| > > > > |
> > > > > You, on the other hand, are an inexcusable idiot.
> > > >
> > > > Let's try to avoid comments like this.
> > > >
> > > > -Comp
> > > >
> > >
> > > Considering Guggenheim gave a backhanded slap to all gay people and those who support their rights, and trivializing their ordeal by comparing it to a fictional character's retcon, I think it's warranted in this unique circumstance. Plus, even taking all that aside, what he said doesn't make a lick of sense. And I'm actually pro-BND. This demands a retraction and an apology.
> > Wow. Are you gay? If not, than how can you speak for an entire population? I don't see this as a backhanded slap either way.
> By the same token you could be asked if you are gay because if not, how can YOU speak for an entire population etc. etc.,
Not the saame argument at all. I wasn't speaking for any population when I made the statement and that statement didn't predume to speak for it.
>because otherwise you not seeing it as a slap either way would be just as irrelevant as you make out the above comment if voiced by a straight person.
I didn't make out anything. I asked a very relevant and straightforward question. I made no assumptions.
| > > It is an extreme example of the kind of faulty logic that many people are using for their hatred of the current direction. Probably not the smartest way to make his point, but it was not doubt done sarcastically and to make a point.|
> It is an example of extremely faulty logic, but only on Guggenheim's part. It depends on confusing "living together" with "civil union" (a far from trivial legal distinction - "living together" is what e.g. gays will do even in states which do not allow civil unions, much less same-sex marriages, and, if you want to get technical, I guess legally it is closer to what Peter was doing with Harry Osborn when he was in love with Gwen Stacy than to a marriage). And what point was Guggenheim trying to make anyway? That people objecting to the Parker marriage being retconned away are hypocrites because they don't support gay marriage? That they are bad persons because they support gay marriage? Even if the analogy worked instead of being utter nonsense, Guggenheim simply does not know how OMD sceptics think about the issue of gay marriage.
That wasn't his point. He was trying to prove just that.... he was speaking of faulty assumptions and it is being exemplified in this very thread.