Florida Pulse gay club attacked in Orlando

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...Why have they "crossed the line?" They have a right to freedom of speech and a right to express their opinions, however much it might offend you or anyone else. After all, in a democracy the majority rules, right? Or are you now dissing democracy? Be careful what you wish for...
...

I'm not implying that they have no right to express an opinion, but they expect that opinion to be especially privileged when it comes from the pulpit. They have no privileged voice in the debate over gay marriage, and are increasingly a minority, rump opinion, ignored by the populace. Just ask the Irish...

[JimC]

Hoy, seth is back

For the nonce. We'll see if it lasts...

Indeed...

[pErvinalia]

What is the right Kind of camouflage for a pride Parade?

[rainbow]

Getting back on topic it is clear he had a susceptibility to mental health disorder even if no clear diagnosis. The authorities and those with influence need to direct efforts into locating and eliminating with extreme prejudice the handlers, those who provide propaganda materials etc. It would be a impossible task to locate every kook in the Islamic arena given what is necessary to accept for admittance to the one true faith. But locating and dispatching the makers of propaganda and ensuring the only imams are tame state sanctioned/monitored ones should be doable with the will.

That's like arguing that trying to eliminate drug dealers will stop drug addiction.

Or like arguing that eliminating guns will stop murders?

It will stop gun murders.

How many people could you kill in a nightclub with a sharpened spoon?

[Scot Dutchy]

'Angels' protect Orlando funeral from anti-gay Westboro protesters

People in Orlando have dressed as guardian angels to protect the funeral of one of the Orlando shooting victims from homophobic protesters.

A small number of Westboro Baptist Church followers, attended Saturday's service for Christopher Leinonen.

The anti-gay organisation only has about 40 members but is well known for its hate speeches and funeral protests.

The handful of demonstrators was blocked from view by around 200 counter-protesters.

"I think our presence here is just to show support for the families of the victims and we want to make sure that we're an ally," said one supporter, Suzanne Draper.
More...

[pErvinalia]

I like it when people counter-protest Westborough like this.

[cronus]

Angels in America.

[laklak]

I thought they were in the architecture.

See? I once said everything comes back to Paul Simon.

[Seth]

Getting back on topic it is clear he had a susceptibility to mental health disorder even if no clear diagnosis. The authorities and those with influence need to direct efforts into locating and eliminating with extreme prejudice the handlers, those who provide propaganda materials etc. It would be a impossible task to locate every kook in the Islamic arena given what is necessary to accept for admittance to the one true faith. But locating and dispatching the makers of propaganda and ensuring the only imams are tame state sanctioned/monitored ones should be doable with the will.

That's like arguing that trying to eliminate drug dealers will stop drug addiction.

Or like arguing that eliminating guns will stop murders?

It will stop gun murders.

Never has, never will because arguing for eliminating guns is not actually eliminating guns, which is an impossible and unachievable goal, as the recent killing of a British MP proves beyond any doubt whatsoever.

How many people could you kill in a nightclub with a sharpened spoon?

How hard is it to make a fully-automatic machine gun in a relatively unsophisticated machine shop?

Let's ask these folks:

Bikie arrested over home-made machine guns

Posted 10 Dec 2009, 6:35pm
Map: Blacktown 2148

Police say a bikie gang member is one of two men charged over the manufacture of sub-machine guns in western Sydney.

The 36-year-old alleged Outcasts member and a 43-year-old man were arrested yesterday afternoon.

Police say they searched a home at Charles Street in Blacktown at about 4.30pm where they say the illegal firearms were being made.

Officers allegedly seized a sub-machine gun a number of registered and unregistered firearms and firearm parts. The 43-year-old was arrested at the scene.

About an hour later police searched a property in Cranebrook where they say they found a sub-machine gun, a loaded pump-action shotgun, knuckle dusters and drug manufacturing documents.

The 36-year-old man was taken into custody there.

Both men were refused bail to appear in court today.

Jeweller Angelos Koots admits to making sub-machine guns at his Seven Hills home and supplying them to bikie groups

EXCLUSIVE BRENDEN HILLS
The Sunday Telegraph
November 16, 2013 10:00PM

Share

1
Ads By Google

Jesus's Lost Words

This Weird Protocol Was Banned From The Bible; It May Change Everything

lfb.org

Pictured are the homemade Mac-10 sub-machine guns seized by Strike Force Silverwood police during a search of a property.

