It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You were allowed to marry the person you loved.

What is wrong with gays wanting what you have?

What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children? The ancient Greeks did this routinely. Even in the US, up until very recently, you could marry as young as 14 in some states. In Appalachian communities, girls were married sometimes at the age of 12. Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals? We can't discriminate, can we? Why should they be denied the same rights as you? What's wrong with them wanting what you have?

How about a brother and sister who want to marry? Who are we to deny them their rights? If the problem is, they might have retarded babies, we can make the stipulation that one of them has to be infertile or have a hysterectomy/vasectomy so no children are possible. Same with a father and daughter or mother and son. Lots of people we're discriminating against when it comes to marrying who they love. And we've not even touched on the pig fuckers... they should have rights to marry the pig they love too! Who are you to deny them that right? What harm does it do to your gay marriage?

And yes, before you say it, I already understand what "consent" means... we can change that as easily as we changed "marriage" to mean whatever pleases us. We're not confined by antiquated definitions anymore.

We can change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to? We have age of consent laws to (ostensibly) protect the young who cannot make informed decisions. That basic reasoning would apply to animals. Who needs protecting when it comes to adult homosexuals? It's an entirely different argument.

As far as I have seen you can still marry as young as 14 in some states, although it requires parental and sometimes judicial consent.

With parents and children, the issue is not simply one of offspring. There is a question of power in the relationship, of whether, again, informed consent can be made. It is similar to the reasoning behind preventing teachers and students from having relationships, even if it is legal based on their ages.

With brother and sister it is a much more difficult argument to make, particularly if no potential children are involved.

Of course these arguments have been around as long as there have been discussions about gay marriage. And as always, they are mostly silly. However, when it comes to things like polygamy and incest, if someone believes they are being treated unequally, they are free to bring it to the court system. Perhaps the courts would make a similar ruling in those cases. Also as always, any individual is completely free to disagree with any sort of relationship. Nothing in the law or the recent Obergefell ruling changes that.

The point is that the Arguments advanced by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality were and remain irrational, deceitful and based entirely upon NOTHING.

Children are not capable of consenting to sex, because children do not bear the experience to understand the consequences for sex... .

Now the adult who desires the child doesn't give a tinker's dam' about what the child can reasonably understand, they simply and quite irrationally seek sexual gratification with a child.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality do not give a rip about the effect of deviant sexuality on the individuals who crave such, they simply care about the campaign, the battle against whatever and whoever contests their irrational cravings.

At some point, the APA will simply hold a vote and through that vote they will declare children 'psychologically capable' of consenting to sex. From that the ANSA Machine will activate and they will simultaneously demand 'equal protection under the law for the 'rights of children' and instantly, the entire media will be consumed by the 'DEBATE',wherein there will be no 'debate', only Leftists braying about the 'injustice' of preventing children from joining with 'caring, loving adults', etc, etc... and consequently, the law will be changed so as to provide for the legal pursuit of children for sexual gratification, by adults.

All this is about is the Evil that is manifested through the relativism common to and which is otherwise advanced through the Ideological Left.

Rest assured that they are coming for your children and grand children and they are the most profound, unbridled evil ever witnessed on the face of the earth. They exist for no other purpose than the destruction of civilization and with it, all mankind.

 

[Montrovant]

You were allowed to marry the person you loved.

What is wrong with gays wanting what you have?

What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children? The ancient Greeks did this routinely. Even in the US, up until very recently, you could marry as young as 14 in some states. In Appalachian communities, girls were married sometimes at the age of 12. Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals? We can't discriminate, can we? Why should they be denied the same rights as you? What's wrong with them wanting what you have?

How about a brother and sister who want to marry? Who are we to deny them their rights? If the problem is, they might have retarded babies, we can make the stipulation that one of them has to be infertile or have a hysterectomy/vasectomy so no children are possible. Same with a father and daughter or mother and son. Lots of people we're discriminating against when it comes to marrying who they love. And we've not even touched on the pig fuckers... they should have rights to marry the pig they love too! Who are you to deny them that right? What harm does it do to your gay marriage?

And yes, before you say it, I already understand what "consent" means... we can change that as easily as we changed "marriage" to mean whatever pleases us. We're not confined by antiquated definitions anymore.

