Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plain and simple, many believe that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is wrong. Homophobe is a buzz word invented by the gay activists that is used to say that people are homophobes exercising their right to believe that sex with someone of the same sex is wrong. We are entitled to believe what we want .
A man can love another man but should not have sex with them. Same goes with a woman..
And people once thought that whites marrying blacks was wrong. Or blacks getting in the same pubic swimming pool as whites. But maybe you think your entitled into believing those things are wrong, too.
Plain and simple, many believe that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is wrong. Homophobe is a buzz word invented by the gay activists that is used to say that people are homophobes exercising their right to believe that sex with someone of the same sex is wrong. We are entitled to believe what we want .
A man can love another man but should not have sex with them. Same goes with a woman..
I disagree with you - but yes you can believe what you want.
When you actively try to stop people from having equal rights, thats where the problem is.
Why do you worry about what two consenting adults do in the bedroom? Why do you even think about what two consenting adults do?
Baloney....,When I was a scout a kid who later came out as gay was hitting on me one night (and the only night) I spent in a tent with him. I'm sure I was not the only one in scout history.
And when I worked in a summer camp, same deal with a counselor...And I moved out of the cabin the next day. The funny part was no one questioned me, and all acted like it was expected (this guy kept going back to work there year after year, until the owners finally got rid of him)
From the time I was about 13 up into my 40's I was hit on by gay guys...And some damned persistent until you did want to rap them in the mouth.
And child molesters - I and my friends were hit on from the time we were able to go out on the street alone (5 or 6 years old).
And this nonsense about one not being the same as the other...Baloney, there is some overlapping (I would say gays are proportionately represented...Or do you want to place yourselves on a pedestal above that?...Why not? The BS is spewing in this thread).
The one thing they knew they had going for them is just what you mentioned...You didn't hear about it...because like child molesters, the gay's knew young guys would be too embarrased to say anything, or just let it roll off of them like water, or even feared that it would be twisted around to imply that they brought it on themselves.
So please...If you want equality, act equally responsible...Don"t perpetrate lies "that it does not happen" Or you never heard of it...Where do you live, in a cave away from civilization?
You are not fooling many of us, as we know the truth, because we were placed in these akward positions.
Ah, what an awful curse it must be to live life as a hot guy.
And people once thought that whites marrying blacks was wrong. Or blacks getting in the same pubic swimming pool as whites. But maybe you think your entitled into believing those things are wrong, too.
People still do... There is an entire section of the country I won't visit because of it.
Until recently, homosexuality was considered a disgusting perversion, and a crime. To suddenly embrace it as a sacred right is unsettling. And homophobia is an inaccurate explanation - it is not based on "fear" - but distrust.
One of the fundamental values of civilization is the protection of women and children. "Women and Children FIRST - into the lifeboats!" illustrates that belief. Heterosexuals do not trust that homosexual males to instinctively protect women, since they're more interested in their own gender and partners.
{Do any homosexual males "instinctively" protect women before their own partners? Seems illogical to expect that. But I may be in error.}
Likewise, the major beneficiaries of marriage are the women and children of that marriage. Before national socialism (1935), an unwed mother was certainly in dire straits. (Non custodial child support is empowered by FICA, 1935). However, a homosexual marriage is not for the protection of women nor children of that marriage. Sexual gratification is not a valid reason for a marriage contract - ask any concubine or prostitute.
{One of consequences of socialism is the erosion of the family and marriage. When a woman can use the government to support herself and children, why bother with the hassle of marriage.}
The ire of heterosexuals who will be forced by socialist government to work for the benefit of homosexuals, who will seek entitlements based on marriage status, is legitimate. For such marriages are a sham and a scam. . . they are infertile and do not generate progeny from their union.
Of course, once enough irate heterosexuals discover that their "legal obligation" is based on their consent, the socialist government may have wished they virulently opposed homosexual marriage in the first place.
I wonder what the government will do when 51% withdraw consent?
So its OK for a business to decline service if you're black, jewish, or just not attractive enough?
Actually you can't based on race so you can't not serve someone for being black or a jew but you can deny service for being ugly, or blond or having red fingernail polish, I am not even sure that being gay is a protected class in many states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.