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

By saying "believe" rather than "know", you are implicitly putting the idea on an epistemic level with its opposite, and thus giving deniability to defenders of perversion. You do understand that, right?

 

I dunno Dayton...morality...really?....

I'm a product of free love hippie life style. My parents were hippies and successful financially. When I would go visit cousins in San Francisco during the 70's, the morality du jour was that bible thumpers like John Lithgow in Footloose were evil. Rednecks from the south that raped Ned Beatty and killed Dennis Hopper on his Harley were evil. Alchoholics that looked down on pot smokers wer evil. People that were uptight strict were evil.

So now...if I hear smeone from Texas yammering on about God, beards, and freedom, I want to figure out a legal way to make them go away forever, which as we now won't work.

Morality is fluid.

 

Why did you feel the need to tell me that you're a homosexual?

 

The whole word doesn't make sense and goes to show the dumbing down that goes on in the Leftisphere. Homo means "same" and phobia means "fear". Combining the two does not result in a word that means fear of homosexuals. But there's no greater waste of time than to try to educate fools.

 

k

Mine is. In fact any kind of marriage that is not one man and one woman at one time threatens the basic institution of marriage.

And if anyone is asking, I'm against divorce in virtually every instance as well.

 

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Tell me how the marriage of two gay folks who I'm willing to bet you wouldn't even be associating with in the first place is going to affect the relationship you have with your spouse. Now, I'm not one to pass judgment without evidence, but I see no other conclusion than to assume that if the marriage of two strangers threatens the marriage you have with your spouse, your marriage is a sham to begin with. And I'll say the same about any marriage because it's the truth.

But I'm curious, so go ahead and make your case about how your marriage is threatened. Don't be vague, don't be general, be precise. I want to KNOW! Hell, maybe I'll convert if you can make a rational case. At the very least, assuming you can, it'll be the first time ever in the entire history of discourse on this topic that I've ever heard anyone make one.

And remember, we're talking about same-sex marriage, not holy matrimony. That happens in churches and is not affected by the government legalizing same-sex marriages.

 

Whenever a wider range of relationships recognized as "marriages" by civil authorities come into existence which are strictly at odds to what defines mine, it inevitably demeans and diminishes mine in the same way that the acceptance of counterfeit money as the real thing diminishes the value of real money.

Marriage is not just a private matter and never has been. It is a civic and social institution as well with innate social value. To include a wider range of relationships as "marriages" using the expanded definition of it inevitably diminishes what a real marriage is.

 

Bigot is a broad term that includes homophobes.

For some reason, homophobes are often racist and misogynistic. Hmmmm....

 

Christians have been oppressing minorities or 2000 years. I'm proud that I live in the age where, in a single lifespan, such oppression will finally end. You gotta love the Information Age!

 

Wow, 2000 years? That broad brushed statement I'll nominate as the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

 

Roughly, although the oppression by Christians probably reached its peek around 500 years ago in Europe and 300 years ago in America.

That's not to say that Christians aren't still trying hard to oppress groups throughout the world. Luckily, the Christian Church is losing influence quickly.

 

When Christians lose influence altogether, then you'll see some real oppression. Good luck with that.

 

Good luck with what? I'm just sitting back watching Christianity die a quiet death.

 

The law does treat gays differently. They have acquired special protected status from the legal and political system, and they use that power to impose their will on everyone else. The mere exercise of free speech in the political arena cannot be tolerated by gays as demonstrated by the Mozilla incident.

With very few exceptions (such as the tax code), gays have equal treatment under the law. That isnt enough for them, they want social acceptance beyond the legal boundary. Thats why a civil union isnt acceptable to them, they want the moral and social status that "marriage" carries. It has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law.

 

Its assinine to equate the "gay lifestyle" to the Jewish or black experience. You show me the gay gene, and show me the manacles used to kidnap you from your family, and the scars from whips on your back, the tattoo number on your arm, then we can talk about the oppressed gays.

Stop trying to justify the gay rights agenda by hijacking the experience of legitimately oppressed groups.

 

How are they treated differently under the tax code? The law is that any adult can married an unrelated adult of the opposite sex and this applies regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation. So gays have equal treatment under the law in every respect, including our tax code. I know you and I are mostly in agreement on this, I'm just saying you don't have to cater to the Leftist lie that gays are not being treated equally under the law.

 

I am God - so it's not at all silly

 

Really?

Oh GOOD!

I have something I need you to do.

Could you do something about Religious Zealots coming to my door at 9 am on my day off and trying to tak to me about you?

You can?

Great!!!

Hey...while I have you here can you do something about crabgrass?

AboveAlpha

 

Absolutely right. The only thing I've ever asked from the pro gay marriage crowd is solid proof of the gay gene. Not "could be" "perhaps" "seems" or "believed" as all of the junk science studies put in their theories but solid proof that eliminates all external factors. But they don't have it so what happens is they call you a homophobe for not accepting their faith based belief. Never mind the fact they can't read a dictionary on the words they use they must label you a homophobe because they've been exposed as a religion not people interested in actual science. Then in the same breath they demand not only that you accept their faith based religion but demand you also accept that it equates to race and gender which unlike homosexuality are rock solid genetic traits.

I hope some day they will see the light and embrace science over their religion but I doubt it.

 

Either that or you misunderstand the science.

 

You know, it's pretty easy to write a law that, although it applies to everyone "equally", it has an unequal effect. What if a law was written that charged a $500 toll for the use of public roads on Sundays for non-work related purposes... Applies equally to everyone, right? It sure does, but I hope that all the good Christians are within walking-distance of their Church. You ever heard the quote "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews"? What do you suppose would happen if there was a 500% tax on kosher foods? The same law applies to everyone equally, right?

Only people of the same race may marry eachother, no discrimination since all races are treated the same... no, not really, because those who wish to marry someone of the different race are not treated the same as those who wish to marry someone of the same race.

Those who prefer Coca Cola may only marry those who prefer Pepsi, and visa versa, no discrimination since people of all beverage preferences are treated the same... no, not really, because those who wish to marry someone who prefers the same beverage are not treated the same as someone who prefers a different beverage.

Ah, but what if only men can marry women and visa versa, no discrimination there right, and any difference in treatment for a man who might prefer to marry a man or a woman who might prefer to marry a woman is insignificant... why? Because they COULD marry someone of the opposite sex? I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The question is if there's a reason that restriction should exist, the fact that they could marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't change the fact that they are treated differently in a way that disproportionally and negatively effects them. Pretending like the difference isn't there is fallacious, rather you should be arguing about why this difference in treatment and restriction is justified.

 

Maybe you just want to be on my 'ignore' list.

Regards.

- - - Updated - - -

So that you'd fully understand my 'perspective'.

(But that isn't the only reason I'm not going to put up with your sh__ or anyone else's.)

 

S

well by now you should realize god doesn't give a crap about you...unless you're up for an Oscar, Grammy award or Superbowl he likes watching those events and choosing the winners...

 

Ignoring me is ignoring truth but feel free.

 

The government is not obligated to treat personal choices and a person's inclinations and preferences with any degree of equality.