We can change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to? We have age of consent laws to (ostensibly) protect the young who cannot make informed decisions. That basic reasoning would apply to animals. Who needs protecting when it comes to adult homosexuals? It's an entirely different argument.

As far as I have seen you can still marry as young as 14 in some states, although it requires parental and sometimes judicial consent.

With parents and children, the issue is not simply one of offspring. There is a question of power in the relationship, of whether, again, informed consent can be made. It is similar to the reasoning behind preventing teachers and students from having relationships, even if it is legal based on their ages.

With brother and sister it is a much more difficult argument to make, particularly if no potential children are involved.

Of course these arguments have been around as long as there have been discussions about gay marriage. And as always, they are mostly silly. However, when it comes to things like polygamy and incest, if someone believes they are being treated unequally, they are free to bring it to the court system. Perhaps the courts would make a similar ruling in those cases. Also as always, any individual is completely free to disagree with any sort of relationship. Nothing in the law or the recent Obergefell ruling changes that.

The point is that the Arguments advanced by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality were and remain irrational, deceitful and based entirely upon NOTHING.

Children are not capable of consenting to sex, because children do not bear the experience to understand the consequences for sex... .

Now the adult who desires the child doesn't give a tinker's dam' about what the child can reasonably understand, they simply and quite irrationally seek sexual gratification with a child.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality do not give a rip about the effect of deviant sexuality on the individuals who crave such, they simply care about the campaign, the battle against whatever and whoever contests their irrational cravings.

At some point, the APA will simply hold a vote and through that vote they will declare children 'psychologically capable' of consenting to sex. From that the ANSA Machine will activate and they will simultaneously demand 'equal protection under the law for the 'rights of children' and instantly, the entire media will be consumed by the 'DEBATE',wherein there will be no 'debate', only Leftists braying about the 'injustice' of preventing children from joining with 'caring, loving adults', etc, etc... .

All this is about is the Evil that is manifested through the relativism common to and which is otherwise advanced through the Ideological Left.

Rest assured that they are coming for your children and grand children and they are the most profound, unbridled evil ever witnessed on the face of the earth. They exist for no other purpose than the destruction of civilization and with it all mankind.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I am probably one of the most tolerant people you'll ever meet. I just spent a week sleeping in a tent with a gay guy... didn't bother me or him one little bit. Like I said... plenty of gay friends and family members who I love and adore. But as tolerant as I am, I have my limits. I'm about done with my tolerance level when it comes to accepting things. If you can't live your gay life without infringing on me, go fuck yourself. I'm tired of defending myself, being called names, ridiculed and scorned because I won't stand for you trashing the Constitution in order to legitimize your homosexual behavior. Enough is enough!

Amen to this! We straight people have never once asked for special treatment because of our being straight, so why should anyone else get any? If the homosexuals are going to say that they stand for equality, then they need to learn how to make sure that their choice of actions match that statement, because a person's choice of action is what tells the real story in this "Talk is cheep." kind of world.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

You did get special treatment. You were allowed to serve your country. You were allowed to marry the person you loved.

What is wrong with gays wanting what you have?

You ask me such a question as if I am the reason why they don't get whatever it is that they want when I don't have anything to do with it.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. As for what is wrong with homosexuals wanting what the rest of us have. Well when you put it like that, its an act of coveting which is against the Lord's ten commandments.

 

[Boss]

We can change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to?

When did what most people want come into play here? Most people don't condone or support homosexual marriage. That has been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot. The SCOTUS has ruled that it simply doesn't matter what people want, this is a right under the Constitution.

Unless age of consent laws are deemed unconstitutional, or there is a sudden shift in the opinions and policies of our representatives, it would take a majority of people either voting on referendums or voting into office willing representatives to change those laws.

As to most people condoning homosexual marriage, that seems to be a fairly evenly split subject based on polling. It also has not "been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot", as prior to the Obergefell decision some states had legalized same sex marriage though both legislature and referendum.