Pictured are the homemade Mac-10 sub-machine guns seized by Strike Force Silverwood police during a search of a property.

A JEWELLERY maker produced sub-machine guns in his suburban home, selling them through an organised crime syndicate for $15,000 each.

JAILED GANG FOUNDER'S LINK TO OUTSIDE WORLD

Backyard arms trader Angelos Koots admitted making up to 100 of the perfectly constructed MAC 10 machine guns - more commonly seen in war zones and believed to have been used in Sydney gang shootings - at his Seven Hills house.

The guns, sold with two magazines and a silencer, were of such quality that during "Mythbuster" style tests alongside a genuine MAC 10 they fired 600 rounds a minute.

Sydney District Court heard that Koots made the guns for an associate who had links to outlaw motorcycle gangs.

The high-powered made-to-order weapons were then sold at meetings organised by a Penrith gym owner and another syndicate member, with the transaction taking place opposite a McDonalds in Glenmore Park.

When police raided Koots' house, police found diagrams, blocks of aluminium and steel, steel offcuts and moulds matching the MAC 10 machineguns.

Koots was convicted in relation to four guns after getting an immunity provision for giving evidence against other syndicate members. But under cross-examination by crown prosecutor Gary Corr at a hearing in Penrith District Court, Koots admitted he'd manufactured up to 100 of the guns.

Prosecutors believe at least one of the guns may have been used in a high-profile assassination attempt of an OMCG member, but this never made it into evidence.

Judge Jennifer English noted the operation was "highly organised criminal activity" involving "an ultimate purchaser, a manufacturer and a mastermind".

Joe Tomei, 46, of Bossley Park, who police said had OMCG links, was the mastermind. However, the purchaser was an "undercover operative" known only as John, working for the police.

Police set up Strike Force Silverwood to target Koots, Tomei and another syndicate member, Daniel Parkes.

On August 12, 2010, Parkes gave John one of the weapons, a silencer and two magazines in a shopping bag in exchange for $15,000 in a brown McDonalds takeaway bag, court documents said.

On September 2, they met again and John bought another machine gun, silencer and two magazines in a pink shopping bag for $15,000.

After each sale the money was taken to Pure Fitness, Penrith, where it was held by gym owner Ryan Tierney before being passed to Tomei, the court heard.

On September 8 Tomei went to Koots' house on Margaret St, Seven Hills, where he asked him to make two more guns which were to be sold to John.

In October, Koots delivered the guns, two silencers and four magazines to Tomei's house in a box.

Police conducted raids the same day on several premises and seized the weapons.

They also found other firearms not manufactured by Koots, who also worked as a jewellery maker.

Koots told officers he was making the guns on the order of Tomei who was a friend of his father and used to be the "local barber".

Koots was warned "not to talk" when he entered custody, the court heard.

Judge English told the court Koots's claim that he was not paid and only given a tumble dryer for making the guns was "almost inconceivable".

Parkes, who was also facing other charges, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years jail with a nonparole period of six years and six months.

Koots pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a nonparole jail term of four years with a maximum term of six years.

Tomei has pleaded guilty to knowingly selling a firearm on three occasions. His sentencing will continue on November 22.

Jeweller Angelos Koots admits to making sub-machine guns at his Seven Hills home and supplying them to bikie groups

EXCLUSIVE BRENDEN HILLS
The Sunday Telegraph
November 16, 2013 10:00PM

Share

1
Ads By Google

Jesus's Lost Words

This Weird Protocol Was Banned From The Bible; It May Change Everything

lfb.org

Pictured are the homemade Mac-10 sub-machine guns seized by Strike Force Silverwood police during a search of a property.

Pictured are the homemade Mac-10 sub-machine guns seized by Strike Force Silverwood police during a search of a property.

A JEWELLERY maker produced sub-machine guns in his suburban home, selling them through an organised crime syndicate for $15,000 each.

JAILED GANG FOUNDER'S LINK TO OUTSIDE WORLD

Backyard arms trader Angelos Koots admitted making up to 100 of the perfectly constructed MAC 10 machine guns - more commonly seen in war zones and believed to have been used in Sydney gang shootings - at his Seven Hills house.

