Fifth consecutive poll shows national majority support for same-sex marriage

Except that this is an equivocation fallacy, as "normal" as used in your definition of perversion is fairly unrelated to "normal" as the most typical state of society.

 

Actually the definition of perversion links to the very definition of normal I provided. Just click on the word "normal" within the definition of perversion. Takes you right to it.

 

But there is such a word. Stop lying or get the hell out.

One more time, from the damn dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

Stop lying- NOW.

 

You skipped the second sentence:

...Seems kinda relevant, no? The fact is that when people say "perversion", they do not imply merely a sexual behavior that is not performed by 50% or more of the populace.

 

Maybe you are expressing a delusional view.

I know what "homophobia" means, also how/when to use every form of the word.

- - - Updated - - -

And there, you have it. Amen!

- - - Updated - - -

LOL!! (You're trying to waste people's time, in my view.)

 

The reality is, that homophobia affects people's view of SSM. And it is also reality that better education of Americans and improved relationships between homosexuals and heterosexuals (family, friends, co-workers, military and even the 'religious') over the years has significantly reduced 'homophobia' in this society.

Those who exude a homophobic attitude toward others, will often be called-out today; yes, that is reality.

I'm happy that people are WORKING to change society and that it is changing right before our eyes, even in this era!! YAY!!

 

Yes, in that it further demonstrates my point. So not sure of your point.

 

Polling of the public going against them......State legislatures going against them.....COURT RULINGS going against them.....

the antipathetic-to-gay-rights list of allies grows thin---Elrond

 

Lee, of course... there IS indeed such a word.

Some people will NOT stop "lying" about that, because they'd have to relinquish the fault beliefs or fantasies running within their own minds. The memes and paradigms they embrace personally, are to them far more important and/or valuable than seeing, smelling, touching, hearing or touching REALITY.

Homophobia is not only a real 'word'... but its definition serves the purpose for which the term was created. Just a little Wiki-Google research by those with a reasonably open mind can determine exactly what I'm sharing here.

If nothing else, remember that opposing the thoughts and ideas we see here... become spider-ed on the worldwide web. When people search, many WILL happen upon your responses to the poisonous nonsense many spout in this forum. Personally, I find that to be rather satisfying overall.

 

It mostly has to do with the state's interference.

Most citizens are clueless about the law.

The law as it is written in most cases is very nonspecific

If the law means one thing and one thing only than it gives absolute power to the people that make them. That would be a dictatorship.

Any body can know what the law says at any time.

Laws are written very generally. Hence the necessity for the arbitration and litigation.

I agree, their role is to apply law to the case at hand.

Laws are written to apply generally, not specifically.

The only thing about the law that is constant is that it constantly changes.

I corrected you. First you said the law is specific, that is wrong, it is general, hence the need for arbitration and litigation. You said the law is not open to interpretation, show me the place in any law book where it says that.

You seem to think the law should reflect how you feel.

 

So I take it you support banning marriage for others who can not have children as well right? Such as men who are sterile, women who are barren or have reached manupause, paraplegics, etc, Because if you work under the logic that marriage should only be allowed for people with the ability to procreate together, in order to be constitutional, you can not apply that only to gays. You have to apply it to any and all Americans couples who can not have children, even to he point of forcing married couples to get divorces if they no longer have the ability to procreate.

 

The Republican Party now sees no "net positive" in pandering to the homophobes....in fact, it's a net negative.

Look for the GOP to make a lot of "anger and outrage" if the SCOTUS rules against the SSM bans....but secretly?

Breathe a sigh of relief.