Stop Using the Word Homophobe

Yes! Calling someone a HOMOPHOBE is OFFENSIVE!
Yes! Calling someone a HOMOPHOBE is OFFENSIVE!

Stop using the word homophobia. It’s offensive. It implies an irrational fear, which very few people have. Most people who oppose homosexuality have good reasons for doing so; there’s nothing irrational about it. Calling someone a homophobe in response to someone’s argument is like responding by calling them ass hole. That’s not a counter-argument; it’s name-calling. And did I mention offensive?

Yeah, I know there are a few people that are actually homophobic, but they’re few and far between, and to use it for every person that is anti-gay is foolish and inaccurate. Did I mention offensive?

When one person calls another person a homophobe, I feel like the targeted person would be correct to respond with dumb ass.

There’s No Such Thing As A Homosexual Human Being

Gay Pride God

He created them male and female, and he blessed them and called them "human." (Genesis 5:2 NLT)

Human beings come in two kinds: male and female. Human beings, reproduce, naturally, through sex. And it takes one of each kind. That is, it takes one male and one female to reproduce a human being. Even if you take the natural out of reproduction, you still require the sperm from one male, and the egg from one female. There is no other way, unless you count some sort of weird biological alchemy. This is a fact, and this fact alone, means that human beings are heterosexual. Every single one of them, er, us.

Human beings who have sex with other human beings of the same sex want to be treated different that other human beings, but in reality they’re not different. They’re heterosexuals like the rest of us. They may have homosexual sex, but they cannot reproduce except through heterosexual means. They must involve another human being, either through surrogate mothers or IVF. It is not something two human beings claiming to be homosexual can do.

I know. The claim is that sexuality has to be separated from sex, but in reality the two are inseparable. If you indulge your sexuality, you do it through sex. In other words, it’s indulged through an action that has been chosen; a sex act, that has nothing to do with making babies, even though that’s part of what sex is. Sex is not just the act of getting your rocks off. That way of thinking reduces it to an animal instinct, and we’re more than just animals. We can think about what we do. We can consider the results, although, nowadays, that seems to be out of fashion.

The bottom line is:

  • If you have male parts, you’re a male. You reproduce by interacting with a female, thus, you are heterosexual.
  • If you have female parts, you’re a female. You reproduce by interacting with a male, thus, you are heterosexual.

I don’t care if you’re attracted to members of the same sex. You’re still heterosexual. You’re a human being! Or are saying you’re something different? It doesn’t matter what you’re attracted too. It doesn’t matter what you’re turned on by. These do not change the fact that you’re a heterosexual. They may change your attraction, but that’s not physical, it’s mental.

Heterosexuality Rears Its Ugly Head In a Same-Sex “Marriage”

Santos said, "Because [she] is not her daughter; [she] is our daughter."

Manuel Santos is patently wrong. When he refers to her, he is referring to the baby’s biological mother, Patidta Kusongsaang, and when he refers to our, he is referring to him and his husband, Gordon Lake.

Let me point out the obvious. Santos and his husband can not have children. It’s impossible, by nature1. Therefore, the baby, Carmen, is not biologically theirs. From a legal standpoint, she may be, but not biologically. No court decision can change that.

Children, by nature, have a biological mother and a biological father. Again, this is something that a court can’t change. A court decision doesn’t change the child’s DNA. The child will forever be the biological child of Manuel Santos and Patidta Kusongsaang, no matter how Santos and his partner feel about it. To think otherwise is a denial of reality; a delusion you might say.

But it seems to me, that this same-sex "marriage" is exactly that, a denial. While the argument is posed as an equality, and love, measure, it leaves out the family measure.

It’s at this point the unnaturalness of the union becomes apparent. A same-sex couple can’t procreate. They must receive assistance from an outside individual; an individual of the opposite sex.

And it’s here that reality must be confronted: In order to have biological children, at least one member of the same-sex couple must embrace heterosexually in order to procreate. And only one of them can be the biological parent.

There is no hate in that statement. There is no bigotry. Only truth.

The bottom line is this: homosexuality is a social construct, not a biological one, and they must choose to put homosexuality aside in order to create a family in which one parent is still left out biologically.


  1. This seems to me to be the very definition of an unnatural relationship.