed to the concept of gay marriage, so you are in no position to state what is disallowed, and what constitutes abnormal. Brothers and sisters married in Egypt literally for millenia, and it was not only not considered abnormal by that society, but was the height of normality. When i referred to Eleanor of Acquitaine, i was simply providing an example of the marriage of near relations from the general cultural antecedants of most people who post here--European history. You leave yourself even more open to a charge of being homophobe by using a term such as abnormal, and attempting to state what should be allowed and what should be disallowed.

Quote:

Here's what *I* find hilarious: You did all that and managed to negotiate your way around my main points. Those points were:

1) "preserving the sanctity of marriage" is more likely religious zealotry for pro-heterosexual marriage & against *all* abnormal marriage concepts, than it is homophobia, therefore, SSM is not more disallowed than the others;

Once again, you have no rhetorical authority for attempting to change the term introduced in this from gay marriage to same sex marriage. I dealt with this allegation by pointing out that marriage is and always has been a contract concerned with rights in property, and providing a glaring example of this in action (King Louis-Eleanor of Acquitaine-King Henry), to point out that even those with avowedly religious scruples can engineer the sorts of relationships necessary to acquire or preserve rights in property. I also dealt with this feeble attempt at reasoning by pointing out that marriage is regulated by the state, and therefore, only religious scruple is involved, unless you can demonstrate a compelling interest of the state in such narrow regulation. You have not failed to demonstrate this, because you haven't even attempted to demonstrate it.

Quote:

2) There's no reason to believe homosexuals have less rights than the "others" (whoever they are);

Rights are unitary things, therefore, correct standard English would require the phrase "homosexuals have fewer rights . . . "--were it not so idiotic to begin with. You clearly state that homosexuals have more rights that others; in fact you make it personal:

Omar de Fati, on page 64, wrote:

Hell, if anything, I'm trying to keep homosexuals & other people from enjoying more rights than I have.

So now we have the spectacle of you attempting to refute what i've written by blantantly misquoting yourself again and again. A good deal of your argument is predicated upon this contention that homosexuals "have more rights" than others.

Quote:

and,

3) The proposed *type* of marriage is more appropriately called same-sex marriage rather than homosexual marriage;

I feel compelled to remind you both of the title of this thread, and your lack of authority to set the terms of debate for others.

Quote:

How is it acceptable for you to skip over these & focus on a freaking parenthetical comment? Seriously. How is it acceptable? I'm forced to keep this in mind when I read your future posts.

Keep whatever in mind which assures a toasty, warm condition for the cockles of your heart. You can claim that i did not address your points, but i addressed every one of them. You can claim that your use of the term "sanctity of marriage" was parenthetical, but the very text of your post on page 64 gives the lie to that contention. One thing you should always keep in mind when posting at this site is that we can cut and paste as well as anyone else, and if you lie about what you have written, you will be busted for it. As for you lieing about what i've written, my brief experience of your rhetorical technique sadly suggests to me that this is no more than i can expect.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. However, homosexuality is different. Homosexuality is not a crime.

At this point, I'm afraid your reasoning gets circular. Would it be acceptable for you to solve this dichtonomy by re-criminalizing homosexuality? If incest and polygamy were decriminalized, would that mean that the people engaging in it would automatically have the right to marry? I suspect your answer is "no" to both.

Hi Thomas:

I was responding to another poster's argument that there is no difference between polygamy, incest, and homosexuality because they all involve "abnormal" relationships.

Whether or not these relationships are normal or abnormal (in accordance with someone's subjective judgment), there is a significant difference based on objective facts. Both polygamy and incest are unlawful whereas homosexuality is not. That is the extent of my argument with respect to whether these types of relationships are the same or different.

There is no circular argument at all. The other poster simply wants to lead us down the slippery slope: If we legalize marriage for the "abnormal" same-sex relationships, then we will have to legalize marriage for other "abnormal" relationships, i.e. polygamy or group marriages and incestuous marriages, because, he claims, there is no difference in these relationships because they are all "abnormal." No other rationale is offered.

Quote:

Slippery Slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies.

