The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

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.

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'?

Omar de Fati wrote:

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'?

Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone? But sure, I'll play along.

Your posts are angry and disrespectful. By "cool down" I meant to suggest you eliminate those aspects from each post. But focusing on just one or the other would be a sufficient start.

Is that what you wanted? I can explain any of those words if you have more trouble.

And you know what, I still haven't heard word one why I should support same sex marriage

or why anyone is otherwise a homophobe

So if I list a few statements you've made that I think are misrepresentations and why I think it, you'll show me why you think they are accurate representations?

Omar de Fati wrote:

So if I list a few statements you've made that I think are misrepresentations and why I think it, you'll show me why you think they are accurate representations?

All you do is make ad hominem arguments and accuse people of misrepresenting your statements. If you have a case, spell it out. If not, quit making accusations.

Can we make the claim (validly, or sensibly) that the anti-segretation movement was racist?

Or, that the anti-women's right to vote movement was sexist?

A majority of people in this country currently oppose same sex marriage for a variety of reasons, most of which do not have anything to do with a fear of or aversion to homosexuals.

blatham wrote:

Can we make the claim (validly, or sensibly) that the anti-segretation movement was racist?

Or, that the anti-women's right to vote movement was sexist?

Well, you can make the claim that segregation was racist, but not the anti-segregation movement. :wink:
Wink noted. But why hedge on this question? Possibly, someone's personal economic interests might have been affected by particular anti-segregation legislation (that is, a person here or there in the south may have been motivated by other than racism) but the movement was most surely an expression of deep cultural preferences for which 'racism' is the appropriate descriptor.

But what you are hinting at has nothing to do with people who oppose gay marriage being homophobes. If you want to call someone a homophobe, go out and find people who discriminate against homosexuals. Go find people who are trying to treat them as second class citizens. I am certain that some are in the anti-same sex marriage crowd. But, as the title of this thread states, do not paint the majority of those as homophobes simply because of opposition to same sex marriage.
The applicable definition of 'homophobia' was entered much earlier on the thread and has again, one page back, been re-entered by revel (tah). Beating or dragging behind a truck isn't a necessary precondition to matching this definition. So far, here or elsewhere, I've yet to come across an argument justifying the denial of gays the rights to full equality (including in marriage) which comes anywhere near meeting the sort of criteria we might need to justify denial of equality.


A majority of people in this country currently oppose same sex marriage for a variety of reasons, most of which do not have anything to do with a fear of or aversion to homosexuals.
Yes, you say this, but what are those reasons in their full and non-homophobic variety? And what tests ought they to meet such that they justify placing your preferences, or a majoritarian preference, over the principles of equality and fairness?[/[/color]quote]

Quote:

And you know what, I still haven't heard word one why I should support same sex marriage

Go back and read the thread

Quote:

or why anyone is otherwise a homophobe

Usually it is because they are repressed homosexuals.

blatham wrote:

Can we make the claim (validly, or sensibly) that the anti-segretation movement was racist?

....

Well, you can make the claim that segregation was racist, but not the anti-segregation movement. :wink:

Quote:

A majority of people in this country currently oppose same sex marriage for a variety of reasons, most of which do not have anything to do with a fear of or aversion to homosexuals.

How could you possibly know that? As we know, those who are motivated by homophobia and latent homosexulaity are not going to admit it.

I cannot unequivocally state that all or most people who oppose same sex marriage are homophobes. And you cannot state that they are not. What would be refreshing is for just one person here to admit he is homophobic.

CoastalRat wrote:

blatham wrote:

Can we make the claim (validly, or sensibly) that the anti-segretation movement was racist?

....

Well, you can make the claim that segregation was racist, but not the anti-segregation movement. :wink:

I have seen blatham (or certainly his better half, so perhaps I'm confusing them here) make the argument that someone who wishes that race NOT be a factor in any part of life, is a racist ... so it comes as no real surprise to see him make the claim that an "anti-segregationist" is a racist.

CoastalRat wrote:

blatham wrote:

Can we make the claim (validly, or sensibly) that the anti-segretation movement was racist?

....

Well, you can make the claim that segregation was racist, but not the anti-segregation movement. :wink:

I have seen blatham (or certainly his better half, so perhaps I'm confusing them here) make the argument that someone who wishes that race NOT be a factor in any part of life, is a racist ... so it comes as no real surprise to see him make the claim that an "anti-segregationist" is a racist.