No what's happened is after centuries of holy marriage defined as between one man and woman. You have decided it isn't and that everyone who thought that, was homophobic until they think like you.
What also happened is after centuries of marriage defined as between any number of men with any number of women you have decided it isn't and that anyone who has thought that, was homophobic.
When did you realise then that you were a homophobe then under your own definitions? Or have you retconned your life to edit Your previously held definitions out?
Words get re-defined in different ways by the people using them. For example various religious people have tried to define the word "sin" over the years and there will be plenty of other people (religious and non-religious) who might disagree with their definitions. Yet religious people still continue to use the word "sin" based on their understandings of the meaning regardless of any objections from those labelled as sinners.
Similarly, at least since the 2007 legislation, people have re-defined the word "homophobe" to be not just someone who has a fear or distaste for gay people but also includes things like indirect discrimination e.g. where a provision, criterion or practice, which is applied generally, puts a person of a particular sexual orientation at a disadvantage and cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Society decided it is not legitimate to differentiate between almost all services provided to homosexual and heterosexual people. However, society/ the legislation did allow religious groups to discriminate in the religious marriage services they offer presumably because this discrimination was deemed to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? The legitimate aim seems to be the protection of religious practices and beliefs.
Why is this deemed a legitimate aim? Why are some genuinely held religious or philosophical beliefs about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour deemed to be worthy of protection? Maybe because throughout history humans have shown they are willing to kill or die for their deeply held beliefs. Governments have harnessed this to send people to war or to risk their lives based on a belief in some abstract concept or other e.g. fairness, morality, justice, freedom, patriotism, capitalism, communism. Laws are constructed around these emotional beliefs and there are going to be clashes between different beliefs.
Behaviour based on beliefs need to be regulated by society because left unregulated, the clashes between beliefs can lead to conflict and society seeks to maintain order in order to function. So I would think that one of the reasons why people are vilified or punished for behaviour that is deemed "wrong" or "evil" by other members of society is because the majority of humans are social animals and seem to have identified order as a means to collectively progress and to control the dangers they face from their environment.