The only "poll" that matters is the one where the ballot box resides. In those polls, the public has overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage in even the most liberal meccas in the nation. In fact, numerous initiatives have reaffirmed traditional marriage in many states. This issue is not being resolved at the ballot box and that is what is offensive to many including myself. It is being taken out of our hands by a rogue Supreme Court, legislating morality from the bench. Creating rights that do not exist based on notions that the public doesn't accept.

So no... consent laws don't have to be changed, the SCOTUS can apparently rule whatever they please into existence. It won't take a majority of anything more than liberal SCOTUS justices.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The only "poll" that matters is the one where the ballot box resides. In those polls, the public has overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage in even the most liberal meccas in the nation. In fact, numerous initiatives have reaffirmed traditional marriage in many states. This issue is not being resolved at the ballot box and that is what is offensive to many including myself. It is being taken out of our hands by a rogue Supreme Court, legislating morality from the bench. Creating rights that do not exist based on notions that the public doesn't accept.

So no... consent laws don't have to be changed, the SCOTUS can apparently rule whatever they please into existence. It won't take a majority of anything more than liberal SCOTUS justices.

Just well said.

I'd only add that the Supreme Legislature is legislating IMMORALITY from the bench, having rejected all sense of a soundly reasoned, objective morality.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow, the OP has really sent the USMB Assclown Brigade off the deep end. They're foaming at the mouth to attack, like good little trained progressive bots.

The OP really hits the nail on the head, there is no appeasing the homo-progressives. The homo-progressive movement was never about 'tolerance'. There was always tolerance of homosexuals, they weren't being thrown in jail or persecuted by the government. Did people have disdain for them, and disgust for their actions, naturally. But queers could still live their lives in peace and do whatever they wanted in the bedroom and no one could stop them.

But, that wasn't good enough for them. So they started demanding that there be no consequences for coming out of the closet. That anyone should be able to be openly gay and that everyone must accept that. Even though the vast majority of people are disgusted by queers, they were all expected to put their natural revulsion aside and 'accept' a behavior that everyone knows is wrong. If you didn't alter your behavior and feelings towards homosexuality then you would be harassed and labeled a homophobe and bigot. But, society still went along with it.

But it still wasn't enough. Now we are being told that we have to accept 'transgender' people as if they are normal. We now have to pretend a mutilated cross-dressing queer is a 'woman'. Sorry, but no.

LOL- our responses has sure made the homophobes foam at the mouth- you sure are threatened by homosexuals being treated exactly equally with heterosexuals.

FYI- you can have whatever feelings you want- but if you want to broadcast your bigotry- whether towards Jews or African Americans or homsoexuals- have the balls to take the criticism of your public bigotry without whining.

 

[Syriusly]

I can see you still maintain your "yuck" factor towards homosexuals. You prefer the days when they were in the closet and were fine as long as they kept quiet about it.

We used to hear the same argument about blacks. Hollywood was pushing them in movies. They were given starring roles where the public was used to only whites getting those roles. There was outrage if blacks and whites kissed or had a relationship

Took a long time, but those attitudes have slowly changed.
Same will happen with gays and their relationships will become no big deal

That is what you fear

I am deeply offended that homosexuals want to compare their "plight" with people who are black. You have no control over your race, it's what you are born with and can't do a thing about. Your sexual behavior is something you CAN control. I don't give a shit how you are born... pedophiles are born with the propensity to mess with kids... they are expected to control that urge.

Attitudes HAVE changed, that's my whole point here. Despite the efforts made by millions like myself who have tolerated your behavior and accepted that you get sexual pleasure from homosexual acts, allowing you to live as you please and not condemning you for it... look where we are today... you can't be satisfied. It's never going to be enough.

I have to wonder, would it have just been easier to condemn homosexuality? We can't seem to do enough to please you or appease you... it keeps getting pushed to the next level and then, the next... no end in sight, no sense of rationality whatsoever. Just keep forcing more and more of it down our throats and demanding we accept it or face your wrath. When does this stop? At what point will homosexuals be satisfied? I don't think there IS a point. I think this is a futile effort and maybe we need to reconsider our positions? Maybe it's NOT the right thing to try and tolerate this?