The other poster argues, if we legalize marriage for the "abnormal" same-sex relationships, then we will have to legalize marriage for other "abnormal" relationships, i.e. polygamy or group marriages and incestuous marriages. The other poster does not show a causal connection between same-sex marriages and the consequent policies other than to state all these relationships are abnormal.

Quote:

A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.

Like the example given above, I don't see how the legalization of same-sex marriages will lead to the legalization of group marriages or incestuous marriages. The only rationale given is someone's subjective opinion that all these relationships are the same, i.e., abnormal. But I have shown that these relationships are not the same; the law treats them differently.

Quote:

There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. For example, you could argue that legalizing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if we don't like those other policies, we should question whether we really buy those principles. For instance, if the proposing team argued for legalizing marijuana by saying, "individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies," the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of other drugs -- so if we don't support legalizing other drugs, then maybe we don't really believe in that principle.

Marriage is a fundamental right. Personally -- drawing upon my study of case law -- I can identify compelling state interests that may justify the continued prohibition of polygamy, group marriages, or incestuous marriages. I cannot identify a compelling state interest that may justify the continued prohibition of same-sex marriages. However, if people who want to marry groups of other people, or if people who want to marry their close family members apply for marriage licenses and are denied marriage licenses based on state law, the denial gives them standing to challenge the state law in court.

I just don't know of any close family members or groups of people (3 or more) who have applied for licenses, been denied licenses, and who are now standing in line to challenge state marriage laws. Their alleged rights, if any, are not contigent upon whether the courts allow same-sex marriages. Nothing is stopping them from asserting their challenges in court---so if there is such a danger of all these "abnormal" relationship people wanting to be united in marriage--where are they?

0 Replies

double post

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

That's not the funny part. I'm sitting here telling my friend, "she must be a freaking attorney". The reason I thought it? Only attorneys are so slick at misrepresenting anothers statements.

I did not misrepresent your statements. I addressed the statements you made. Unless you delete or edit your original posts, I can show you exactly where you made the statement that prompted a particular response. So let's not go there. Smile

0 Replies

Don't look for a rational response, Miss Law, he pulled the same stunt on me.

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Omar de Fati wrote:
"marrying the person they want to marry" is not a right anyone enjoys, heterosexual, homosexual or whatever. I'm still not aware homosexuals have less rights than anyone else.

You are wrong. The United States Supreme Court says you're wrong. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Quote:
While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

[State statute violates equal protection clause.]

* * *

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

You're wrong. I'm right. "marrying the person they want to marry" is not a right anyone enjoys.

In fact, in your last post, you went to great length demostrating several scenarios where peoople can't marry who they want. I'll remind you of those words:

Quote:

Marriage is a social contract between two persons wherein the consent of both is essential. Marriage is a secular institution in that it may only be entered into or dissolved by the laws of the state. A person's marital status entitles a person to an abundance of rights and similarly obligates a person to an abundance of duties.

Laws that prohibit polygamy have a purpose other than perserving the institution of marriage. The state does not have a compelling interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage, but it does have a compelling interest in ensuring that the parties comply with their duties during the marriage and upon dissolution of the marriage. Accordingly, the state requires that a married person legally dissolve his first marriage to ensure the welfare of the first family before a second marriage may be entered and a second family formed.

Laws that prohibit incest have a purpose other than preserving the institution of marriage. Incest is illegal in order to protect children from becoming victims of sexual abuse within the family unit. The state has a compelling interest in protecting children.

Polygamy is a crime. Incest is a crime. However, homosexuality is different. Homosexuality is not a crime.

You want to classify homosexual relationship as abnormal. Accordingly, you are making a judgment and denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law based on the judgment you have made about their interpersonal relationships.

The state has no legitimate, important, or compelling interest in denying equal rights under the law to same-sex couples simply because some people may find their interpersonal relationships to be abnormal.

I mean...geez...is it too much to ask for a little consistency here?

Nothing I have said is inconsistent. You need to read the entire post.

You are ignoring the definition of marriage: It is a social contract between two persons wherein the consent of both parties is essential.

Marriage is not a social contract among a group of people (3 or more). If an individual wants to marry more than one person, the law requires that the individual legally dissolve the first marriage before entering the second marriage. The state is not preventing you from marrying the person of your choice, you just have to divorce your first spouse before you marry your second spouse.

