Opposing Gay marriage and lifestyle?

Nobody is fabricating or mispresenting your statements. You are merely obfuscating them so you can play the strawman card. It's pathetic, really. And, as I said before, at the end of the day, your ridiculously repetitive references to incest and polygamy remain wholly irrelevant red herrings.

 

Same way we know you are.

 

Well, you are more full of (*)(*)(*)(*) than even she is. Here is my actual statement,

And here is her fabrication.

Revealing that both homosexuals and their supporters seem to be complete voids of character. And I made no references to incest. Just another of your endless supply of strawmen.

 

It's hilarious watching you quote yourself saying what you are pretending you aren't saying. And pathetic.

 

Refer to post #101 until you have something new to say.

 

The two statements have completely different meanings. You just aren't intelligent enough to detect that difference while the others are just dishonest. Congratulations, your ignorance trumps their dishonesty in my book.

- - - Updated - - -

Your denial of the obvious? I don't need to refer to your post to know you are in denial. You make it obvious.

 

Nope. You are pretending there is a distinction, when there isn't a difference. And you keep getting called on it.

It is very obvious to everyone that you are a deliberate troll Dixon, you know that right?

 

Not a distinction you would be bright enough to detect. Under the fabricated quote a heterosexual man and woman wouldn't be able to marry. under my actual quote they would be able to do so. Night and day difference.

 

Help me out here, there bucko. Tryin' ta see the word ONLY or at least sumpin' that's da same. But I just cain't find it.

 

OOOOOOOH, in the... "absence". Ah. You know there's also an "absence" of me acknowledging the existence of monkeys, too. Or... cars, whatever the heck you want to throw in here.

 

Not to spite you let this be the post.

I also advocate for polygamy marriage and incest marriage. I don't recommend those things, but have at it all you want.

Bestiality and pederasty on the other hand are different issues.

 

Nope. And you keep quoting yourself saying which is the pathetic thing.

 

Copy and paste your post where youve advocated for ANYONE other than homosexuals. You failure to hhave already done so shows you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Aaaaand doing so just now doesnt change that fact.
Thats both you and Rahl now finally coming over to my way of thinking.

- - - Updated - - -

You dont understand. Only one of the quotes is mine.

 

Fascinating to track this whole subthread back. Because the other subthread in this thread is Dixon accusing others of misrepresenting what he has said.....

This subthread starts with this comment- and goes on

migueldarican

Who's telling you that marriage equality is only about gay sex?

Dixon’s response:
You, by insisting that of those excluded from marriage, only the homosexuals must be included.

Miguel’s response
When did I say only homosexuals must be included?

Dixon’s response- quoting Miguel

Originally Posted by migueldarican
All we are saying is that as long as that system is in place, homosexuals deserve to benefit from it the same way heterosexuals do.

And Dixon’s elaboration on that:

That is found in the absence of him advocating that anyone other than homosexuals being include. I cant duplicate every post of his to show that absence. Of course, you clowns could prove me wrong by quoting just one of his posts that do.

To recap:
Dixon accused Miguel of saying that marriage equality is only about gay sex-
Miguel challenged Dixon to show where Miguel had ever said any such thing-
and then Dixon said unless Miguel didn't say the opposite- that means Miguel said marriage equality is only about gay sex.

This is frickin hilarious in a thread where Dixon is accusing everyone else of misrepresenting Dixon's words.

 

Typing a sentence and placing quotation marks around it and alleging that this is what I said, IS misrepresenting what I said. If you have some dispute with my characterization of his comments as "insisting that of those excluded from marriage, only the homosexuals must be included" man up, string a few words together if you can and state why its not accurate. I spent about 15 minutes skimming through his 50 something posts that included the word marriage to CONFIRM in fact that he had ONLY advocated for including gays.
AND he would seem to have also confirmed that for us.

 

Your own posts speak for themselves:

migueldarican

Who's telling you that marriage equality is only about gay sex?

Dixon’s response:
You, by insisting that of those excluded from marriage, only the homosexuals must be included.

Miguel’s response
When did I say only homosexuals must be included?

Dixon’s response- quoting Miguel

Originally Posted by migueldarican
All we are saying is that as long as that system is in place, homosexuals deserve to benefit from it the same way heterosexuals do.

And Dixon’s elaboration on that:

That is found in the absence of him advocating that anyone other than homosexuals being include. I cant duplicate every post of his to show that absence. Of course, you clowns could prove me wrong by quoting just one of his posts that do.

To recap:
Dixon accused Miguel of saying that marriage equality is only about gay sex-
Miguel challenged Dixon to show where Miguel had ever said any such thing-
and then Dixon said unless Miguel didn't say the opposite- that means Miguel said marriage equality is only about gay sex.

Nowhere did Miguel ever say that marriage equality is only about gay sex- as you accused him of.

 

OMG. That is seriously hilarious.

 

If you have some dispute with my characterization of his comments as "insisting that of those excluded from marriage, only the homosexuals must be included" man up, string a few words together if you can and state why its not accurate. I spent about 15 minutes skimming through his 50 something posts that included the word marriage to CONFIRM in fact that he had ONLY advocated for including gays.
AND he would seem to have also confirmed that for us.

 

Right, and you are saying what you pretend you aren't. It's in the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing post of YOURS you keep,posting.

 

To recap:
Dixon accused Miguel of saying that marriage equality is only about gay sex-
Miguel challenged Dixon to show where Miguel had ever said any such thing-
and then Dixon said unless Miguel didn't say the opposite- that means Miguel said marriage equality is only about gay sex.

Nowhere did Miguel ever say that marriage equality is only about gay sex- as you accused him of.

 

I said no such thing. I SAID, "You, by insisting that of those excluded from marriage, only the homosexuals must be included."

 

To recap:
Dixon accused Miguel of saying that marriage equality is only about gay sex-
Miguel challenged Dixon to show where Miguel had ever said any such thing-
and then Dixon said to Miguel "You, by insisting that of those excluded from marriage, only the homosexuals must be included."
Then Miguel pointed out to Dixon that he had never said that 'only homosexuals must be included'
and then Dixon said(and I am paraphrasing- the actual quote I have provided twice now) that unless Miguel didn't say the opposite- that means Miguel said marriage equality is only about gay sex.

 

Your paraphrasing is terribly innaccurate. The quote is "You, by insisting that of those excluded from marriage, only the homosexuals must be included."

 

Glad to reprint the entire exchange again- it is frickin hilarious considering how you popping a gasket accusing others of misrepresenting what you said:

(1)migueldarican

Who's telling you that marriage equality is only about gay sex?

(2)Dixon’s response:
You, by insisting that of those excluded from marriage, only the homosexuals must be included.

(3)Miguel’s response

When did I say only homosexuals must be included?

(4)Dixon’s response- quoting Miguel

Originally Posted by migueldarican
All we are saying is that as long as that system is in place, homosexuals deserve to benefit from it the same way heterosexuals do.

(5)And Dixon’s elaboration on that:

That is found in the absence of him advocating that anyone other than homosexuals being include. I cant duplicate every post of his to show that absence. Of course, you clowns could prove me wrong by quoting just one of his posts that do.

So to paraphrase you claims in the thread:

To recap:
Dixon accused Miguel of saying that marriage equality is only about gay sex-
Miguel challenged Dixon to show where Miguel had ever said any such thing
and then Dixon said(and I am paraphrasing- the actual quote I have provided twice now) that unless Miguel didn't say the opposite- that means Miguel said marriage equality is only about gay sex.