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

Umm...WTF? Where do you even get this garbage? Feminism did not create homosexuality, it's been around as long as the human race has. You people amaze me with the crap you come up with. Plus, I notice you have no theory as to why there are lesbians. But of course not- you think that's "hot".

 

Something new that never existed in our Nations history until 2004.

 

It wouldn't be the "couple" procreating and is instead at most, ONE of the couple and a third person procreating. Weve already had court case of a lesbian couple who used a friend as a sperm donor. When the couple split up, the lesbian who gave birth kept custody of the child and the state went after the sperm donor for child support. The other lesbian had no involvement in the process of procreation and no responsibility for its results.

 

According to the APA, the organization that identifies, defines and treats psychological conditions, the organization that the gays insist is the authority on homosexuality, says otherwise.

 

It is her or his morality. Liberals have no problem imposing moral rules on people, as long as it is their morality.

 

Ok, well forgive me if I don't take your opinion as truth.

 

So to review

 

It's not new. Marriage has existed for thousands of years.

 

Yes it would.

So this one person from the couple ceases to be part of the couple? Explain that? The third party isn't really involved, just their genetic material.

So short-term donors that have nothing to do with the procreation are all of the sudden responsible for the actions of others?

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, you are still wrong.

 

Marriage as husband and wife has existed for thousands of years. From BC Roman law-

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")...

Because

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Biology dictates that only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so.

 

Right, nothing has changed but a tiny detail.

Oooookaaaaaay.

Not any more. The world grows. Sorry.

Yeah, don't believe I ever argued against they.

 

???? It is THE fundamental attribute of marriage. Men and women becoming husbands and wives, fathers and mothers to their children.

mat·ri·mo·ny noun \ˈma-trə-ˌmō-nē\
: the joining together of a man and woman as husband and wife

 

That's your opinion. And apparently it isn't. Look at Massachusetts, Vermont, south Africa, Canada. It appears that it most definitely isn't a fundamental attribute.

Even if they are gay and their spouses are the same sex.

Well it also means joining together of woman and woman, and man and man as wife and wife, or husband and husband respectively.

Why does that definition have to be so rigid?

 

???? Thats because they created something new. "Gay marriage". Not something thats been around for thousands of years. Sooo not sure of the relevance of your point.

 

I do not hate people. Because in the bigger scheme of things, hating is just not worth it and most strangers are simply not worthy of that much attention.

In regards to homosexual activity. To me it is disgusting. And I simply will not advocate for persons who actively try to promote acts that I see as disgusting as "equal" to what I do or "normal" in any way.

 

Well, you have no control over other people, do you? So deal with or sit there and stew. Makes no difference to the rest of us

 

^I can certainly use every reasonable means to change peoples minds both in regards to the law and in regards to social acceptance.

And even if it is a losing battle I'll have the satisfaction of knowing I made those in opposition work a little harder for it and keep them from spending more time on other types of societal degradation.

 

And that's where the line is drawn. If you try to use the law against people like me to harm us and our civil rights, you're in for a fight. Your rights end where other people's begin. And you wonder why people think you're a homophobe? You fit the definition. I hope it's a little clearer for you now:

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

Oh, it's indeed a losing battle.

 

^Be overconfident if it makes you feel better.

Only a fool would believe that social changes are an inevitable one way street with no retreat or return.

 

If your opinion threatens society, that is unforgivable.

 

I'm 47 years old. I've been fighting this fight for a very long time. There will be no retreat, I guarantee you. Laws have been changed in too many states and courts have ruled in our favor far too many times. Freedom is the name of the game in this country. And it's going to stay a free country, whether you like it or not. That means that even people you don't like get to be treated equally too. That's how the US works.

 

Nobody created any such thing aside from you.

 

I agree. Giving benefits on the basis of the potential to have sexual relations or based on the kind of sexual relation is discriminatory and stupid.

Why should someone who is single be denied benefits on that basis ?

 

Anything the courts and the government has done can be undone.

And public opinion has changed before.

 

True- slavery could be coming back........