The guns, sold with two magazines and a silencer, were of such quality that during "Mythbuster" style tests alongside a genuine MAC 10 they fired 600 rounds a minute.

Sydney District Court heard that Koots made the guns for an associate who had links to outlaw motorcycle gangs.

The high-powered made-to-order weapons were then sold at meetings organised by a Penrith gym owner and another syndicate member, with the transaction taking place opposite a McDonalds in Glenmore Park.

When police raided Koots' house, police found diagrams, blocks of aluminium and steel, steel offcuts and moulds matching the MAC 10 machineguns.

Koots was convicted in relation to four guns after getting an immunity provision for giving evidence against other syndicate members. But under cross-examination by crown prosecutor Gary Corr at a hearing in Penrith District Court, Koots admitted he'd manufactured up to 100 of the guns.

Prosecutors believe at least one of the guns may have been used in a high-profile assassination attempt of an OMCG member, but this never made it into evidence.

Judge Jennifer English noted the operation was "highly organised criminal activity" involving "an ultimate purchaser, a manufacturer and a mastermind".

Joe Tomei, 46, of Bossley Park, who police said had OMCG links, was the mastermind. However, the purchaser was an "undercover operative" known only as John, working for the police.

Police set up Strike Force Silverwood to target Koots, Tomei and another syndicate member, Daniel Parkes.

On August 12, 2010, Parkes gave John one of the weapons, a silencer and two magazines in a shopping bag in exchange for $15,000 in a brown McDonalds takeaway bag, court documents said.

On September 2, they met again and John bought another machine gun, silencer and two magazines in a pink shopping bag for $15,000.

After each sale the money was taken to Pure Fitness, Penrith, where it was held by gym owner Ryan Tierney before being passed to Tomei, the court heard.

On September 8 Tomei went to Koots' house on Margaret St, Seven Hills, where he asked him to make two more guns which were to be sold to John.

In October, Koots delivered the guns, two silencers and four magazines to Tomei's house in a box.

Police conducted raids the same day on several premises and seized the weapons.

They also found other firearms not manufactured by Koots, who also worked as a jewellery maker.

Koots told officers he was making the guns on the order of Tomei who was a friend of his father and used to be the "local barber".

Koots was warned "not to talk" when he entered custody, the court heard.

Judge English told the court Koots's claim that he was not paid and only given a tumble dryer for making the guns was "almost inconceivable".

Parkes, who was also facing other charges, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years jail with a nonparole period of six years and six months.

Koots pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a nonparole jail term of four years with a maximum term of six years.

Tomei has pleaded guilty to knowingly selling a firearm on three occasions. His sentencing will continue on November 22.

[rasetsu]

Lucky your job is concern trolling the internet..

In any case: So you can say "some religions do", and that's acceptable, but when we say it, you start bleating "islamaphobia!!1!".

It depends, not on whether you say it or I say it, but on whether the particular category being discussed has homopobic practices. To summarise:-

. . . . . .

This is true, but it's not "diversity" that's responsible for that, it's the fact that Christianity, as a religion, isn't "homophobic" at all. None of the mainstream Christian churches you named prohibit persons of homosexual sexual orientation from being members of the church. Indeed, to my knowledge they all welcome such persons to be members of the church. The single fact that those churches refuse to sanctify gay marriages is not a manifestation of "homophobia" in any way whatsoever, it's merely a rule of the church, based on that organizations beliefs regarding what the meaning of "marriage" is within that particular religious organization.

You are confused. That a practice is not illegally discriminating does not in any way demonstrate that it is not homophobic. A neo-Nazi organization may preclude the membership of black individuals. That's their right. That alone does not mean the policy is not racist. Homophobia is defined as unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. To determine whether the church's exclusion of homosexual marriages is homophobic or not, one has to examine whether the justifications for that exclusion are rational or not, and whether they evidence an antipathy or not. As it happens, the RCC asserts that the practice of homosexual acts is disordered and therefore homosexual marriage is illegitimate. This is an evolved theology based more on cultural mores than an actual explicit justification in their sacred literature. The bible describes homosexual practices as an 'abomination'. There is no clearer evidence that the church has antipathy towards homosexuality. They evidence antipathy towards homosexuals and that is homophobia. Therefore the RCC's practice of denying homosexual marriages is homophobic.

homophobia

noun
1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

[Brian Peacock]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1664505

[mistermack]

Homophobia is a perfectly natural reaction.
It's tolerance that has to be learned.

