OK, since you insist.

There's no doubt what I meant by: "Breathtaking hypocrisy."

There's nothing the slightest bit obscure about:

"you plant intolerance into the discussion and then let others say the extremely offensive things for you. I’ll leave others to judge which is the greater evil, outright vilification (in the manner of Boaz, Philo, runner and Jack), or manipulating third parties into expressing one’s own ugly thoughts."

Is it extreme to point out that your apparently mild comments typically have an ugly barb to them? I don't think so.

Is it paranoid? I'm not a psychoanalyst, and you've made it very plain with your armchair diagnoses that you're not either. The existence of homophobia in our society demeans us all, and has devastating effects on its targets. I don't think it's paranoid to point out when someone is encouraging others to spread homophobia, as you do.

Neither is it bullying, as you claimed earlier, “Stop trying to be such a bully. I'll type what I please.” You’re free to write what you like. I’m free to point out to others here if it’s off topic, or what rhetorical tactics you are using. You’re welcome to label this my rhetorical tactic, though doing so would tend to confirm that you are missing the point.

Just to bring this back to the rights issue, legal inequality provides simple-minded homophobes with a justification for their hate. As a matter of urgency, our federal government needs to grant full equality to same-sex attracted people.

As Robert said above, "It's well past time that we removed discriminations such as this from our legal system."

Actually Philo, that seems to have been an underestimate, this article says 1 million (and makes a point that they're doing just fine): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml

Yes, the US has dire social problems, but no evidence that I can see that it is anything to do with the number of children raised by same-sex couples. I suspect the number is similar for Europe, although I can't find any statistics.

FWIW, if there was good evidence that being raised by same-sex couples was consistently causing problems for children (other than any bigotry they may face from others), and especially if there was strong evidence that the children themselves were unhappy about the environment in which they were being raised, I would be fully in support of restricting adoption rights. However there is no such evidence, despite no shortage of studies done to look for it.

Robert I don't want to waste time if you are too young or stupid or naive or brainwashed to work out that it harms kids will anything I say make a difference? I don't believe that you have figured out yet that being a homosexual brand of sexual pervert is not normal yet so how do you expect to understand why you are wrong about kids? TRTL I know your agenda.

No Jw2040 your a smart man and deep down you know you are wrong so you want to win the argument by keeping it to things you can win. If you can stop people from pointing out the truth your wrong sounds right. Mate you are so full of it. That is where the homophobic thing comes from isn't it. It isn't that people who disagree with you are scared of homos like you pretend it is just that you want them to be scared to disagree by calling them nonsense names and if it works you win.

"They weren’t musings about the dog, mjpb. I made an (admittedly lame) off-colour joke. After all the off-colour remarks about gay sex, I believe I was entitled to respond. At least in my case it was clear that the remark wasn’t intended to be taken seriously."

That's okay then just an off colour joke eh? Hells bells you are trying to claim the high moral ground with this comment even when talking about your sickening hateful dog comment. LIke I said you are so full of it.

J Bennett: "TRTL I know your agenda"

Well I certainly hope so. I'm against discriminating against people, be they homosexual or of a minority.

I didn't think it was much of a secret.

I dunno whether by using the word 'agenda' you can make it sound more sinister or not, though I note that throughout this entire thread, you haven't actually been rebutting my arguments except with inaccuracies.

Guess what? I know your agenda too.

And you still haven't provided any backing whatsoever to your claims that children of same sex couples are worse off.
None at all.

“OK, since you insist…”

You don’t want a Neanderthal feeling smugly superior do you? You, presumably inadvertently, fell prey to the ambiguity in my comment.

I said “obscure” in the context of proceeding to say you sound paranoid. Nevertheless, you thought I meant your accusations were poorly expressed and it was difficult to understand what you were asserting. You didn’t realize I meant your arguments were not reasonably supported by my comments. I mean those “apparently mild comments”.

When I said “extreme” you thought I took for granted that I fulfilled your accusations but it would be extreme to express the accusations. You didn’t realize that I meant that the accusations themselves were unreasonable.

Contrarily, when you made the ambiguous comment that could have referred to CJ I immediately knew that you didn't intend to refer to him.

Can you see why I might feel clever as a result of working out your ambiguous comment from context ? Can you see that I might relate your mistake to my, (evolutionarily out of place), reasoning and feel even more clever? I do feel guilty though. I know us Neanderthals should know our place.

I still think you sound like a politician. Nevertheless I admire your modesty about the circumstances surrounding my bullying allegation.

Excuse my incessant lack of understanding but what is your basis for believing that “simple-minded homophobes” are keeping abreast of legislative developments relating to same sex attracted persons? That is the basis for the urgency in getting legislative change isn’t it? Further, do you believe that J Bennett kept abreast? If they didn’t then are you saying that they aren’t a “simple minded homophobe”?

Finally, what exactly do you consider a homophobe to be?

jpw2040 wrote 'which is the greater evil, outright vilification (in the manner of Boaz, Philo, runner and Jack), or manipulating third parties into expressing one’s own ugly thoughts'. Why is it that 'vilification' is trotted out when some people (actually the silent majority) disagree with certain views and practises? Also, we are accused of hate. I'm sure that 'thought crimes' will be next. The classic tag is 'homophobe' where he hopes to discourage the opposition by some supposed fear of being 'outed' as a homophobe. I don't care if anyone calls me a homophobe - houses don't scare me.