Civil rights are still civil rights
It doesn't matter if gays get to "choose" to be gay or not. You choose your religion but are still entitled to civil rights

Nobody is forcing you to accept homosexuality...you are free to hate anyone you want

What you can't do is force the government to accept your hatred

Bull, gays have been forcing their perverse behavior on us for awhile now. Lying libtards.

What homosexual behavior have you been forced to do?

Be very specific- and use graphic terms for the body parts.

Another stupid idiot. You retarded libs don't know how to read. No wonder this country is in the shape it is.

LOL- so you are just another fearful homophobe- terrified that someone gay will force you to participate in 'gayness' but not actually being affected by anything other than your paranoia and terror.

 

[Syriusly]

I can see you still maintain your "yuck" factor towards homosexuals. You prefer the days when they were in the closet and were fine as long as they kept quiet about it.

We used to hear the same argument about blacks. Hollywood was pushing them in movies. They were given starring roles where the public was used to only whites getting those roles. There was outrage if blacks and whites kissed or had a relationship

Took a long time, but those attitudes have slowly changed.
Same will happen with gays and their relationships will become no big deal

That is what you fear

I am deeply offended that homosexuals want to compare their "plight" with people who are black. You have no control over your race, it's what you are born with and can't do a thing about. Your sexual behavior is something you CAN control. I don't give a shit how you are born... pedophiles are born with the propensity to mess with kids... they are expected to control that urge.

Attitudes HAVE changed, that's my whole point here. Despite the efforts made by millions like myself who have tolerated your behavior and accepted that you get sexual pleasure from homosexual acts, allowing you to live as you please and not condemning you for it... look where we are today... you can't be satisfied. It's never going to be enough.

I have to wonder, would it have just been easier to condemn homosexuality? We can't seem to do enough to please you or appease you... it keeps getting pushed to the next level and then, the next... no end in sight, no sense of rationality whatsoever. Just keep forcing more and more of it down our throats and demanding we accept it or face your wrath. When does this stop? At what point will homosexuals be satisfied? I don't think there IS a point. I think this is a futile effort and maybe we need to reconsider our positions? Maybe it's NOT the right thing to try and tolerate this?

Civil rights are still civil rights
It doesn't matter if gays get to "choose" to be gay or not. You choose your religion but are still entitled to civil rights

Nobody is forcing you to accept homosexuality...you are free to hate anyone you want

What you can't do is force the government to accept your hatred

Bull, gays have been forcing their perverse behavior on us for awhile now. Lying libtards.

What homosexual behavior have you been forced to do?

Be very specific- and use graphic terms for the body parts.

Meh, two guys swapping spit on the it's a small world ride at Disneyland is completely normal. I mean, why would anyone consider the public display to be offensive?

-Geaux

Well personally I don't find two guys 'swapping spit' any more appropriate than a guy and a gal swapping spit on "Its a Small World"

The difference between you and me- I don't get offended just because it is two guys- but you do.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... homophobes ...

... homophobe...

There is literally, no such thing as a Homophobe.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well personally I don't find two guys 'swapping spit' any more appropriate ...

That's the mental disorder that presents through your desire for sexual gratification with a person of your own gender failing you, again.

 

[Syriusly]

You were allowed to marry the person you loved.

What is wrong with gays wanting what you have?

What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?.

What is it with homophobes like you not understanding the idea of 'Consent'?

This comes up often- always with people who like you have a real issue with equal rights when it comes to homosexuals.

If you do not understand the concept of 'consent'- then I am concerned that no women or children would be safe around you.

Or is this just a strawman you are raising?

 

[Syriusly]

... homophobes ...

There is literally, no such thing as a Homophobe.

There literally is

noun
1.
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

Pretty sure the dictionary has a photo of you with the definition.

 

[Syriusly]

We can change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to?

When did what most people want come into play here? Most people don't condone or support homosexual marriage. That has been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot. The SCOTUS has ruled that it simply doesn't matter what people want, this is a right under the Constitution.

Unless age of consent laws are deemed unconstitutional, or there is a sudden shift in the opinions and policies of our representatives, it would take a majority of people either voting on referendums or voting into office willing representatives to change those laws.

As to most people condoning homosexual marriage, that seems to be a fairly evenly split subject based on polling. It also has not "been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot", as prior to the Obergefell decision some states had legalized same sex marriage though both legislature and referendum.

