If you are referring to marriage, they certainly are not doing so in my state, which is the way I want it. But if you can stop laughing a bit, there are many zealots here who would make sure that homosexuals had no rights. Their right to association, privacy, due process and equal protection of the law would be unrecognized for that group of citizens. That would then permit them to impose whatever theocratic, moralistic laws on that particular group that they wished.
And their transgender friends have even greater powers! They can transcend their genders! They can magically change from male to female and female to male, and the rest of us are obliged to recognoize this amazing ability.
Well, apparently you do recognize it. But I don't spend that much time studying transgenders, so I'll have to take your word for it.
Keep going. You're a regular Ronald Reagan.
Believe me, my responses are to you, but not for you. Many people read these threads, and I thought I would just throw in a little intelligence to help balance it out. Take care.
Then we'll let the folks decide who took care of who, pal.
"But if you can stop laughing a bit, there are many zealots here who would make sure that homosexuals had no rights. Their right to association, privacy, due process and equal protection of the law would be unrecognized for that group of citizens."
"No rights"? I don't think anyone in America would go beyond outlawing sodomy, and they are wrong and zealots and far from a majority. ... but such a scenario leaves gays with rights in areas except in the matter of sexual behavior. so "no rights" is hyperbolic.
It seems that in the pendulum from strict outlawing, to mild social disapproval, to tolerance, to acceptance, to enforced acceptance, to forbidding dissent/disapproval of the practice. Our cultural and legal pendulum has been swining past the tolerance/acceptance point and into regions that give 'rights' to gays by taking them away from others.
Example, 'right of association' is a curious one to put in there in your list. The 'right to associate' for gays has not been infringed much in recent decades as it once was. Now, the gay 'rights' lobby has put in 'equal protection' rules to forbid, say a landlord from discriminating against homseexual couples wanting to rent. sounds fine, until you think of those who might have a duplex and have moral objections to renting to gay roommates ... So "right to association" goes out the window for those folks. That sure looks like an example of 'special rights'.
Now, in Europe and Canada it is going even further, where making statements disapproving of homosexual behavior and calling it immoral is classed as hate speech and outlawed. So, rights of free expression are being discarded.
That's not advancing freedom. That's replacing one set of prejudices for another!
Like preventing them from being scout leaders and going on overnight camping trips? That's wrong? You would allow that?
Do you believe in freedom of association? May an apartment owner refuse to rent to gays? May a restaurant refuse to serve gays? May an employer refuse to hire gays?