@peter I didn't realize that objective analysis of one's behavior was conducive to "judging" someone. I haven't condemned anyone for anything. I have simply pointed out how it is objectively reasoned that homosexuality is anatomically incorrect, and as such, inherently self-destructive on both the cultural and individual level. My biggest concern here isn't so much the lifestyle of others as it is how those lifestyles tend to affect my own or my families. People love to recite how these cultural developments don't affect me and therefore it's "none of my business." However, me and my children have to live in this society as well, and if you haven't noticed, state's are enforcing homosexuality being taught as a historically relevant social aspect in public schools. Regardless of what you say, THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS ME AND MY FAMILY. What's more, my taxes pay towards homosexual marriages; the state forces me to pay towards these things regardless of the fact that it violates my morality. So please, do not for a moment argue that these developments are strictly "in-house" with regards to the homosexual community. That is patently false.
@Liam I'm sure you, I or anyone can love a person regardless of their gender. But that doesn't necessarily mean its proper for that love to be expressed romantically. There are, after all, varying ways of expressing affection, all particular to a certain etiquette. My contention is not that you don't love a person, but rather that you've lost that sense of etiquette in favor of cultural or generally environmental influences.
@Liam "Even by hiding behind "I don't have to accept gays, I'm free". Well no, as the wise uncle of Spiderman once said (lolz): "With great power comes great responsibility". You have the power of reason, you have the responsability to use it right. You can't just end the debate and say "well that's what I think". That's giving up your own intelligence." You're absolutely right, I can reason. And using my reason, I have reasoned that homosexuality is incorrect behavior the development of which is dictated according to personal defining moments over a period of time relative to the person's exposure to whatever it is that encourages his or her behavior. By the way: just because I have power, that doesn't mean I'm obligated to use it in a manner specific to your value system. You are one of many people that mistake the word "tolerance" for "acceptance." Another little redefinition for the homosexual camp.
@Smokescreened "Homosexuality can not be corrected, since it is not an illness. It is simply an aspect of the person's personality. You can not correct such a thing." This is certainly a popular tag line. But people tend to put more emphasis on its cultural relevance rather than its scientific validity. You will hear no end of the homosexual camp campaigning for lawmakers and institutions redefine documented aspects of our culture according to what they "feel." And that application of some sort of inarguable emotional weight tends to validate their position in the more popular forums. As such, it allows the viral development of phrases like the one Smokescreener employed. But what it carries in terms of social relevance, it lacks in substantive aspects; no one has actually been able to prove that homosexuality is a "born that way" characteristic, and yet the point of view is given unprecedented leeway in every arena it extends to. Beyond their own lip-service, what actually makes their "feelings" empirically evident of being born homosexual?
@Meekrat and Liam I wasn't referring so much to the preferred acts of homosexuals as I was the mere attraction between two same sex individuals. That is disorderly behavior as there is no possible way for such an arrangement to mesh in a romantic context. According to their mutual anatomical makeup, they are incorrect. If you 'd like to me to talk about sodomy though, I would point out that while homosexuals do not have exclusive rights to its behavior, they are the biggest enablers of the practice--and whatever other extraneous act that exists as a substitution for actual sexual intercourse. Using the act of kissing as a way of somehow demeaning the heterosexual relationship in relation to homosexuals is a flawed counterargument since heterosexual relationships enlist its practice strictly as a complementary sign of affection as a prelude to, or in he midst of, consummation. The developing homosexual sub-culture however, would see any sort of act that involves physical contact categorized as a form of "love-making" solely for the purpose of being comparable to heterosexual couples regardless of how it violates the very meaning of the word. This serves not only as an attack on common sense, but also on our very vernacular. A social group feels incensed and therefore they should have the right to redefine whatever terms they wish to suit their whim? I don't think so.
@reptar707 A creature that develops sexual urges which run counter to its anatomy, and thus violate the anatomical propriety of its own body with whatever sexual act it takes part in, is clearly suffering a type disorder--mental or otherwise. Objective reality trumps feelings and opinion any day of the week. And I'm certainly not about to blame anyone who says they'd rather not have their culture saturated with the idea that such a thing is a structural and social benignity or positive influence. It's clearly not--regardless of what the legislature declares.
Ryouga001's comments