It is true, I do sometimes engage in Twitter battles.
Of course, I recognize that it is completely non-productive.
I thought I would share one of these discussions (I did not post every single tweet, but feel free to view them on my Twitter account if you are so inclined).
It started when I posted this tweet:
The false premise: Support for traditional marriage is “anti-gay” http://t.co/d12nPOtbQc #tcot #teaparty #Mozilla #UninstallFirefox #ccot
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
Then, I was challenged:
@ReneeNal Contributing to a campaign to remove rights specifically from gay people is anti-gay. How can you argue otherwise?
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
And it went from there:
@TheTrampRO Just as being for same-sex marriage is not “anti-Christian,” believing in traditional marriage is not “anti-gay.” False premise.
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@ReneeNal That term is just a euphemism for wanting to restrict the rights of gays. Nobody says they’re “pro-traditional-marriage” unless…
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO This is silly. Where is your evidence that it is a “euphemism”?
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO Yawn. Do you rally for polygamous families to have the right to marry?
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO It is hypothetical. If I did not want polygamous families to get married, would I be taking away their civil rights?
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@ReneeNal They don’t have that right currently, so no, it wouldn’t be taking away a right.
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO Simple question. If I did not want polygamous families to get married, would I be taking away their civil rights?
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@ReneeNal Not as things are now. I can’t take your pet elephant or your intelligence. You possess neither, so they can’t be taken away
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
@ReneeNal They don’t currently have a right to marry so the right to marry can not be taken away. Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
@ReneeNal You’re really quite stupid and I really don’t have the patience at the moment to mock you as you deserve.
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO So in states where gay people don’t currently have the right to marry, it is not taking away their rights to leave it that way?
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO So, if gay people are not allowed to get married in certain states, it is okay to leave it that way?
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@ReneeNal That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that California was a unique case.
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO You cannot even see your own #hypocrisy? Good thing you were not a decision maker in overturning Japanese Internment Camps.
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO You said it taking away the civil rights of gay people ONLY because a 2004 court order allowed it. Your argument, not mine.
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@ReneeNal No, I tried explaining things to you first, and when you couldn’t understand basic concepts of continuity, THEN I called you dumb.
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO Your explanation is flawed. Your point is that a civil right applies only if it is currently in place. Am I wrong?
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@TheTrampRO Do all gay people have the right to marry, whether their state currently allows it or not because it is a civil right?
— Renee Nal (@ReneeNal) April 6, 2014
@ReneeNal Yes, but that’s not what we were discussing. Go away and stop existing.
— TOTALLY RAD! (@TheTrampRO) April 6, 2014
Sigh. So, there you have it.
@TheTrampRO‘s argument summed up:
Gay people only have the right to get married if that right currently existed in their state. If you happen to be living in one of those states, you are “anti-gay” if you support traditional marriage. Additionally, polygamous families do not have the same civil rights as gay people because those rights do not currently exist.
If only I understood the “basic concepts of continuity…”
