Alma, responding to the multiple reasons I listed why the group in the OP is labeled a hate group wrote:
As I said before, pro homosexual supporters always use the civil rights and women's movements as their foundation for their arguments, but when people use the SAME EXACT rationale for other forms of sexuality, it becomes a "slippery slope". It's either a valid rationale or it's not.
It's a valid rational if the forms of sexuality using said rational are between two consenting adults of legal age.
What defines a child?
Society, usually at the State level.
Are you defining by maturity or by age?
Society does so by age.
How is it that two 15 year old high school students can be in a relationship, be in love, plan to marry, want to run away together, be sexually active and that be legal, but add a 47 year old, then it's "wrong"? What's the difference? The said teen is already participating in the very same things. What is difference? How is it ok with another 15 year old, but not with a 47 year old?
I can't answer this question without knowing which state this hypothetical situation happens in. In some states, it's wrong because they've made laws against it in response to older men taking advantage of children. In other states, the 15 year old can marry the 47 year old if their parents sign off on it.
If you want to look at it in the long run, who is she better off with? The 15 year old boy who has no job, house and understanding of life. Or Mr. Johnson, the 35 year old social economics teacher with a job, house and life experience?
My personal opinion, she's probably better off with the 15 year old than the 35 year old. The 15 year olds both probably still live at home, don't need jobs, have more in common, & are still in the process of learning about life in general. The 35 year old teacher is probably a weirdo if he wants to bone, what I assume, is his 15 year old student.
As a society, we just decided to say that's "icky" and prevented it from happening. That is no different than what some people are doing towards homosexuals.
Society didn't make it illegal to **** children because it's icky, they did so to prevent children from being harmed by sexual predators. Making the same kind of laws against homosexual is wrong because two consenting homosexuals of legal age aren't hurting anyone. Maybe they creep you out, but that's really your problem now isn't it?
Being a ****?
Would you prefer douchebag?
My point is that you can say things like "I think furries are creepy" and not be labeled a bigot who want furries dead. You realize that it is perfectly plausible to totally disagree with their lifestyle and not hate them as a person. That same treatment isn't equal towards homosexuals. If you don't support homosexuality 110%, then you are homophobic bigot, no different than the KKK. So, who's using hate speech now?
You are, literally.
This is exactly my point. Hate speech. Say anything contrary to the homosexual life style and you're secretly a homosexual or a homophobe. How come people can't say "I think homosexuality is wrong" and not be a homophobic bigot like you are towards furries?
Saying, " If you don't support homosexuality 110%, then you are homophobic bigot, no different than the KKK" is hate speech. I said it's ok for you to not support homosexuality, but it's the answer to why you don't support homosexuality that would make you a bigot or not. It is my hypothesis that you are a bigot, because you jump through hoops to never actually say why you don't support homosexuality because doing so would reveal to us all that you really are a bigot. The onus, as ever, remains on you to prove me wrong.
Besides leaving unfinished work, I'm trying not to completely bore the other posters by regurgitating the same argument for the umptenth time just because you some how missed it the last million times in the past.
You're still a coward, got it.
If you grow a pair, start off your post with, "I, Alma, personally don't approve of homosexuals because..." Until then, remain a coward.