You may not form an incestuous marriage. Remember, consent of the parties is essential. A victim of familial sexual abuse (incest) is vulnerable and the will is easily manipulated & overborne by a predator who is the family member. The essential consent of both parties to a marriage contract cannot be obtained in situations involving incest.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Omar de Fati wrote:

That's not the funny part. I'm sitting here telling my friend, "she must be a freaking attorney". The reason I thought it? Only attorneys are so slick at misrepresenting anothers statements.

I did not misrepresent your statements. I addressed the statements you made. Unless you delete or edit your original posts, I can show you exactly where you made the statement that prompted a particular response. So let's not go there.

Really? So if I list a few statements you've made that I think are misrepresentations, why I think it, you'll show me why you think they are accurate representations? (that means I don't care if you show me "what prompted the response". I want to see you demostrate it's an accurate representation)

I think that would be seriously great.

0 Replies

Debra_Law,

This abnormal concept is interesting. Who defines same sex relationships as abnormal? Surly no the GLBT Community.

Of the three types of relationships noted only one poses a social/medical problem, incest. Breeding of closely related individuals reinforces dominant characteristics, both beneficial and detrimental. To be frank about incest it is not usually done with the consent of the younger person, most often it is actually incestuous rape.

I personally know of several group marriages, not legally sanctioned, in which all of the members are happy with their situation. Society as a whole does not know and therefore does not care.

I personally believe that the whole controversy is based on how much will it cost businesses to provide insurance and other benefits to those in SSM, and propaganda. Most GLBT couples I know are just people. They want to live a comfortable life, perhaps raise a family, and die quietly. Unfortunately, in order to do so we must show society and those in power that to recognize our relationships will not damage the usual female/ male marriages or cut into profits, too much.

For those who do not know, my partner Wiyaka, is pre-op M to F Transsexual. I am genetically female. If she has SRS I will still love her as I do now. Sexual relations with one's partner are like icing on a cake. If the cake is great the icing makes it a little better. If the cake is bad, no amount of icing will improve it.

IMO one of the big problems many people have with same sex relationships is the "ish, or yuck" factor. They picture themselves having sexual relations with another man or woman and are revolted. Thats fine, do not have sexual relations with a member of your sex, but, please do not force your attitudes on anyone else.

0 Replies

Re: piss them off

Omar de Fati wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Omar de Fati wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Omar de Fati wrote:
The title of this thread is ridiculous. . . .

It doesn't help the half-baked arguments for SSM when the arguments are riddled with pejoratives & inflammatory ultimatums. If ever a point was made by them, I might hold out a moment longer just to piss them off.

You fail to state any reason why you are against same-sex marriages other than for the sake of being arbitrary.

No, I didn't "fail to state any reason why" I am against SSM. It wasn't my intention. I wasn't aware I was required to do so in order to participate in the thread. My response was directly to the initial post. Just as I excluded a gazillion other things, for example, my home address, are you going to consider excluding my home address a failure to disclose it, too? Also, I didn't state my position is held arbitrarily.

The points I attempted to communicate are:

1) Same-sex marriage is more appropriate language than "gay-marriage" (this works in the proponents of SSM favor, not mine, except where it helps sling the homophobe buzzword around);

2) There's nothing less than silliness behind the suggestion people who oppose same-sex marriage are homophobes;

3) I'm not convinced or compelled by the arguments for same-sex marriage. With a special note, the tendency by SSM proponents is (as you've just shown) I should be arbitrarily for same-sex marriage. This raises point 3.1: Why should I be arbitrarily for it? There's no reason because this is arbitrary;

4) I'm not homophobic, or Christian, & I don't think homosexuality is immoral;and,

5) Proponents of SSM who are accessible for discussion tend to be tactless, angry, & too willing to make use of pejorative terms & ultimatums.

I don't see how stating "any reason why" I'm against SSM or my address for that matter, has to do with communicating my points.

Withholding one's approval of a legal measure that would afford same-sex couples equal protection under the law simply to piss people off is not only arbitrary, it's capricious.

