# To the lady who called me a homophobic fucktard the other day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 25, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080 "2005-07-25T17:11:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Greathouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greathouse/32/2992_2.png) [@Greathouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greathouse)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/161 "2005-07-28T19:44:07Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > I’m going to have to go over this thread tonite. I think Miller has scored some more points, making him a double winner. Of course I’ll have to check to be sure. Later. First I have to finish listening to some songs by Mötley Crüe.(They aren’t one of those new German industrial bands. They’re an 80s band.) Awesome 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/162 "2005-07-28T19:44:35Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > So you don’t think it’s possible there was something in his tone or the look on his face that caused the reaction from the woman? Dude, the post just above yours has me saying that it’s **possible** he’s the famous bookstore murderer. If I’m willing to admit the possibility of his killing harry potter fans, why do you think I’m unwilling to admit the possibility that something in his tone cause her reaction? There’s a huge difference between thinking something’s possible and thinking something’s probable. I see no evidence to make me think that it’s **probable** she was reacting to his tone or look. > [@](#): > > You don’t think that his perspective on this is going to be slightly different than hers? Incorrect. > [@](#): > > If a 40 year old man entering with a younger woman had flashed him a ring he damn sure would have known that it meant they are married. He even indicates he was pretty sure that’s what she meant but he chose to make a smart assed comment instead that can easily be interpreted as a dismissal of their marriage. Again, incorrect. What he said was: > [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Even though I was pretty sure I understood what she was saying, I wanted to clarify. So I asked if she was her daughter, either by birth or by adoption. He wasn’t choosing to make a smartassed comment; he was clarifying. In fact, he was giving her an out, so that she could tell a white lie and thereby get her wife into the club. Personally, if I’d seen a 40-year-old man coming to a club with a 20-year-old woman, claiming he was her legal guardian, and pointing to his wedding band, I’d think he was an idiot who believed only married men could be legal guardians. It would never occur to me that he’d be taking the creepalicious position that he was his wife’s legal guardian: the term “legal guardian” is inextricably tied to the term “parent” in my head (and, I believe, in the law). > [@](#): > > I’d presume that she chose the term “legal guardian” instead of spouse because of the three signs so dutifully noted mentioned “parent or legal guardian”. If a minor can enter the bar with a parent, it’s reasonable to think that a spouse can enter a building with a spouse. My guess is that she didn’t imply that a spouse is a legal guardian in general, but for the purposes of admittance to the bar. By showing the OP her ring, she clearly is indicating that they consider themselves married, and possibly legally are somewhere. From her perspective, the door-man’s question dismisses the signficance of her ring and, to her mind, probably was intentionally so. Note that when **Ashtar** wasn’t sure what was being signified, he asked for a clarification. When she wasn’t sure, she went psycho. That’s why he’s in the clear and she’s not. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/163 "2005-07-28T20:35:52Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Dude, the post just above yours has me saying that it’s possible he’s the famous bookstore murderer. If I’m willing to admit the possibility of his killing harry potter fans, why do you think I’m unwilling to admit the possibility that something in his tone cause her reaction? What? You don’t think I can recognize sarcasm? You’re assuming that he’s relaying the events exactly as they occurred. I’m not. I’ve lived long enough to know that every person tells their stories from their point of view and there’s no reason to believe his tone and look are entirely neutral. Her reaction as described indicates to me that there must have been something to trigger her emotional response. I think that if he hadn’t meant to be dismissive, he would have said something about being married doesn’t get a minor in the door; not asked if she was the young lady’s mother. He wasn’t giving her an opening, he was feigning that he didn’t know she meant they are married. The question itself indicated that he did not consider the wedding ring to indicate they were married. Like so many other gay folks, her parents may not even recognize it as a real marriage. She’s probably had the relationship disparaged enough times that she’s a bit sensistive about it. From her perspective, this was likely just another in a long line of little incidents when their relationship was put down or dismissed. That explanation makes sense and seem far more likely than she was just looking for a fight. