What a bizarre reply!
I have never once raised the topic of "former homosexuals" so how do you arrive at the idea that I am attempting "to deny their existence"?
I have no clue regarding the correct number of gay or bisexual persons whom have sought via therapy to "convert" to heterosexuality, but if they were unhappy living as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual, then I certainly support their decision to seek whatever therapy they think could help--and I wish them well.
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS: How definitions are applied changes over time. In the early 20th century women who smoke or drank alcohol were considered "immoral". A woman who revealed any skin above ankle level or any breast cleveage would also have been considered of low moral character.
So, given YOUR scheme of things, I suppose you believe that someone successfully changed the prior definition of "immoral" and we should revert back to earlier definitions of "immoral" so that women with the characteristics cited above would be accurately described. Your counterparts in, say, 1900 or 1910 or 1920 could have written about their condemnation of such women: "That's not an attack on a group of people, it's a fact based on our culture and the dictionary." Similarly, racial intermarriage was considered "immoral" and prohibited by law. Let's find out what "immoral perverts" changed that definition too!
How far back do you propose that we go for correct definitions so that we can purge ourselves of all incorrect understandings? Shall we consult dictionaries from, say, 1850 or how about 1750 or perhaps 500 A.D. or perhaps we should re-adopt Old Testament prohibitions regarding diet, clothing, proper role of women, sexual rights of men in relation to their brother's widow, etc? These were portrayed as "moral" issues and there were punishments prescribed for transgressors.
The most significant part of your message (to me) is your last paragraph where you state having personal knowledge of homosexuals "changes nothing". Frankly, your ideological brain-lock is what guarantees ultimate victory for proponents of gay marriage.
Americans are a profoundly non-ideological people. We are pragmatists. We care about what ideas work and we don't care much for labels. We also are a fair-minded people. We celebrate the fact that so many diverse people can live and prosper together. We have only to look at Sudan, Bosnia, Iraq, Ukraine, and other societies to see how blessed we are. The greatest impediment in those societies to peace and national reconciliation is the efforts of ideologues to demonize ALL persons they perceive as opponents.
Here in the U.S., there is a VERY LIMITED MARKET for your type of argument, even among Americans who are currently opposed to gay marriage. Your undisguised revulsion toward entire categories of other human beings and your total unwillingness to recognize value in persons different from yourself, is what will ensure your defeat.
In many respects, this is reminiscent of the conflict between decent southerners and white supremacists...Ordinary southerners may have had serious misgivings about the rapid integration of society but, nevertheless, they despised white supremacist organizations that expoused unvarnished hatred toward not just blacks but anyone who believed in the value of an integrated society. There are always Americans who appeal to the worst in us instead of our better angels.
I have never once raised the topic of "former homosexuals" so how do you arrive at the idea that I am attempting "to deny their existence"?
Yet you have ignored the topic of former homosexuals in every single post until this one, and I've mentioned former homosexuals in almost every single post to you. I've repeately asked:
What do former homosexuals have to say on the matter?And you have repeately ignored that question every single time.
if they were unhappy living as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual, then I certainly support their decision to seek whatever therapy they think could help--and I wish them well.
Yet you don't see a problem allowing those who, temporarilly, engage in this behavior called homosexuality to marry. You see no problem allowing the sexually confused to marry, to adopt children, and then at any time, clear their confusion, stop engaging in homosexuality and move on. That's bizarre. If you honestly wished them well you would want their sexual confusion cleared first and foremost.
And as for your applying significance to an insignificant comment tells me you're either playing games or have no idea what I said. Apparently you're assuming and inferring "schemes" out of thin air. And this talk of revulsion and hatred...you haven't understood a thing I've said, so stop the misrepresentation.
Also, your misdirection is noted and ignored.
Immorality:
How low does the bar of moral standards have to be lowered before you grow concerned Ernie?
We care about what ideas work and we don't care much for labels.
Let's see...
Bigots, homophobes, knuckle draggers, right wing nut jobs, fundamentalists, fundies, prudes, sexually oppressed latent homosexual closet cases, closed minded bigoted rednecks, gay basher, uneducated sexual amateurs, religious Nazis, religious zealots, American tali ban, etc. etc. The list grows daily.
"unvarnished hatred"
Not in this case Ernie. You fail to realize the fact that People who oppose "homosexuality" do not "hate" homosexuals.
Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person.
"Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice.
In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.
Moral discrimination is "rational" discrimination. Furthermore:
Homophobia: This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay" sophists. the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant.
Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself.
Homosexual activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals."
As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot.
The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.
Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. homosexual activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association without a shred of scientific evidence to legitimize homosexual behavior as a natural immutable human quality).
Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist," helping the "gay" movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.
The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.