You don’t believe that they should be allowed at all right?
>>Quote where I said that.<<
Did you notice the question mark? It means I was asking. Quotes would typically mean I was quoting you.
If you want your freedoms you had better let them have their freedoms as long as it doesn’t harm you.
>>It does harm me. It harms society to give special rights to a group based solely on deviant behavior. And it takes away my right to disagree with their illness. <<
We lost that battle back in the 60s. “Society” allowed the abhorrent behavior by not being stronger holding prayer in schools, strong family values, and prayer around the dinner table. You cannot legislate morals. On the other hand it certainly does not take away your right to disagree with their illness. (I used your word illness even though I do not agree that it is an illness. It’s a deviant behavior.
>>And your talking points are homosexual agenda talking points. <<
My talking points on freedom of private behavior is no more a homosexual agenda then my defense of your freedom to disagree with their private lifestyle.
Private behavior is not a public issue for debate.
Only when a behavior is a put forth as a pertinent premise related to an issue is "private behavior" relevant for discussion.
Just because one can hit themselves in the head with a hammer or eat dog poop "privately" does not make such practices of value to society...
The issue becomes an issue when such practices are pushed by their practitioners who seek acceptance as normal what society rejects as disordered and of no value to society...
The issue really becomes a contentious issue when the practitioners of such practices push to have big government impose acceptance upon society and privilege at the expense of society these practices that society rejects as disordered and of no value to society...
Do YOU call that freedom?
Speaking of "private behavior" --the "Log Cabin Republicans" really could just as well be called the "We Hit Ourselves With Hammers Republicans" or "Dog Poop Eating Republicans" -are you getting a clue yet?
Private behavior is no longer private when it is placed in the public domain and is premise for promoting political initiatives...
Now, what are you promoting here -"private behavior" freedom which we already have and as such require no promotion of OR are you promoting the homosexual agenda?
No you weren't.
You cannot legislate morals.
This has nothing to do with "legislating" morals. It has everything to do with them asking for special rights. As of now, they have the same rights as everyone else. They want special rights.
My talking points on freedom of private behavior
I don't care what they do in private. But teaching in schools that homosexuality is normal is not private. Demanding the "right" for two of the same to "marry" is not private. Demanding to be openly homosexual and serve in the military is not private.