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/164 "2005-07-28T20:44:58Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > What? You don’t think I can recognize sarcasm? I do think your rhetorical question evince an inability to understand my thoughts; whether that’s your fault or mine, I can’t answer. > [@](#): > > You’re assuming that he’s relaying the events exactly as they occurred. NO I AM NOT. I am recognizing that, while he may not be reporting things exactly right, I’ve got no evidence that they happened in any specific other way. I mean, like I demonstrated above, I can come up with wild-ass speculation on what _really_ happened just as easily as you can. The difference is that, once I’ve speculated, I don’t come to believe my speculation. > [@](#): > > I think that if he hadn’t meant to be dismissive, he would have said something about being married doesn’t get a minor in the door; not asked if she was the young lady’s mother. He wasn’t giving her an opening, he was feigning that he didn’t know she meant they are married. That’s not how I read it; indeed, you look to me to be the archetypal hostile reader, who interprets a person’s words in the most negative light imaginable. > [@](#): > > The question itself indicated that he did not consider the wedding ring to indicate they were married. Like so many other gay folks, her parents may not even recognize it as a real marriage. She’s probably had the relationship disparaged enough times that she’s a bit sensistive about it. Look: her parents may have organized a phalanx of trained chimpanzees to hurl feces at her while a Swedish strongman yodeled a tune disparaging of gay marriage. That doesn’t give her license to freak out at a bouncer who’s just doing his job. I freely admit that she’s a “bit sensitive” about the issue. That, right there, would be the problem, wouldn’t it? Being a “bit sensitive” doesn’t mean you can be a “bit ch.” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/165 "2005-07-28T20:47:24Z")
And I suspect that, no matter how tactfully **Lord Ashtar** pointed out that this couple’s marriage had no force of law, the person in queston was going to be bitchy. Because, as you seem to realize, she had a non-minor chip on her shoulder on the subject. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/166 "2005-07-28T20:52:37Z")
“You” is **Homebrew** in the above. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/167 "2005-07-28T21:25:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And I suspect that, no matter how tactfully **Lord Ashtar** pointed out that this couple’s marriage had no force of law, the person in queston was going to be bitchy. Had he pointed out that marriage, in general, doesn’t grant admission without questioning the validity of their particular marriage it might have diffused the situation. Instead, he feigned not understanding what she meant and inflammed the situation. He may not have even meant to, but it’s not hard to see how someone in her position is probably used to having people dismiss her relationship and reacting to the question the way she did. Pretend that he said, “I’m sorry, but being married doesn’t qualify as being a legal guardian for the purposes of entering a bar in Virgina.” She probably would have been pissed anyway; but it wouldn’t have been personal to **L.A.**. He could have been more tactful and possibly not been called a fucktard. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > That’s not how I read it; indeed, you look to me to be the archetypal hostile reader, who interprets a person’s words in the most negative light imaginable. Experience is a harsh teacher. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/168 "2005-07-28T21:30:49Z")
So, he was an asshole for not instantly and correctly interpreting an ambiguous non-verbal response to a direct question, and for exisisting in the same world as genuine homophobes? Yeah, that sounds rational. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/169 "2005-07-28T21:31:31Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Pretend that he said, “I’m sorry, but being married doesn’t qualify as being a legal guardian for the purposes of entering a bar in Virgina.” To which she might have said, “What the fuck’s wrong with you? She’s my daughter!” Again, he was asking in order to clarify. I will go with you so far as to admit that, in hindsight, there may have been a more tactful way to ask the question that wouldn’t have gotten him yelled at no matter what (for example, he could have said, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand,” and that might have been better). However, his behavior was NOT disrespecting her marriage, and his clarification question was perfectly reasonable, and her response was not. Given that her response was not reasonable, it’s a little bizarre to chastize him for provoking it; how can he predict what’s going to set off an unreasonable stranger? > [@](#): > > Experience is a harsh teacher. Yeah–I’m learning something right now. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/170 "2005-07-28T21:40:16Z")
> [@elfbabe](#): > > I’d like to provide some other examples and ask you if you think these situations are the same, or somehow different. > > Let’s say a pair of first cousins gets married in a state where this is legal and visits a state where it isn’t, and where such marriages are not legally recognized. (Laws on recognition of out-of-state cousin marriages are kind of spotty, or I’d give specifics) The wife becomes sick/injured and unconscious, and someone at the hospital wants to see if he can make medical decisions on her behalf. He’s asked what their relationship is. Should he say she’s his wife? Would you say he’s only calling her his wife because “[he] has a big phucking chip on [his] shoulder and wants to take it out on any authority figure at hand,” or not? Hmm. If we had some ham we’d have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs. These two cases are very like each other, except for the parts where they’re not. Suppose they were two cousins from a state where cousin marriages aren’t allowed. Suppose they visited another state to get married. Suppose they returned home knowing darned well that their home state still didn’t recognise their marriage. Then we’re getting