Surely it's not unreasonable to refer to someone who calls homosexual people "perverts" as a homophobe.

EmperorJulian:

Why would you need to since it is totally irrelevant to the discussion?
What matters in the discussion about SSM is who has the better arguments not what people feel. There is no need to focus on someone's phobias at all only on their arguments for or against SSM. Everyone is entitled to their own feelings and to their own opinions but the only thing that should be considered in this debate is their opinions.

A phobia is a feeling and not an opinion.

//So the views of others are a comedy routine but yours are not? Is this another attempt to bully others? If you can’t beat them at least you can ridicule them.//

Phanto, you can't expect people blessed with a sense of humour to not laugh at stuff they find amusing. It's part of the human condition. If something is funny, why is it unreasonable to laugh at it?

//Why would you need to since it is totally irrelevant to the discussion?//

Why does Leo Lane need to refer to homosexuals as perverts since it is totally irrelevant to the discussion?

More importantly, why is it only Emperor Julian who receives your censure for using irrelevant terms of abuse in the debate, but never Leo Lane even though he does so far more frequently?

//What matters in the discussion about SSM is who has the better arguments not what people feel.//

I agree. I've seen valid arguments in favour of abolishing marriage completely, and valid arguments for allowing SSM. I have yet to see an argument in favour allowing OSM but disallowing SSM which isn't fallacious. It's a bit sad really - all the time and effort that people pour into repeating fallacies over and over again in the hope that they'll magically transmute into valid arguments if they're repeated enough could be so much better spent going back to the drawing board and formulating a new, valid argument. But they just don't want to - can't be bothered, I guess.

It's their loss. If they could be bothered to formulate a valid argument, they might find that they gain a bit more traction in the debate.

ToniLavis:
I don’t think he meant funny in the sense of it being laughable. It was a put-down and not an attempt to express his sense of humour. If you find something genuinely funny then the natural reaction would be to laugh and then move on. Why would you need to tell others on this forum what you laughed at? Who cares what you laugh at? We only care what your opinions about SSM are.

“Why does Leo Lane need to refer to homosexuals as perverts since it is totally irrelevant to the discussion?”

You should ask him that. He is expressing an opinion. You are free to challenge his opinions but I do not think you are entitled to challenge his feelings. Unless you can get inside his body you will never know whether he feels afraid of homosexuality or not. Just like you cannot challenge the feelings of people who claim to be hurt or offended by not being able to get married. How do we know they are really hurt?

“More importantly, why is it only Emperor Julian who receives your censure for using irrelevant terms of abuse in the debate, but never Leo Lane even though he does so far more frequently?”

I didn’t censure him. I have no power to do so even if I wanted to. He just asked what is wrong with it and I told him why I thought it was wrong. Leo Lane has not asked that kind of question of the forum in general.

Emperor Julian.
“Pervert” is a truthful description of homosexuals. “Homophobe” means a person who fears or dislikes homosexuals, which is an untruthful description of me. It is a politically correct reaction to me which is not truthful, valid or reasonable. You should know better, EJ.
Toni Lavis: everything I have said is valid, relevant and truthful. I do not use terms of abuse.Your comment:” never Leo Lane even though he does so far more frequently? “ is inappropriate, and incorrect.,like your recent attempt to turn my comment on the nature of an “axiom” into a discussion of parallel lines.
Bullhead has failed to make any valid response to my demonstration that he is talking nonsense.

//“Homophobe” means a person who fears or dislikes homosexuals, which is an untruthful description of me.//

If you don't dislike them, why do you insult them by calling them perverts?

//I do not use terms of abuse//

Liar.

//everything I have said is valid, relevant and truthful.//

Liar.

//Your comment:” never Leo Lane even though he does so far more frequently? “ is inappropriate, and incorrect.//

Liar.

//like your recent attempt to turn my comment on the nature of an “axiom” into a discussion of parallel lines.//

//The statement is one of fact, and definition, like the statement that two parallel lines never meet. It is axiomatic//

Amnesiac liar.