But natural doesn't always equal good. Tolerance requires that you imagine yourself in the other person's position, which is an ability that is almost exclusively human.
Intolerance is a natural instinct of more primitive types. So it's something that we have as children, and gradually grow out of. Some of us, anyway.

I remember when my elder brother first told me about gays. I'd never heard of it before. I was disgusted, and stuck my fingers in my ears, so I couldn't hear the gory details that he was delighting in telling me.

Nowadays, I can imagine what it must be like to be born with a natural attraction to men.
And I'm glad it's not me, and I can't blame people for what they are born like.
Nor do I feel I have a right to judge, in any case.

And it's just more pussy for us straights. Dykes, on the other hand, should be locked away.

[Seth]

You are confused.

Not really. I'm quite secure in my gender identity actually.

That a practice is not illegally discriminating does not in any way demonstrate that it is not homophobic. A neo-Nazi organization may preclude the membership of black individuals. That's their right. That alone does not mean the policy is not racist.

Indeed. But it does mean that those who agitate for forcing neo-Nazis to associate with blacks ought to go fuck themselves.

Homophobia is defined as unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

No, a phobia means an "overwhelming and debilitating fear of an object, place, situation, feeling or animal. Phobias are more pronounced than fears. They develop when a person has an exaggerated or unrealistic sense of danger about a situation or object." Mere dislike, disgust or a desire not to associate with or support homosexuals is not and never has been a phobia. "Homophobia" is a lefty-liberal fascist political misuse of the English language specifically coined, advanced and intended as a "poisoning the well" fallacy in order to marginalize and disparage anyone who does not voice full-throated cries of support for the homosexual political agenda and absolutely nothing more.

To determine whether the church's exclusion of homosexual marriages is homophobic or not, one has to examine whether the justifications for that exclusion are rational or not, and whether they evidence an antipathy or not.

No, to determine if it's "homophobic" or not one has to determine whether the basis for the policy is based in an "overwhelming and debilitating fear of an object, place, situation, feeling or animal." WRT the Catholic church it's policies are not based in phobic responses to homosexuals. Quite the opposite in fact. The Catholic church welcomes homosexuals with open arms and does not discriminate against them as a matter of policy if such persons choose to be members of the church. The fact that the RCC holds that homosexual activities are sinful is not indicative of a phobic policy, nor does the RCC's ban on extending the marriage sacrament to homosexual couples. In the RCC, "being homosexual" insofar as being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex is not a sin and is not grounds for expulsion from the church. Engaging in homosexual activities on the other hand can, under certain circumstances, result in excommunication from the Church.

Having homosexual urges or proclivities you see is not at all the same thing as engaging in homosexual activities and the RCC understands this distinction and as a matter of policy tries very hard to keep those who suffer from same-sex sexual attraction disorders from committing what the RCC believes to be mortal sins. But the church does not force anyone to do anything and individuals are free to engage in whatever sexual behaviors they choose to engage in without interference by the Church. However, if they choose to do so and persist in doing so they probably cannot remain members of the Catholic church because the rules set forth for membership prohibit homosexual activities.

Those policies are in no way "homophobic" they are merely the rules of the club, which the Church is perfectly entitled to enforce without being petulantly and maliciously branded as being "homophobic" merely because it is not accepting of homosexual sexual practices.

As it happens, the RCC asserts that the practice of homosexual acts is disordered and therefore homosexual marriage is illegitimate.

Actually, according to the RCC, it is God who states that such practices are disordered and sinful. Since a central tenet of RCC religious belief is that of obedience to God, members can hardly be faulted for obeying the rules of their faith, particularly since in their belief system failing to do so could doom them to eternal torment and/or denial of salvation...which is rather more important than a couple of gays pretending to be Catholics whining about not being allowed to get married in a Catholic church.

