[DBeers]

No, sir. I just don't happen to think private, non-violent, sexual behavior is immoral. It might be unwise or even self-destructive, but in a free country such as ours, we do own our lives and bodies, after all.

As to the "lifestyle" at issue there are two different elements: identity and behavior. They are not the same thing. Homosexuals do not choose their identity. Years of empirical evidence can attest to that fact: it just happens, for whatever reason(s). As to behavior: that is very much a choice, and it involves a range of possible interactions, some far safer than others.

Well that about seals the deal for me. On one hand we see "years of empirical evidence" and on the other we see God. You speak empirical evidence...

You do realize that the unproven state of being termed "homosexual" is arbitrary and a self declared matter of perception e.g. mental in nature? Until recently mental conditions that were self destructive and deviant from the norm were termed mental disorders THAT IS until politics coerced science. What makes you think your "Years of empirical evidence" has not been coerced the same way climate data or any number of data has been manipulated.

Anyway, regardless debating what the causes of disorder are I tend to focus on opposing the agenda that seeks to normalize it, the agenda that seeks to gain its acceptance, and the agenda that promotes it as worthy of societal value.

IF your "Years of empirical evidence" is proffered to gain acceptance and approval of or defend "private, non-violent, sexual behavior" THEN I would suggest that we do not even remotely discuss that here -THAT has nothing at all to do with opposing the homosexual agenda. In essence, you fight the good fight in a battle that is not even being waged here.

YOU sure quack like a duck, are well versed in pond swimming and have wings at the ready e.g. "Years of empirical evidence" to flap when necessary. IF you are not promoting the homosexual agenda then what exactly are you doing?

[little jeremiah]

No, sir. I just don't happen to think private, non-violent, sexual behavior is immoral. Well you have no reason to oppose the homosexual agenda, then. Other than "pride" parades, since they aren't private. How about public bathrooms? Sort of public, but if the stall door is closed, is that okay?

[little jeremiah]

Oh, and what difference does a little door make? Why would the door open change “moral” anonymous sodomy into “immoral” anonymous sodomy?

Hard to figure out the moral compass here.

[little jeremiah]

IF you are not promoting the homosexual agenda then what exactly are you doing?

Trying to promote it under the radar so he won't get banned.

[andy58-in-nh]

I oppose the radical homosexual agenda that seeks to alter our common understanding of marriage, family and common decency. I'm only - ONLY- trying to explain to you that not all gay people are evil, not all gay people want to seduce your children, not all gay people are Christian-haters. The people you and I wish to oppose are a vicious and ugly minority who wish to conflate private behavior into a political mandate.

Please try to open your mind and realize that honorable and honest people may disagree about many things. Ultimately, although you are loathe to admit it - we are on the same side. Aren't we? Do you support free enterprise? Limited government? Traditional families (i.e. no "Gay Marriage")? Secure borders? I do, 100%. I'm not the enemy. I want my country back from the socialists trying to steal it from us. The vast majority of them aren't gay, but they are dangerous. Let's restore our country together and then we can talk about how to help homosexuals reform themselves.