The only "poll" that matters is the one where the ballot box resides. In those polls, the public has overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage in even the most liberal meccas in the nation. In fact, numerous initiatives have reaffirmed traditional marriage in many states. This issue is not being resolved at the ballot box and that is what is offensive to many including myself. It is being taken out of our hands by a rogue Supreme Court, legislating morality from the bench. Creating rights that do not exist based on notions that the public doesn't accept..

The last three votes on gay marriage either rejected attempts to make gay marriage illegal- or made gay marriage legal.

Funny how you start a thread talking about how the people 'feel' but reject any polls on how people actually feel when the polls don't align with your own prejudices.

 

[Montrovant]

We can change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to?

When did what most people want come into play here? Most people don't condone or support homosexual marriage. That has been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot. The SCOTUS has ruled that it simply doesn't matter what people want, this is a right under the Constitution.

Unless age of consent laws are deemed unconstitutional, or there is a sudden shift in the opinions and policies of our representatives, it would take a majority of people either voting on referendums or voting into office willing representatives to change those laws.

As to most people condoning homosexual marriage, that seems to be a fairly evenly split subject based on polling. It also has not "been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot", as prior to the Obergefell decision some states had legalized same sex marriage though both legislature and referendum.

The only "poll" that matters is the one where the ballot box resides. In those polls, the public has overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage in even the most liberal meccas in the nation. In fact, numerous initiatives have reaffirmed traditional marriage in many states. This issue is not being resolved at the ballot box and that is what is offensive to many including myself. It is being taken out of our hands by a rogue Supreme Court, legislating morality from the bench. Creating rights that do not exist based on notions that the public doesn't accept.

So no... consent laws don't have to be changed, the SCOTUS can apparently rule whatever they please into existence. It won't take a majority of anything more than liberal SCOTUS justices.

I wonder if the Supreme Court has ever made a ruling you agreed with which made you consider them a 'rogue court'.

It's strange how disagreeing with the court's decision makes them suddenly judicial activists or rogues or legislating morality, etc. It's as though some people think the court only has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws so long as they rule the way those people want.......

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There literally is

noun
1.
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

Pretty sure the dictionary has a photo of you with the definition.

Oh... the flaccid appeal to misleading authority... now, isn't that precious.

Of course, the dictionary is speaking to the colloquial expression; which is to say words used in ordinary or familiar conversation that have no formal or literal meaning.

We know this because the word 'homophobe' is a compound word; meaning that two words were used to form one word.

The first formal or literal word is 'homo', meaning "same"; which is to say: that which is identical or not different.

The second formal, or literal word is "Phobe", short for phobia, where the usage indicates the bearer of the phobia... which is a medical term which means: an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Thesomething having been identified through the suffix 'Homo', which we learned earlier literally means: that which is identical or not different.

Thus the literal meaning of 'Homophobe' is "One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different".

And since there is no medical diagnosis of "One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different"; meaning that such does not exist... we can KNOW that the word: Homophobe is a fabrication by the Cult of Degeneracy... that such has found colloquial popularity, thus is printed in the dictionary expressing the popular, non-literal, deceitful meaning... is wholly IRRELEVANT.

The simple fact is there is no medical root for any such 'condition'... . And that remains true in BOTH the Literal and Colloquial usage.

And THAT dear Reader, is how THAT ... is done.

(Remember... The key to defeating Leftists in debate rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to Speak.)

 

[Syriusly]

Perhaps the courts would make a similar ruling in those cases.

Perhaps? Seems to me they have no choice. If we've redefined marriage to legitimize sexual behavior then the can of worms is open. You can't pick and choose which sexual behaviors are "icky" and which are not and dole out "fundamental rights" on that basis. We either have rights or we don't.

You just displayed the fundamental problem with your 'argument'

Obergefell had nothing to do with sexual behavior.

Nothing.

Read the case- it is not discussed.

Americans have a fundamental right to marry. States can only deny those rights by demonstrating a clear and convincing state interest in doing so. States could not do so regarding preventing two people of the same gender from marrying.

Do you have any objection to two siblings marrying? A father marrying his daughter? If not- well then you probably want those to be legal also- but the States may disagree.

