I take that the good bigots agree with you Dave and the bad bigots are on the other side in whatever argument. That's the way politicians think - if you are on my side you are a freedom fighter - if you are against me you are a terrorist.
What are you talking about? Do you even know?
Do you think I should agree with people I don't agree with?
Or are you under the dangerous impression that all opinions are equally good and so we should simultaneously hold both sides?
I'm not calling anyone a terrorist
for being anti-gay, anti-abortion or anti-contraception. I call them a menace and an obstacle to a fair, just, and healthy world.
Of course, a true fighter for freedom can justify their cause. Can you justify being anti-homosexual, anti-abortion or anti-contraception?
Ratzinger said homosexuality was a moral evil. On what basis? Because an old book says so. A book that also says slavery and genocide is acceptable. Not to mention having children mauled by bears for mocking the pious (2 Kings 2:23-24). I've already explained that homosexuality is not a choice, so cannot be a sin.
Abortion is necessary in some cases to preserve the life of the woman, prevents further mental anguish in the case of rape, and is just downright sensible in other cases: What is the point of raising children that cannot be afforded or are unwanted? What is the good in making a young teenager bring up a child?
A fetus cannot feel pain and does not even have anything resembling a functioning brain until later in the pregnancy. Yet for some rather stretched interpretation of a book, many insist that even a sperm is sacred.
Contraception stops the spread of diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Diseases are bad. They can kill people. Overpopulation is bad. Poor households with thirteen children is NOT a good idea. What is so hard to get? In the name of "freedom", please give me the good argument that there should not be contraception.