The LGBT fraud has been exposed, and they’re definitely not happy about it

So a bit of hyperbole? 1,500 is not every animal. 2nd, really? That is a stupid article, probably written by some homosexual Norwegian.

That's only because religious people outnumber gay people. I'm sure if 90% of the population were gay and only 1% of the population were religious, gay people would be far ahead in the death count.

Here's what I am saying, try to get it right and stop speaking for me with your strawman arguments: Homosexuality is a mental disorder according to the APA, it doesn't have any special rights, people don't get to make demands that they be treated fairly or get to redefine marriage or whatever.

This is not just a question of someone else's religion, many people are not okay with homosexuality, and many may not even be religious at all. I don't care if homosexuals enter into legal contracts, but a man marrying a man is not a legal contract. Marriage is between a man and a woman. They don't get to be in the military because they are gay. They are a security risk and a detriment to moral and readiness. I don't care if they see their dying partner, who's stopping them from that?

Who's causing suffering? They were born that way.

 

You ate incorrect. Treating them equally to heterosexuals is equality. Equal means equal. They are the same word.

Poppycock.

You are right there, it's not gay marriage is just marriage. It's just now two men or two women can marry each other. Further hetersexual poeple can marry a person of the same sex should they wish to. So it certainly isn't special for gay poeple.

Ah, that old stand by the slippery slope fallacy. The last attempt of a dishonest person to generate fear of what he so greatly opposes. Good thing poeple aren't that stupid.

 

So no gay people have ever married someone of the opposite sex? Please.

Mocking children born HIV and their mothers who were infected shows total disregard and lack of empathy.

Giving homosexuals right is special treatment.

A gay man cannot serve in the military without harming combat readiness or being a security risk. A man cannot be married to a man, marriage is between one man and one woman.

Science has made many advancements. A cure or prevention of homosexuality will not be far away.

 

Playing dumb is not funny.

 

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal, they can't be equal and never will be equal.

This has nothing to do with a slippery slope fallacy, this is a full on war on society and morality which will lead to social decline and destruction of the society.

 

But you said you have never heard of straight people getting HIV. So these homos can't be infecting straight people otherwise there would be straight poeple with it.

I'm not playing dumb I'm trying t to understand your logic. The fact that you call it playing dumb means you don't even believe your crap.

 

I wasn't talking about sexual orientation. It doesn't really matter if they are equal. People are however. If you want homosexual people to be considered second class citizens talk to your congressman. I wish you luck.

Text book slippery slope fallacy.

 

Right, they infect their straight wife.

Everyone knows that the heterosexuals who get HIV get it from homosexuals or from intravenous drugs or blood transfusions.

 

No one is saying they are second class citizens, only that they should not get special laws or recognition that others don't.

When people said that gays in the military would lead to same sex marriage they were scoffed at and accused of a slippery slope argument.

 

False, but please don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

Nope, I don't have a problem with religion - I have a problem with totalitarian theocracy being forced on others and religious extremism.

I would ask for a source but I know you don't have one. And correct, there is no such thing as gay marriage - it's just called marriage.

Yeh because we are seeing the gay advocates arguing for bestiality
That's all y'all have is fearmongering, could be why people are fleeing your ideology at a stead pace.

yawn, go back to Saudi Arabia...

Disprove it then, should be ways since it was written by a homosexual Norwegian lol

Thats what per capita and assuming population rates take into account. I'm guessing probability and statistics wasn't your strongest subject.

All three points categorically false. I am glad you finally admit this is about being treated fairly though - that must have taken much self reflection.

No one wants them to enter the military because they are gay but instead irregardless of their orientation. If they are the best fit for the job why would you exclude them? And the rest of your drivel has been proven incorrect numerous times.

Bigots

Your first point is false, just like the last 10 times you posted it.

No need to change anything, the pieces are already in place

 

So you are not calling them second class citizens but they shouldn't be able to serve in the military, shouldn't be able to receive basic services, shouldn't be able to sign a civil contract, shouldn't be able to adopt, shouldn't be allowed on TV or movies, shouldn't be able to visit a dying partner in the hospital and should be cured... Rofl. You people

This would get you laughed out of an actual physical debate. By both sides.

