Reply #344: Communication is the beginning of understanding [View All]

Let's do our best to keep it polite, OK? I've got a pretty thick skin, and I'm not one to cover my ears, but you know I'm anxious about annoying the mediators. I'll do my part. I have errands to run today, so I might not be able to communicate any more today.

Your make an unconvincing argument that my use of the term 'sexual preference' is different from the ILGA's due to context. While you make a good point about their overall content, it is not a legitimate comparison because my post #1 in this thread consists of only 2 paragraphs. You can only speculate what my content might have been if I had produced a similar volume of documentation, and can therefore not legitimately argue that the contexts are different.

You have not, as you claim, asked me to use the term, 'sexual orientation' instead of 'sexual preference'. Nobody in any message that I have so far seen in this thread has asked me to do anything. I have instead been met with hostility and condemnation for innocently using a phrase that some say I should have already known not to use. To me there is a big difference between a demand and a polite request.

I freely admit that I have responded with hostility. But this was a reaction to unjustified hostility that others first expressed against me. You might believe that no one has done anything to justify my feelings of resentment, but I would not agree with that conclusion.

You attempt to show that my use of the term in quesion is not similar to that of the ILGA because the term was used once. I also used the term once, so I don't think that's a fair argument.

I did not go on "...a search to find anything that would support your claim that you were right and a bunch of gay people were wrong about what they should be called." What I produced was an example of the use of the term by a respected organization that supports the values of most gay people. I didn't do this in an attempt to dictate what gay people sould be called. I cited this source to prove they use the term, and it is therefore wrong to condemn me for doing the same thing.

I cited this as an example, and made no attempt to find where the term has been used by other organizations, in policy statements, or in other publications that are seen as being supportive of ideals that are important to most gay people. We both know that it has been many times.

But even if this were not so, the ILGA used the term at least once, and I used it once in my post #1. Similar circumstances deserve similar treatment.

I didn't insist on offending anyone. To tell you the truth I had no idea anyone one earth took exception to the use of the phrase. And if you're going to say that it was incumbent on me to know it already, then get ready for a pop quiz on a subject that I spend more time thinking about than you do. What I'm saying is, people have no right to condemn me on account of what I said in post #1, and I have offered an argument that I think justifies my position.

And I'm also saying that it is not likely that you or anyone else will get be to do anything whatsoever by bringing my character into question for no good reason. I think most people react to that negatively, and I don't think that's being closed minded.