The title of this thread states a conclusion: "The anti-gay marriage movement is homophobic."

You are claiming that you are not homophobic, that you do not object to homosexuality on moral grounds, yet you do not approve of same-sex marriage. You have not said anything to disprove the author's conclusion. You have not stated any legitimate reason for advocating a position that discriminates against homosexuals.

You simply engage in the very same conduct that you purportedly object to. There are people in this country who have tried to discern a legitimate, rational reason for discrimination and unequal treatment of homosexuals. They are hard-pressed to find a reason other than moral disapproval and unfounded fears. Simply responding that the conclusion is ridiculous and nothing but silliness begs the question.

If moral disapproval and unfounded fears (homophobia) is not the basis for the movement to prevent homosexuals from getting married, then what is the basis?

You most certainly have the floor whenever you choose to explain:

1) how homosexuals have less rights than their counter parts;

2) why this should be about homosexuals & not same sex marriage; or,

3) why two hetersexuals shouldn't enjoy this *new* version of marriage; or,

4) why, in the absence of any of the above, I should "just do it" cause...

Otherwise, you can save your strawman, passive aggressive personal attacks, & misquoting behavior for someone else.

If you feel courageous, you could throw in:

5) why anyone should agree your totally obscure & silly definition of homophobia is correct

reminder bump.

0 Replies

Omar, you're out of line.

You need to cool down a little.

At least, I would certainly recommend it.

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

My comments are in red: I didn't read your comments in red because I don't read sloganese or because they were desperately poor misrepresentations my words, what did you say (in english)? Were you even responding to something I actually said?

Working my way around all your ad hominem arguments (crazy, irrelevant, abnormal, slick, etc.), I attempted to glean whatever substance you may have sprinkled into your posts and I addressed the issues.

I have yet to receive a reasoned response.

You have the subjective opinion that a homosexual relationship is abnormal and that characterization, in and of itself, demonstrates your prejudice. I'm done with you.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Omar, you're out of line.

You need to cool down a little.

At least, I would certainly recommend it.

Uhm...what exactly does cooling down entail in your opinion?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Omar de Fati wrote:
My comments are in red: I didn't read your comments in red because I don't read sloganese or because they were desperately poor misrepresentations my words, what did you say (in english)? Were you even responding to something I actually said?

Working my way around all your ad hominem arguments (crazy, irrelevant, abnormal, slick, etc.), I attempted to glean whatever substance you may have sprinkled into your posts and I addressed the issues.

I have yet to receive a reasoned response.

You have the subjective opinion that a homosexual relationship is abnormal and that characterization, in and of itself, demonstrates your prejudice. I'm done with you.

Good. That means you won't be misrepresenting my words anymore. It also means I won't be the subject of your own passive agressive ad hom.

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

SCoates wrote:
Omar, you're out of line.

You need to cool down a little.

At least, I would certainly recommend it.

Uhm...what exactly does cooling down entail in your opinion?

My opinion is irrelevant. You need to cool down.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Omar de Fati wrote:
SCoates wrote:
Omar, you're out of line.

You need to cool down a little.

At least, I would certainly recommend it.

Uhm...what exactly does cooling down entail in your opinion?

My opinion is irrelevant. you need to cool down.

I'd love to take your advise, but it's a tad cryptic. Why don't you just tell me what you mean by 'cool down'?

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Omar de Fati wrote:

That's not the funny part. I'm sitting here telling my friend, "she must be a freaking attorney". The reason I thought it? Only attorneys are so slick at misrepresenting anothers statements.

I did not misrepresent your statements. I addressed the statements you made. Unless you delete or edit your original posts, I can show you exactly where you made the statement that prompted a particular response. So let's not go there.

Really? So if I list a few statements you've made that I think are misrepresentations, why I think it, you'll show me why you think they are accurate representations? (that means I don't care if you show me "what prompted the response". I want to see you demostrate it's an accurate representation)

I think that would be seriously great.

Okay . . . you're the accuser. The charge: Misrepresentation.

As the accused, I'm entitled to specific notice of the statements you made and exactly where and how I misrepresented those statements.

Go ahead. Present your case of Omar de Fati v. Debra_Law.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know