Homophobes, why do you care?

It is relevant because it demonstrates that the belief that homosexuals are abnormal is a man made one.

Which is entirely distinct from actual homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) and is used to describe people who act against their sexuality often for specific reasons, not because they elect to be gay or straight. For instance, a teenage boy might experiment sexually with another boy out of curiosity. Mutual masturbation for example. That doesn't mean that the boy is inherently homosexial and will grow up to seek a relationship with a man.

Explain the first lady of New York City then.

They already have.

Canada's economy is the strongest it's been in the last ten years!

Which, as I just posted above, is why you can't compare it to actual homosexuality.

That sounds like a "no true Scottsman" argument

It's relevant because it proves homosexuality isn't a choice, but a natural process that one can't control. It isn't any different than someone being allergic to pollen or having blue eyes. They can't choose what they're allergic to or what color their eyes are.

This is caused by the environment the person can be in, such as a prison. The choice isn't one a person would normally make, but it is often forced on them. And it often isn't consensual by both sides because one side can be forced into it by intimidation, threats, or coercion.[/quote][/quote]

I said that sex is a big deal, not that one can't survive without it.

Define 'natural'.

They are natural acts, but they are also non-consensual acts. Rape implies what it is, a forced sexual act on one person by another without consent, it can be violent or non violent. The same with murder, which is the premeditated unlawful act of killing another person.

There is nothing to explain. She obviously felt that she identified as gay but realised as she went on that she was actually bisexual. It is not my duty to explain her sexuality to you.
You talk as if I'm saying people are born with an instruction manual that tells them on page three that they're gay. Exploring one's sexuality is clearly a process one goes through throughout life, and Ms. McCray later identifying as bisexual in no way makes the case that one's sexuality is entirely decided by elected choice. If it were, how do you explain gay people in countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East being gay in spite of it being illegal and them being persecuted for it? If it was all a choice as you're clearly implying, then why wouldn't those people choose to be straight? Come on, use you head. It's really not a difficult concept.

Flesh eating bacteria in your brain?

It isn't uncommon for someone who feels an attraction to the same sex to also feel an attraction to someone of the opposite sex. She claimed she was a lesbian for years, it is possible that she did so and not be attracted to any particular male in that time. When she met her now current husband she did feel an attraction, she didn't say "I was attracted to a man, but that she was attracted to a person", which for a homosexual are two different things.

So yes someone can be a homosexual, but feel an attraction to someone of the opposite sex. Which is what she herself said. Which pretty much uses your own example against you.

First the term homophobe/homophobia is inaccurate so that is irrelevant. Second how many of those other things listed are being parading around/flaunted etc and demanding to be accepted and celebrated?

Yes they are. Same sex marriage is legal and that means that the definition of it is two consenting adults. I hate to break it to you, but the authority of the law trumps your story book about miracles and an invisible sky man. This is why we have separation of church and state. Apparently you think biblical rules are more important than the law. Perhaps you would be happier with more religious rules being on the statue books? Is that what you want to see?

I'll use an example you might be quite familar with. For thousands of years people chose to become Christians despite often extreme persecution for that choice. Even today people choose to become Christians despite severe dangers to their lives.

People don't always choose the easy and uncontroversial path in life.

Astonishingly stupid remark. They parade around and demand to be excepted because for years they haven't been. They have been marginalised and persecuted, even killed. While there are many, many people who still exist that deride them as unatural abnormal freaks, you can't work out why they're still trying to be accepted??

A temporary and hopefully brief historical aberration. Don't mistake current laws or interpretations of laws for a permanent change.

So.

Choices have consequences.

So now you're comparing sexuality to religion??

Religion is a belief system. Sexuality is not. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

Stop being a coward again and cherrypicking bits out of my post. Answer the question I put to you, namely would you prefer more biblical rules to interwoven into the laws of society?

You didn't address what I said. I pointed out that people do indeed choose things despite persecution which was the point you brought up.

Absolutely.

Are you trying to say the things on your list are proudly accepted and celebrated by all?

It's not a choice....and I'd rather take the word of countless scientists on that then your storybook.

You don't think scientists have an agenda or biases?

Indeed. The choice of bigots to continue in their bigotry shall have consequences for them as bigotry becomes less and less socially acceptable.

Religion isn't in our DNA, and it isn't natural instinct. If it was, then everyone would be born with an innate desire to worship the so called God. Yet humans do not do this, the choose who or what to worship. There are still humans out there they know nothing of God or Christianity, because they have not been introduced to the concept. But someone can feel an attraction towards the opposite or same sex even as a child, and they grow up feeling those attractions. No one tuaght them how to be attracted to someone. When asked, homosexuals will say that as fas back as they can remember they were attracted to the same sex, or even both sexes. No one had taught them that. So choosing to become Christian is a choice, if it was natural then everyone would be Christian, and we wouldn't have the hundreds of religions we have today.

By whom?

Right, so what you want therefore is to move away from democracy and towards a more theocratic system. Some Muslim countries have implemented a legal system that is exactly that. Do you know what it's called? Sharia Law....you know, the very thing the Christian right in America say is evil and backwards and for savages third worlders. Congratulations on your slow journey to religious extremism.

The idea of more religious based laws is abhorrent. Religion has no place dictating the laws of society, and this is why we have moved more and more away from it in the West. It seems you would like to turn back the clock and force your religious ideals onto others, just as they do in places like Saudi Arabia. Personally I think democracy is worth preserving.

Why should that even matter?
There are things I find distasteful that are flaunted and demanding to be celebrated, but I don't want them suppressed.
Christian holidays in the mainstream media.
Visits from the Pope and Dali Llama.
Big anniversary years of "American Idol".
Awards shows.
Pageants.
The Superbowl.
If my personal taste wiped out all those things, everyone else would be miserable.

Magic sky man.