If You Believe Homosexual Acts Are Immoral, Why Are You Labeled a "homophobe"?

True, but only with regard to fiscal issues, not social issues.

Gay people getting married isn't going to change straight people doing the same. You're not going to turn the gay people straight with this. It just re-enforces the standard of people marrying, and if anything, just helps that moral standard of straight people marrying by re-enforcing the norm. The term cutting off the nose to spite the face comes to mine. I mean, if you're just standing up to this for sake of principle despite it's actual effects, then there's an argument to be made, but the law is generally more concerned with pragmatics than principles.

 

And why not judge someone's values, if those values demean or arrogantly vilify others?

A "homophobe" is what it is. The description fits MANY people. Welcome to reality.

 

"Being judgmental is ok for me, not ok for you."

 

If one dishes out a certain behavior, then what they expect in return should be commensurate with the same.

You can't simply go about your life speaking and acting negatively toward homosexuals and homosexuality, and not have that touch you back... eventually.

That is reality.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say that; where are you getting it?

 

Yes you did. Don't play stupid, it lowers the level of discussion.

 

Because its easier than thinking.

 

And you aren't because you neither fear nor hate homosexuals.

But the far left doesn't care. The label is what is important to them which is why its impossible to have a civil discussion with that group.

- - - Updated - - -

Who decided consenting adults was where the line is drawn and not one man one woman? What makes you think you can hide behind consent law claim moral victory then denigrate those who don't agree with you on homosexuality being immoral?

What makes your morality better than theirs?

 

Do you fear that homosexuals are going to have a negative impact on you or society? That's an irrational fear.

 

^^^^ This

 

In my opinion, if you're completely fine with heterosexuality, you should be completely fine with homosexuality. Nature doesn't give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about your moral views on either because morality is something entirely invented by human beings. Like nature, our biology doesn't give a crap about what subjective nonsense we've decided is moral or not. That's not to say that anything natural is automatically "okay" so we have to filter it through a lens of what it's effect on others is. With homosexuality, there is literally no effect not present with heterosexuality so in my opinion, if you've got a problem with one but not the other, it's because of an irrational aversion based entirely on subjective nonsense.

I generally don't use any terms that describe people in that manner unless it's apparent that is what they really are. But I've always wondered why people run from being associated with the term when their words and actions are described exactly by the term. I've asked before and I'll ask again, what is up with the homophobiaphobia?

 

Your perception of what went down is faulty, IMO.

Even so, I PROMISE YOU (or anyone else)... that if you come AT me (physically, intellectually or morally) for being gay, I'm not just going to take it. No... I'm coming back with something to 'counter' or 'mitigate' what you decided to dish out.

Now, that should not be hard to understand... if you made it out of high school.

What goes around, comes around. Don't start none, won't be none. Or better than all of that:

Treat others in the manner in which you'd like to be treated.
(The Golden Rule, isn't just some touchy-feely, cute thing to recite on a whim. It was invented to communicate an important principle.)

 

All of the above is sensible and well stated!!

Bravo and Amen!!

 

As a husband and father, I disagree with you. I believe that marriages are important to society- and the very reason why marriages are important is why people who are attracted to the same gender- and want to marry the person that they are in love with- should have the same rights and responsibilities as my wife and I enjoy.

My marriage and my family is not threatened because two men have a legal marriage.

 

Probably already responded to but let me point out a couple things:

a) if eliminating inter-racial marriage had been put on the ballot in Virginia it would not have been passed popular vote- but most of us agree that the Supreme Court was correct in striking down the ban.

b) The following states have legalized gay marriage either by legislated action or by direct vote
by State Legislature
Delaware (July 1, 2013), Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013), Illinois (law will take effect June 1, 2014), Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (July 24, 2011), Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013), Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009)

by Popular Vote
Maine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), Washington (Dec. 9, 2012)

- - - Updated - - -

Which of course is why I advocate for marriage equality for same gender couples.

 

I believe the following:

1) Committing homosexual acts is a choice regardless of a persons inclination or predisposition. Otherwise how can you explain the first lady of New York City who was a lesbian for years (even having an article published about it) until she me the "love of her life" (current mayor) and CHOSE to marry him and have his children.

2) Homosexuality if an immoral sexual act.

3) There are a number of immoral sexual acts that also involve "consenting adults" such as adultery and fornication to name just two.

4) Prostitution is against the law. It also involves "consenting adults".

5) Thus, the legal argument that homosexuality is okay as long as it involves "consenting adults" is flawed at best.

6) I believe that sexual immorality is damaging to a society. I teach history and research it and I know full well it has long been considered one of the factors in the downfall of the Roman Empire (among others).

7) Acceptance of sexual immorality involving "consenting adults" makes it far, far more difficult for a person to make a cohesive argument against OTHER types of sexual immorality that DOES NOT involve consenting adults.

By way of example NOT involving gay people, a 35 year old single mother who has been having sex with her 40 year old boyfriend trying to convincer her 15 year old daughter not to have sex with her 20 year old boyfriend.

Gay rights people have managed to win popular support by framing their arguments as a "rights" issue and avoiding the question of it being a "moral" issue. American citizens have an enormous tendency to support an issue if the word "rights" is in it.