100% equality is the end goal, everything is just steps on the path to this result.
People like you are paving the way, bigots being unable to string together a single coherent thought even resembling a valid argument are truly the biggest assests the LGBT community has. Bravo

 

I thought you never heard of straight people dying from it. And somehow all these women are getting infected by their gay husbands.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

So once you get it you turn gay? And straight women get it from gay men?

Do you not know what gay in this context means?

 

Repealing DADT and allowing people to marry someone of the same sex has removed special laws regarding homosexuals.

You know equality.

There were never laws like that regarding straight poeple they were made specially for gay people.

Well the constitution lead to same sex marriage.

 

Paul McHugh clearly has an anti gay agenda: http://www.glaad.org/cap/paul-mchugh

Lisa Diamond is a victim of anti gay activists distortions and lies about her research:

Stop the lies!

 

it's OK if you need to believe that you were born homosexual. The issue isn't about anyone trying to stop you from having sex however you want. It's about viewing homosexuality correctly and that is a sexual lifestyle, no more, no less.

Nobody would try and force you to be with a woman any more than force a vegan to eat meat. But, you must understand that it works both ways and you cannot expect a person of faith to accept your chosen sexual lifestyle and work events which celebrate that lifestyle.

 

Nobody expects anybody to accept it. So don't worry about it.

 

Scenario circa 2040

Dr. to Rational Woman: Our new tests on your embryo show that he is going to be a homosexual.
Rational Woman: That's OK. I'll give him all my love and try to protect him from the religious fundies.

Dr. to Religious Fundie Woman: Our new tests on your embryo show that he is going to be a homosexual.
Religious Fundie Woman: Rip that abomination outta my belly!
Dr. to Religious Fundie Woman: We can't do that. The Trump Supreme Court made abortions illegal.
Religious Fundie Woman: Someone fined me a coat hanger!

 

I wouldn't worry about such a scenario. I think it's far fetched to be able to know if a fetus will become a gay adult.

 

Some people are born sociopaths, that doesn't mean they have a constitutionally protected right to practice sociopathic behavior. The First Amendment does not explicitly protect people's right to express themselves sexually (otherwise obscenity laws would be unconstitutional). Back when homosexual behavior was simply viewed as a matter of privacy the issue was more cut and dry - live and let live; but now it's become a matter of special protections for people who publicize their homosexuality. Five justices on the Supreme Court bent over backwards to say the Constitution protects those who publicly announce their sexual behaviors and relationships. Four justices saw it for the absurdity that it is.

The government should not force people to view homosexual behavior as mainstream just as the government should not force people to view all heterosexual behavior as mainstream.

 

Oh? Who ratifies the amendment? Is it done by lottery?

 

I don't have a problem with local and state governments codifying protections like that into law, and like you said if "the majority of people" are okay with it then they will vote for those protections at the local and state levels. My problem is that five justices on the Supreme Court decided that the decision shouldn't be left to local and state governments, but instead that everyone should be forced to adopt the same view. The government went too far when it outlawed private activities, but now it's gone too far the other way by telling us we are required by law to respect people who make their private matters public.

 

The government does not force you to view anything as mainstream. You need to be specific. We don't have a thought police. Believe whatever you like....but your actions of discrimination will not be allowed.

- - - Updated - - -

There is ample evidence for those that make their private matters public being allowed protections of their rights.

 

Don't tell me. Tell it to Patriot News. He hopes and believes it's just around the corner.

 

Do you have a problem with local and state governments:

• Making it illegal for a white man to marry a black woman?
• Making it illegal for blacks and whites to go to the same schools?

Since the beginning of civilization man knew that there had to be arbitrators. Our founding fathers set up something called the Supreme Court to serve that purpose.

You seem to have a problem with that.

 

The State Legislatures. Requires 3/4ths of them to sign off.