closer to the situation in the OP. And, yanno, I’d have sympathy for the older lesbian wanting to claim the right to make medical decisions for her younger partner and I probably wouldn’t mention “phucking chips on shoulders” the way I would over bullying your way into licensed premises. Ditto for the cousins. Sympathy’s more easily doled out when there’s a grievously ill person to take into account. Even I, hardhearted homophobic bigot though I may seem to paint myself, am perfectly able to tear up over the thought of a gay life-partner banished from the hospital bedside. > [@elfbabe](#): > > Or let’s say my boyfriend and I get married and take a trip to the Vatican. (Though I have no idea why we’d want to go there…) He was baptized Catholic as a kid, much to his current dismay. I am 100% unsaved. According to the Catholic church, our marriage would be invalid. Imagine a similar situation to the one described above happens. Same questions. Meh. If you must insist on bearding the Church of Rome in its lair, I wash my hands of you, the same as I wash my hands of you if you insist on peddling booze in Saudi Arabia. I think Saudi laws on alcohol are idiotic, but only a fool flouts them on Saudi soil. That said, I would certainly _hope_ the Vatican hospital authorities would treat foreigners with dignity and restraint. Your questions, and my rather waffly answers to them, demonstrate that this is clearly not a black and white issue. Wherever the line’s to be drawn though, a lesbian’s claim that another woman is her wife in a state that she knows perfectly well does not recognise gay marriages (and you’re the one who’s assumed, on no evidence, that they had the marriage legitimately celebrated elsewhere, rather than find the first sympathetic soul who’d agree to conduct a ceremony legally or otherwise, or else just swap rings and decide they’d call each other wife and wife thereafter) does not stand up on any legal grounds whatever, and trying to browbeat **LA** with it was assholish. The attitude problem I assume from context, and I may be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/171 "2005-07-28T21:49:53Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, he was an asshole for not instantly and correctly interpreting an ambiguous non-verbal response to a direct question, and for exisisting in the same world as genuine homophobes? > > Yeah, that sounds rational. God you’re such a drama queen. Neither I nor **Otto** said he was an asshole. We’ve only pointed out how his question could easily be taken as a dismissal of the significance of their wedding rings. In offering a plausible, alternate view of the proceedings, we (or at least I) hope to perhaps make **Lord Ashtar** a little more understanding of how he affected the woman in the OP. Maybe in the future, if faced with a similar situation, he’ll be prepared with a more tactful response, which I would think a good idea for a bouncer/doorman. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > To which she might have said, “What the fuck’s wrong with you? She’s my daughter!” At least my hypotheticals are plausible. If she had meant the girl was her daughter she would have said so, not pointed at the ring. There is no reason for someone to point to a ring to indicate a parental relationship. Nobody - not you, not the OP, not even a six-year-old kid - thinks pointing to a ring would indicate a parent/child relationship. Pointing to a ring indicates a spousal relationship. By the same token pointing to a ringless finger is meant to indicate availability and non-martial status. I’ll grant that her reaction was overblown. But it didn’t come from nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/172 "2005-07-28T21:56:38Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > At least my hypotheticals are plausible. If she had meant the girl was her daughter she would have said so, not pointed at the ring. There is no reason for someone to point to a ring to indicate a parental relationship. Nobody - not you, not the OP, not even a six-year-old kid - thinks pointing to a ring would indicate a parent/child relationship. Pointing to a ring indicates a spousal relationship. By the same token pointing to a ringless finger is meant to indicate availability and non-martial status. How cam you totally ignore the fact that the woman said she was her legal guardian…??? I’m sorry but to a normal person that means parent, stepparent or foster parent…some variant of PARENT. This is a classic mixed message. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/173 "2005-07-28T22:06:47Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > At least my hypotheticals are plausible. If she had meant the girl was her daughter she would have said so, not pointed at the ring. Right, and if she had meant the woman was her wife she would have said so, not said she was her legal guardian. Nobody–not you, not Ashtar, not the psycho–equates legal guardian with wife. Pretty fun, ain’t it, making these sweeping generalizations? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/174 "2005-07-28T22:27:44Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > God you’re such a drama queen. _I’m_ a drama queen? ME? **HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A DRAMA QUEEN!