There may be a civil right to get married, but there is NO civil right to get married in a Catholic church, or any other church or venue whatsoever if the people who run the venue don't want to allow it. And when the choice for the priest and church members is obedience to God and his commandments or accommodating a couple of arrogant, petulant, politically-motivated gays making a fuss because some people don't happen to care for their lifestyle choices the choice is obvious and doesn't favor the interests of gays who are trying to make political hay by even asking the RCC, or any other church or group that does not welcome gay marriage, to accommodate their desires, much less does it favor government infringing on the religious and personal rights of each and every non-homosexual individual who doesn't happen to subscribe to, approve of or accept homosexuality by commanding them to serve the homosexual's interests.

Discrimination, you see, is a fundamental constitutional civil right rooted in the US in the First Amendment's Freedom of Association clause, which says that each person has the right to associate with, and likewise disassociate from, whomever they please, for any reason or no reason at all.

Just as you may discriminate against right-wingers or gun owners by excluding them from your personal sphere they can discriminate against you in exactly the same way and their reasons need not even be mentioned and are not ever subject to being called into question by the government.

This is an evolved theology based more on cultural mores than an actual explicit justification in their sacred literature. The bible describes homosexual practices as an 'abomination'.

Er, it's not "evolved" it's handed down directly from God, according to the RCC and most other Christian sects. Evidence of God's antipathy towards homosexuality is found in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and many other places in the Old Testament and Jesus referred to God's wrath, including towards homosexuality, in several places in the New Testament.

There is no clearer evidence that the church has antipathy towards homosexuality.

Yes, so what? The church is merely obeying God in this and rejection of homosexual activities is a tenet of the faith which Catholics are perfectly entitled to obey. But that's not "homophobia" at all, it's merely obedience to the actual one who has antipathy towards homosexual activities: God.

They evidence antipathy towards homosexuals and that is homophobia.

No, it's not. Antipathy towards something does not meet the definition of a phobia. It just means that the thing is disliked, nothing more.

Therefore the RCC's practice of denying homosexual marriages is homophobic.

Nope.

homophobia

noun
1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

False definition. For one thing, dislike of homosexuality or homosexuals is not inherently "unreasoning" to begin with, and the homosexual attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "phobia" as associated with homosexuality is nothing more than political gamesmanship and, as I said before, a lefty-liberal fascistic poisoning of the well fallacy that has a specific and mendacious purpose and intent.

Disliking homosexuals or homosexuality is not a DSM mental disorder and does not qualify as a phobia of any kind whatsoever, any more than disliking pedophiles and pedophilia or disliking criminals and criminality or disliking hamburgers and hot dogs constitutes a phobia.

It's merely a matter of preference, and the RCC prefers not to offer the sanctification of RCC marriage to gay couples. Wah. So sad, too bad. Sucks to be gay. Get the fuck over it and go get married and buy a wedding cake from someone who does support the gay lifestyle rather than trying to force those who do not wish to associate with gays into forcible association with them in violation of their constitutional right not to do so.

All of which is not to say that I actually give a damn one way or another. I'm a Libertarian and as far as I'm concerned gays are no different from anybody else and can do as they please so long as they do not initiate force or fraud on others by, for example, demanding that a wedding cake baker bake them a cake decorated with expressions of support and approval for homosexuality against the will of the cake baker and then suing the baker for refusing to compromise his or her religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause, by being forced into producing an expression with which the baker does not agree.

When some gay couple does that they should be horsewhipped, tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, not for being gay but for egregiously and deliberately violating the rights of the baker and initiating both force AND fraud, just like anyone else who does so should be.

[Seth]

Homophobia is a perfectly natural reaction.

Nonsense. Homophobia by definition (the actual one, not the politically-motivated one) is an irrational and unreasoning fear of homosexuals. Dislike of homosexuals or homosexuality does not in and of itself qualify as a "phobia" merely because homosexuals are demanding social acceptance.

It's tolerance that has to be learned.

True. But it has to be voluntary and cannot be forced upon anyone. Indeed, it must be earned to some degree by those who are discriminated against because it is entirely possible and often the factual case that they themselves are to one degree or another responsible for the intolerance they experience due to their own actions that are, or may be viewed as deliberately provocative and offensive by others.

There is no civil or human right to social acceptance by others for anyone. If you act like a dick, you will likely be treated like a dick and be excluded from polite society, which is polite society's absolute right. If you don't play nice in the sandbox and you throw sand and poo at the other kids it's hardly surprising and not at all wrong that you are discriminated against and excluded from the sandbox social circle because nobody has the right to force their company on someone else over that person's objections.

