I don’t have anything against gays, but frankly speaking if some guy were to flirt with me I would think it was creepy and make me wonder what I’m doing wrong.
On the other hand I feel that the two guys who did that to me are trolls of the highest caliber.
A bit off-topic, but the Aztec discussion reminded me of the books by Aliette de Bodard. They’re a triology of murder mysteries set in the Aztec empire where the “detective” is a priest. They don’t justify any of the bloodiness of the religion…it’s just accepted as given. But the books are fascinating as a look into living in that culture and how the people feel about it. The mysteries themselves were just o.k., but I really enjoyed reading them for more than the plots.
If you wouldn’t think it was creepy for a woman to flirt with you, and a woman flirting with you wouldn’t make you wonder what you were doing wrong, then you apparently do think there’s something “wrong” about being gay.
Only once have I had a guy flirt with me; I was actually flattered. He was obviously a gentleman of good taste 
Just not something I would reciprocate!
I agree that, in this particular context, given the wording of “what I’m doing wrong,” it does sound like gay panic. But I want to throw out that I do think it’s possible for a person of any gender and sexual orientation to feel more threatened when a man flirts with them than when a woman does, without it being homophobic. As a straight woman, I’m always flattered and not the least bit threatened when women hit on me, even though I’m not at all interested. But when men hit on me, it’s often a very uncomfortable experience. This obviously has everything to do with the prevalence of male sexual violence and nothing to do with me being heterophobic.
That’s right.
I’d appreciate some debating tips if you are willing to share.
I’m allergic to the tactic where someone says “So, what you are basically saying is…” and then makes up something that has nothing to do with what you said.
Here’s what I said…
Here are some attempts to rephrase or reframe my argument…
Why is the argument “our hetero marriage is divinely blessed by God but your filthy gay marriage is an abomination before the Lord” not bigoted?
Note that Babale claimed that this is, I quote, “literally what you said”.
Is the argument “I was made in God’s image, while you were made in God’s image as well but then cursed with the sign of Ham and so deserve to be my slave” bigoted?
You just don’t think they should own land, or sit in your part of the bus, or drink from your drinking fountain, or marry your daughter
what you posted about gay people
Is your argument that the Catholic Church does NOT view gay marriage as an abomination?
nobody just came right out and said Gay people shouldn’t have rights, but that’s what it sounds to me like they really meant.
If you said “White men are created in God’s image” and then pretended that you weren’t saying anything about blacks or women with that statement, that would be obviously ridiculous.
This is exactly the same as saying you have a great regard and affection for Black people as long as they don’t think they don’t try to vote, so you can’t be a racist.
you are saying gay marriages are lesser than straight
marriages
After the first seven or eight of these, I concluded that Babale was not interested in discussing what I had said.
As soon as Babale stopped making stuff up about what I had said or believed, I engaged them in discussion. Kron too.
Tell me, ShadowFacts, what’s the correct way to debate someone who makes stuff up? How would the real Socrates deal with it?
I must say, I rather resent the implication that I made anything up; if you could show me where I did, I will certainly clarify any misunderstandings.
That sounds a little anti-gay, but I’m going to assume that you didn’t mean it that way.
I’d be flattered if a gay guy flirted with me. Hasn’t happened in years. (And I imagine that the few gay dudes who did flirt with me in years gone by knew perfectly well that I wasn’t gay and were just teasing me. Which is cool.)
I don’t believe I ever said your debate style is not “correct.” If you can show me where I did, I will happily discuss it with you. Until then, I will have to assume you did not understand what I actually said.
The fact that you keep repeating the claim that this statement has nothing to do with gay people is baffling, and the height of privilege. It is clearly placing heterosexual marriages above gay marriages. I still see no distinction between that, and this:
You don’t have to say the “abomination” part out loud.
Have you ever flirted with a woman? If you did, were you aware of her sexual orientation at the time? If she were a lesbian, would she have the right to consider you “creepy” or a “troll of the highest caliber”?
IAN furryman and cannot speak for him, but the impression I got from his post is that he was saying that he decided that the guys who flirted with them were “trolls of the highest caliber” based on some other evidence, not just the fact that they were gay guys flirting with him.
That said, I agree that furryman’s general attitude towards being flirted with by a gay guy seems somewhat hostile and overly defensive. It’s no creepier for a gay guy to flirt with a man than for a straight man to flirt with a women. Creepiness, if any, is all in the circumstances and the specific behavior.
I did not mean to imply that. If I gave impression, then I apologize.
I meant to contrast the fact that engaged with your argument with the fact that I was not interested in engaging the other posters who made stuff up.
I quoted you as saying
If this is the kind of debate he wants to see on the board, count me out.
I entered from that that there was a different style of debating that you preferred to see. I think that was a reasonable inference.
You are right. They are almost word for word the same.
By the way, I think putting your words in a quote box with my name on it to suggest that I said them is the height of dishonesty.
I inferred from that.
Autocorrect does not recognize ‘inferred’ as a word.
So what you’ve indicated, kevlaw, is that it’s fine for you to draw logical inferences from what others have said, but it’s not fine for others to draw logical inferences from what you have said.
Which ought to explain the problems people have with your debating style.
Was there a different meaning that I should have inferred?
I didn’t say anything about which meaning you should have inferred.
To restate my point, from your posts in this thread you appear to consider it acceptable for you to draw logical inferences from what others have said, but not for others to draw logical inferences from what you have said. Why is that?