Well, I didn't catch until his irrate response that it could be read to mean I was calling him a queer. Having been accused of it, I decided to follow suit with my later comment.
I meant to mean, he is always arguing as a gay advocate; therefore, if it talks like the enemy....it's probably the enemy. All persons pushing gay marriage are not queers, but I consider all of them my enemy (the analogy began on an earlier post). I am not interested in knowing his sex habits.
If I am wrong about Luis, then he can say. Is he or is he not for gay marriage? If he favors it, then he is arguing disingenuously.
What that means is that if a person is not in here behaving like some backwoods, illiterate offspring of first cousins, that person is branded a "queer".
Your arguments carry all the weight and intelligence of middle school adolescents arguing during recess, and that's insulting most non-inbred middle school adolescents.