Most kids learn this by about the fourth grade. Some kids never learn this and then wonder why they aren't welcomed into social intercourse with others.

[rasetsu]

Homophobia is defined as unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

No, a phobia means an "overwhelming and debilitating fear of an object, place, situation, feeling or animal. Phobias are more pronounced than fears. They develop when a person has an exaggerated or unrealistic sense of danger about a situation or object." Mere dislike, disgust or a desire not to associate with or support homosexuals is not and never has been a phobia. "Homophobia" is a lefty-liberal fascist political misuse of the English language specifically coined, advanced and intended as a "poisoning the well" fallacy in order to marginalize and disparage anyone who does not voice full-throated cries of support for the homosexual political agenda and absolutely nothing more.

This is nothing more than folk etymology and doesn't reflect actual usage of the term. That you have a beef with modern usage is not my problem. Your faux etymology means nothing. Your complaint has no merit.

To determine whether the church's exclusion of homosexual marriages is homophobic or not, one has to examine whether the justifications for that exclusion are rational or not, and whether they evidence an antipathy or not.

No, to determine if it's "homophobic" or not one has to determine whether the basis for the policy is based in an "overwhelming and debilitating fear of an object, place, situation, feeling or animal." WRT the Catholic church it's policies are not based in phobic responses to homosexuals.

Nobody cares what you think the word 'should' mean.

As it happens, the RCC asserts that the practice of homosexual acts is disordered and therefore homosexual marriage is illegitimate.

Actually, according to the RCC, it is God who states that such practices are disordered and sinful. Since a central tenet of RCC religious belief is that of obedience to God, members can hardly be faulted for obeying the rules of their faith, particularly since in their belief system failing to do so could doom them to eternal torment and/or denial of salvation...which is rather more important than a couple of gays pretending to be Catholics whining about not being allowed to get married in a Catholic church.

There may be a civil right to get married, but there is NO civil right to get married in a Catholic church, or any other church or venue whatsoever if the people who run the venue don't want to allow it. And when the choice for the priest and church members is obedience to God and his commandments or accommodating a couple of arrogant, petulant, politically-motivated gays making a fuss because some people don't happen to care for their lifestyle choices the choice is obvious and doesn't favor the interests of gays who are trying to make political hay by even asking the RCC, or any other church or group that does not welcome gay marriage, to accommodate their desires, much less does it favor government infringing on the religious and personal rights of each and every non-homosexual individual who doesn't happen to subscribe to, approve of or accept homosexuality by commanding them to serve the homosexual's interests.

Discrimination, you see, is a fundamental constitutional civil right rooted in the US in the First Amendment's Freedom of Association clause, which says that each person has the right to associate with, and likewise disassociate from, whomever they please, for any reason or no reason at all.

Just as you may discriminate against right-wingers or gun owners by excluding them from your personal sphere they can discriminate against you in exactly the same way and their reasons need not even be mentioned and are not ever subject to being called into question by the government.

Already answered. The church's de facto policy of discriminating against homosexuality is evidence of homophobia.

This is an evolved theology based more on cultural mores than an actual explicit justification in their sacred literature. The bible describes homosexual practices as an 'abomination'.

Er, it's not "evolved" it's handed down directly from God, according to the RCC and most other Christian sects. Evidence of God's antipathy towards homosexuality is found in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and many other places in the Old Testament and Jesus referred to God's wrath, including towards homosexuality, in several places in the New Testament.

That Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality is an arbitrary interpretation. ("While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom, the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent among Christian communities that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word sodomy, still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex." ~ Wikipedia) Show me one such passage where God or Jesus condemns homosexual acts. I think you're making shit up.

They evidence antipathy towards homosexuals and that is homophobia.

No, it's not. Antipathy towards something does not meet the definition of a phobia. It just means that the thing is disliked, nothing more.

Your argument with the dictionary is noted and ignored.

homophobia

noun
1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

False definition. For one thing, dislike of homosexuality or homosexuals is not inherently "unreasoning" to begin with, and the homosexual attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "phobia" as associated with homosexuality is nothing more than political gamesmanship and, as I said before, a lefty-liberal fascistic poisoning of the well fallacy that has a specific and mendacious purpose and intent.

More arguing with the dictionary.