And I’m saying that Wikipedia is not a source, and that I’m not going to go to a wikipedia page and then look for the specific source(s) that the person thinks proves their point when there could be 50 different articles linked on that page.
Show me a source for a LAW that the current US government has passed making it illegal to say that gay people exist. Go.
Tell you what, go to that wiki, scroll down and take a gander at the part that says “reference” and let me know what you see? That’s not too much to ask, surely?
Tell you what, go to that wiki, scroll down and take a gander at the part that says “reference” and let me know what you see? That’s not too much to ask, surely?
If you can’t provide a single piece of evidence to support your argument no matter how many times you’re asked, it’s correct to assume it doesn’t exist. Bye now :)
And I’m saying that Wikipedia is not a source, and that I’m not going to go to a wikipedia page and then look for the specific source(s) that the person thinks proves their point when there could be 50 different articles linked on that page.
Show me a source for a LAW that the current US government has passed making it illegal to say that gay people exist. Go.
The sources are there, gay erasure is happening. I can’t learn it for you.
Show me a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Show me 1 specific example of a law that is “gay erasure” please. That’s not too much to ask, surely?
Tell you what, go to that wiki, scroll down and take a gander at the part that says “reference” and let me know what you see? That’s not too much to ask, surely?
Last chance then I’ll correctly assume that there are no sources on there that support the “gay erasure” argument.
It won’t be correct, plugging your ears, And closing your eyes isn’t “correctly assuming”
If you can’t provide a single piece of evidence to support your argument no matter how many times you’re asked, it’s correct to assume it doesn’t exist. Bye now :)