** > [@](#): > > Neither I nor **Otto** said he was an asshole. \ It was a paraphrase. **Otto** said it was “a shitty thing to do,” and you’re agreeing with **Otto**. That’s not as strong as “asshole,” but it still places the blame unfairly on **Ashtar** ’s shoulders. He didn’t do anything wrong. The woman completely over-reacted to an innocent and pertinent question. > [@](#): > > We’ve only pointed out how his question could easily be taken as a dismissal of the significance of their wedding rings. In offering a plausible, alternate view of the proceedings, we (or at least I) hope to perhaps make **Lord Ashtar** a little more understanding of how he affected the woman in the OP. Maybe in the future, if faced with a similar situation, he’ll be prepared with a more tactful response, which I would think a good idea for a bouncer/doorman. I disagree. I have no doubt that the woman has had a history of taking shit for being a lesbian. That sucks, I have sympathy for her because of that, and it’d be great if we all lived in a society where that didn’t happen. But **Lord Ashtar** didn’t do any of that to her, and lashing out at him, because other people have been mean to her, is inexcusable. He asked a perfectly innocent, entirely reasonable question, and was verbally assaulted. I don’t care how oppressed your minority is, that’s not an acceptable action. Being gay isn’t an excuse to act like an asshole. If this woman can’t handle an honest question without automatically assuming the asker is a homophobe, than she needs therapy. She doesn’t need anyone defending her actions, because they are indefensible. > [@](#): > > At least my hypotheticals are plausible. If she had meant the girl was her daughter she would have said so, not pointed at the ring. There is no reason for someone to point to a ring to indicate a parental relationship. Nobody - not you, not the OP, not even a six-year-old kid - thinks pointing to a ring would indicate a parent/child relationship. Pointing to a ring indicates a spousal relationship. By the same token pointing to a ringless finger is meant to indicate availability and non-martial status. Since **Lord Ashtar** was asking them if they had a parental relationship, pointing to her ring is an effectively meaningless gesture, and pretty much demands a more specific follow-up. And you’re being overly broad in your “nobodies” there, as demonstrated by more than one poster in this thread. Such as this one: > [@missbunny](#): > > Anyway, I would have been confused in the OP’s situation. It would not have been my first thought that one was trying to say she was married to the other, especially while calling herself the other’s legal guardian. Is this how married people generally refer to themselves in other states? “Hi, I’m Sally and this is my legal guardian, Mark/Jane. We’re married.” That term would have completely thrown me off. > [@Homebrew](#): > > I’ll grant that her reaction was overblown. But it didn’t come from nowhere. Sure, there’s a _reason_ for it. A reason is not the same as an excuse. If I get mugged by a black guy and turn into a racist as a result, the mugging does not excuse me being a racist, and no one is required to overlook my racism because something bad once happened to me. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/175 "2005-07-28T23:49:42Z")
Dudes, can I interest you in the vast and overwhelmingly mellow possibilities afforded by not giving a fuck? Brother **Otto** has the carefree vibe down, I suggest you follow suit; especially effective if one repeatedly avows one’s non-caring credentials over the course of several posts. Plus, watching the mice _totally_ rules. They’re cute and speedy! While we’re completely speculating about whether **Lord Ashtar** lied to us, incidentally, have we considered the possibility that he’s a giant libertarian squid in disguise? These things need to be taken into account. I can totally see how a lesbian sugar daddy would be perturbed by enormous land-dwelling cephalopods bearing tricky questions. “SPECIALIST SUBJECT, SQUISHY HUMAN!” “Um, marital relations in suburban Virginia?” “WRONG, THE SUBJECT IS PARROTS AND THE CONSEQUENT CUTTLEFISH HOLOCAUST! FEEL THE POWER OF MY ENORMOUS BEAK!” “Aaaaargh!” ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/176 "2005-07-29T06:32:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > _I’m_ a drama queen? ME? **HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A DRAMA QUEEN!** You just _don’t understand_, **Miller**! How _could_ you? This fine woman has to live _ **every day of her life** _ under the constant _persecution_ of people like **YOU** who don’t respect the sanctity of her marriage! I’ll bet that the _only_ reason she was even going to the bar that night was because her parents had _just_ called her that day to remind her that they don’t approve! And then that lying _ **brute** _ Lord Ashtar actually had the **nerve** to show her such crass breeder-like _ **insensitivity** _! That noble woman’s _ **pain** _ is what drove her to call a bouncer a homophobic fucktard. Strength and courage to you, my sapphic comrade! ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/177 "2005-07-29T13:38:51Z")
Okay… this is a joke, right? Did you seriously just call him a “Brute” and a “Breeder”. And say > [@](#): > > This fine woman has to live every day of her life under the constant persecution of people _This fine woman_? Hahahahaha. _constant persecution_? That’s some funny shit. Stop it,stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/178 "2005-07-29T13:40:27Z")
I love the smell of whoosh in the morning 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/179 "2005-07-29T14:44:16Z")
For what it’s worth, I have gotten a few ideas in this thread of how to handle this sort of situation better in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080/180 "2005-07-29T15:10:31Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Suppose they visited another state to get married. Suppose they returned home knowing darned well that their home state still didn’t recognise their marriage. Then we’re getting closer to the situation in the OP. Well, from the story it is hard to tell whether the marriage had been consumated anywhere it would be legal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-lady-who-called-me-a-homophobic-fucktard-the-other-day/314080.md?page=10)