I believe it, because I've been the "victim" of similar behavior.
I've had at least two people point me to information about animal homosexuality in an attempt to get me to change my opinion on certain gay rights topics. I'm pretty sure there was no innuendo.
(It was a pointless exercise, since my objections to the gay rights movement have nothing to do with traditionalist or naturalist arguments.)
Also, I don't recall saying I was against gay rights. For the record, I favor giving gays the same set of rights that straight people should be given (as opposed to the set of rights straight people are actually given). But this is widely interpreted by lazy people as meaning I'm against gay rights.
Is this a round-about way of saying that you're against 'gay marriage' because you feel that marriage/civil unions shouldn't be a legal/government matter (i.e. only handled by the religious organizations, etc)?
There's a compelling argument that government should get out of the marriage business altogether and give gay and straight couples "civil unions" alike.
If, as some people claim, marriage is a sacred institution, why is the state involved at all? Who would be OK with having to go to the courthouse to get a baptism license?
For people who object, choosing to attend a church that doesn't perform gay marriages will be no different from choosing a church that wouldn't perform anything else. Churches aren't regulated. (note: this is almost a "let the market decide" argument)
I do not, however, support the rights of fellating bats to have civil unions, because bats are creepy.
I've had at least two people point me to information about animal homosexuality in an attempt to get me to change my opinion on certain gay rights topics. I'm pretty sure there was no innuendo.
(It was a pointless exercise, since my objections to the gay rights movement have nothing to do with traditionalist or naturalist arguments.)