Well, you answered my question, but you didn't address my question. You also didn't address the many factors that made your answer moot.
If you ask me what kind of car I drive and I tell you I don't like imports, have I answered your question?
The fact is, nothing has changed. Homoerotic behavior is just as wrong today as it was 100 years ago. Unless someone comes up with a test for a corpse that can determine reliably whether the person was gay or straight, it will continue to be an anomalous behavior.
Between you and me, I could care less about what two gays do in private. The problem is, they have shown a remarkable lack of willingness to keep it private. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the group as a whole.
Additionally, I have heard a gay man ask a straight teen whether the teen had considered he might be gay. To the rest of us the suggestion was ridiculous. The boy couldn't keep his hands off the girls. The gay man was commenting on the effeminate characteristics of the youth and trying to tell the youth that he was confused. What he was really doing was planting a notion that had no business being planted. He was not the youth's counsellor, pastor, or even family friend. He was simply in contact with the boy and "wanted to help". He was way out of line, and the boy's parents told him so.
That man needs to know that the rest of us consider homoerotic attraction an abomination. If he wants to practice it, fine, but he should not be peddling it.
I also don't think the man was trying to have sex with the boy, but I couldn't prove it.
Shalom.
If I didn't answer the question the way you like, it's probably because I disagree with the premise of your question. If I disagree with the premise, why should I answer it in the way it's phrased and lend credence to an invalid question?
The problem is, they have shown a remarkable lack of willingness to keep it private. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the group as a whole.
It bewilders me how conspicuously so many conservatives do an about face from their normal stance of shunning the group identity in favor of the individual. Instead you focus on the anecdotal and nebulous misdeeds of the group as a whole and overlook the rights or merit of any gays as individuals.
Amazingly, as conspicuous as it is, it seems to be done obliviously by the ones doing it.
You wouldn't accept that kind of illogical denigration if it was a liberal talking about gun owners, so why do you practice that kind of illogical denigration when you talk about gays? By employing that particular fallacious thinking, you're lending credence to every gun grabber who says guns should be outlawed anytime a twisted nutcase shoots up a school or restaurant.