You can paint zebra stripes on a toad. But it's still a toad. Say ribbit, honey.

I wasn't defining homophobia ~ and that's not even a very artful dodge on your part. I was pointing out that your reputation here as homophobic is something you've established in your various posts on different subjects over the last couple of years. Here are the first three definitions I've come upon, using various dictionaries. Your usage is incorrect anyway. " . . . you're defining homophobia as someone who . . .' I'm sure you meant "homophobe".


Homophobia, definitions ~

An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

Prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality.

Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals



Deritives ~ Homophobe: noun. Homophobic: adjective.

In that case you shouldn't have made the accusation. If you want to maintain it now you have to move away from general slurs such as "your reputation" and "various posts on different topics over the last few years" and identify specific statements that you say exhibit the "extreme and irrational aversion..." that you allege. I believe my posts have done quite the opposite.

km

Have you complained to the police? You don't have to face it on your own - you can get help from Narth.

km

Then you believe wrongly. Very, very wrongly.

And there's no need to refer to any particular statements of yours because you're the only one disputing the allegation (or accurate description, in your case). You've been called on your homophobia by many others here, and as much as you seem to think it, we can't all be wrong.

If anyone has any proving to do, it's you.

No, I believe rightly. In the all the years I've been posting on these boards I haven't once maligned a person for his sexuality, perceived or otherwise. You do it on a regular basis with occasional contributions from other bigots such as your new recruit Varmintblubber.

What I have done is offered conventional mainstream viewpoints on the general subject and quite often expressed admiration for individual gays on which your opinion has been conspicuous by its absence. That's the trouble with having a false view of the world such as yours - you can't cope when something doesn't fit the bliueprint.


Yes, if you make an accusation you have to back it up. If you can't do so fair minded people will dismiss it.


No you have - and examples are all over the board if you need reminding of them. Do you see a difference there? I can back up my statements, you can't.


What all three of you? There's very little credibility to go 'round there I'm afraid.

km

Four.

Big deal - four who can't back up an accusation.

km

quote=keymaker]
Yeah, but within a narrower range.

km [/quote]

Narrower implies limited or restricted - very homophobic statement.

But really, who has the time/desire to go through all your contrary and revealing statements. You will rebut with a variation on the theme. It is tiresome.

Yeah, mainly because the benefits available from same sex couples are more limited or restricted. For example neither of two males can breast-feed. The fact that you're in denial over basic truths makes you ignorant or bigoted, or both, but it doesn't make me homophobic.


Noope, I posted the science on a previous occasion but even without that it'd still be pretty damn obvious to anyone with an open mind.

km