 

[Syriusly]

We can change consent laws, but what would make you think most people would want to?

When did what most people want come into play here? Most people don't condone or support homosexual marriage. That has been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot. The SCOTUS has ruled that it simply doesn't matter what people want, this is a right under the Constitution.

Unless age of consent laws are deemed unconstitutional, or there is a sudden shift in the opinions and policies of our representatives, it would take a majority of people either voting on referendums or voting into office willing representatives to change those laws.

As to most people condoning homosexual marriage, that seems to be a fairly evenly split subject based on polling. It also has not "been established everywhere it has been put on a ballot", as prior to the Obergefell decision some states had legalized same sex marriage though both legislature and referendum.

The only "poll" that matters is the one where the ballot box resides. In those polls, the public has overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage in even the most liberal meccas in the nation. In fact, numerous initiatives have reaffirmed traditional marriage in many states. This issue is not being resolved at the ballot box and that is what is offensive to many including myself. It is being taken out of our hands by a rogue Supreme Court, legislating morality from the bench. Creating rights that do not exist based on notions that the public doesn't accept.

So no... consent laws don't have to be changed, the SCOTUS can apparently rule whatever they please into existence. It won't take a majority of anything more than liberal SCOTUS justices.

I wonder if the Supreme Court has ever made a ruling you agreed with which made you consider them a 'rogue court'.

It's strange how disagreeing with the court's decision makes them suddenly judicial activists or rogues or legislating morality, etc. It's as though some people think the court only has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws so long as they rule the way those people want.......

Pretty much everyone who disagrees with the courts on Obergefell, agrees with the court when it overturns State laws which restrict gun rights.

 

[Montrovant]

... homophobes ...

... homophobe...

There is literally, no such thing as a Homophobe.

I think you may be mistaking the meaning of literally. Even if you don't accept the common definition of the word, it could still simply mean a person afraid of homosexuals, and there's no reason to think that phobia doesn't exist. There are far stranger ones!

 

[Montrovant]

There literally is

noun
1.
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

Pretty sure the dictionary has a photo of you with the definition.

Oh... the flaccid appeal to misleading authority... now, isn't that precious.

Of course, the dictionary is speaking to the colloquial expression; which is to say words used in ordinary or familiar conversation that have no formal or literal meaning.

We know this because the word 'homophobe' is a compound word; meaning that two words were used to form one word.

The first formal or literal word is 'homo', meaning "same"; which is to say: that which is identical or not different.

The second formal, or literal word is "Phobe", short for phobia, where the usage indicates the bearer of the phobia... which is a medical term which means: an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Thesomething having been identified through the suffix 'Homo', which we learned earlier literally means: that which is identical or not different.

Thus the literal meaning of 'Homophobe' is "One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different".

And since there is no medical diagnosis of "One with an irrational fear of that which is identical or not different"; meaning that such does not exist... we can KNOW that the word: Homophobe is a fabrication by the Cult of Degeneracy... that such has found colloquial popularity, thus is printed in the dictionary expressing the popular, non-literal, deceitful meaning... is wholly IRRELEVANT.

The simple fact is there is no medical root for any such 'condition'... . And that remains true in BOTH the Literal and Colloquial usage.

And THAT dear Reader, is how THAT ... is done.

(Remember... The key to defeating Leftists in debate rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to Speak.)

Would you prefer the use of homosexualphobe?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... homophobes ...

... homophobe...

There is literally, no such thing as a Homophobe.

I think you may be mistaking the meaning of literally. Even if you don't accept the common definition of the word, it could still simply mean a person afraid of homosexuals, and there's no reason to think that phobia doesn't exist. There are far stranger ones!

Well it 'could' mean 'the green mold that grows on the bottom of old cars, that sit on the edge of the bayou', or it 'could' mean: refrigerator, or couch... .

Because the words cobbled together to form the word have no basis in fact, with regard to what the user claims the word to mean. And that is because the word is a fiction... fabricated from whole cloth, again... with no root in reality, whatsoever.

'Homophobe' is a Deceit, which is FRAUDULENTLY advanced, as a means to exploit simple Ignorance, toward the goal of cowing political opposition to the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.