9) Morals matter in a civil democratic society. Because there is no way for the simple rules of law to cover every (or even the majority) of civil interactions between citizens. We live according to our morals not according to our laws. Thus morals not only matter, they are vital .

All for the moment.

 

Let me ask you, do you think adultery is immoral?
If so, why don't you mind interacting with adulterers but get nervous around gays?

The reality is that homophobia is generally about insecure sexual identity rather than about morality.
There are a ton of immoral things that we put up with in others on a daily basis, immoralities that actually affect others, but some people choose to get bent out of shape just with gays, even though their so-called immorality doesn't affect them.
They're not fooling anyone with their protestations.

 

Its not about accurately describing your opposition to homosexuality, its about demonizing and marginalizing the opposition.

If gays describe you as a person with a principled position, then they have to rationally discuss the merits of your position. They dont want to do that because they might fail to dominate. They would rather describe you as a person driven by fear and ignorance and therefore "astroturf" to be ridiculed and ignored.

Its a simple case of killing the messenger to avoid the message.

 

Because its inaccurate and was selected for political reasons to demonize the opposition (see my post above). And now that the backlash against the gay agenda is starting, the gays are trying to redefine their motives for selecting the word "homophobia" and we are now treated to the tortured explanations that it was all objectively done and its just some sort of misunderstanding.

People are not afraid of gays or homosexuality as you imply, thats just more of the same smear tactic. Gays are afraid of rejection in any form and degree, even if its only non-acceptance in thought with no real world consequence. Gays want legally enforced thought control, any person who rejects any part of the gay agenda must be destroyed, and that is what people are afraid of and are fighting against.

Congratulations Gays, you have graduated from the oppressed underdog to the tyrant and bully.

 

Rather leaves homosexuals in a conundrum when it comes to you- you think any sex outside of marriage is immoral, and you think it is immoral to allow them to get married.

- - - Updated - - -

That is the spin homophobes keep trying to sell.

 

If his opposition was to African Americans or to Jews, I would not feel any absolute need to discuss the merits of his position. Terms like 'racist' and 'anti-semite' and 'homophobe' can be accurate short hand to describe a person who has a bigoted position.

However, as I said in my first post- I am not calling the OP a homophobe.

 

There is no part of any type of gay agenda that takes something away from people who already have something. They aren't pushing to end traditional marriage, they aren't pushing to make heterosexuals have gay relationships. They're simply pushing for the law to stop treating them differently than it treats you and I. You've exploded this very simple concept into something so radicalized and sensationalized from the reality of it that it's not even recognizable anymore.

You and people who think like you do here need to calm down and I mean it. Calm down. You've got yourselves worked up into such a frenzied manic state that you're completely unhinged from reality. Get yourself a good cup of tea, sit down and take some deep breaths, and try to find your way back down to Earth again

 

The premise seemingly being put forth here appears, in my opinion, to be a desire to discriminate and harbor bigotry towards gays and not want anyone to point out such bigotry.

I think folks need to realize that when they are bigots, when they wish others to live under a different set of rules for (*)(*)(*)(*) that has nothing to do with them there will be an element that notes their bigotry.

 

1) I thought I said that adultery was immoral

2) What makes you think I do not mind interacting with adulterers.

3) What makes you think I get nervous around gays?

You are letting your own biases shape your view of reality already.

 

Having any sex is a choice- being attracted to a person is not. It is my belief that most people fall within a spectrum- I knew one woman who considered herself a heterosexual but was in love with a woman for several years- she said she hated labels- she just was attracted to that one specific woman.

I understand that is your belief. But homosexuality doesn't require sex. Do you believe that it is immoral for someone to be attracted to someone of the same gender- or immoral when they have sex? And why is your moral code more important than my moral code? I don't think it is a moral issue at all.

Again- I see no reason why your moral judgement should be considered to outweigh mine. I believe adultery is wrong because a married partner is betraying the marriage- not because he or she is having sex outside of marriage- and I don't think there is anything immoral about sex outside of marriage.

Do you think Prostitution is wrong because they are having sex outside of marriage- or for another reason?

Not really. Why should the state have the right or responsibility to intrude in the private sexual acts between consenting adults?

I have heard that argument before- I think it is a rather flawed argument if you have read the history of the Roman Empire.

No- no it does not. Frankly it is very clear cut: sex between consenting adults legal- sex between two people who cannot provide consent(children, mentally incapable, drugged) is not legal. How do you find it more difficult?

Again- what part of this is difficult here? The 15 year old cannot provide consent. The mother would be completely within her legal rights to prevent the 15 year old from seeing her 20 year old boyfriend, and calling the police if they had sex. Really no different than laws regarding alcohol- I can tell my child it is okay for me to drink alcohol and not okay for her to.

Yep. The issue with 'Morals' is that it is a nebulous and essentially religious term. Historically 'morals' has been a term used by the majority to discriminate against a minority. I would argue it is far more 'Immoral' to prevent two consenting adults who are in love but happen to be the same gender from marrying.

I have no problem with you living your life according to your morals. I object when you want to impose your morals on myself or others.

Like I said before- my marriage, and my family is not threatened by gay marriage. Furthermore, I believe it is immoral to prevent gay marriage.

 

Maybe you just don't know what phobia means.