Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[mudwhistle]

What do these people have in common:

Bradley Manning
Bo Bergdahl
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Janet Reno

they are all men?

The men are the least butch of the group.

LOL! So true.

Merry Christmas Mud...

Merry Christmas WAMK.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What do these people have in common:

Bradley Manning
Bo Bergdahl
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Janet Reno

they are all men?

The men are the least butch of the group.

LOL! So true.

Merry Christmas Mud...

Merry Christmas WAMK.

Where'd you learn to spell?

Its W-A-N-K.

 

[deltex1]

...that the U.S. has ever seen, Bryan Fischer claims.

On his "Focal Point" radio show, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer recently claimed that the "active, aggressive homosexual lobby" represented a threat to U.S. democracy.

As Right Wing Watch first reported, Fischer, who is no stranger to anti-gay declarations, told listeners, "I firmly believe the homosexual agenda represents the greatest single threat to religious liberty we have ever seen in the history of our existence as a nation."

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty That The U.S. Has Ever Seen Bryan Fischer Claims

I also believe homosexuality is wrong. I have good reasons for opposing homosexuality as a normative lifestyle based on science, medicine, and faith. Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

The homo agenda is only a threat because it is a small part of the Libtard agenda. The lib agenda is the fundamental threat.

You have figured it out.

Is all part of the slippery slope.

Voting rights for African American men.
Voting rights for women.
Ending mixed marriage bans
Allowing women to control their own reproduction.
Preventing the government from telling us what kind of sex we can have in our bedroom.
Marriage equality for homosexuals.

I can see why that would be threatening to many.

What a compelling and comprehensive list of (claimed) accomplishments.

 

[Syriusly]

...that the U.S. has ever seen, Bryan Fischer claims.

On his "Focal Point" radio show, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer recently claimed that the "active, aggressive homosexual lobby" represented a threat to U.S. democracy.

As Right Wing Watch first reported, Fischer, who is no stranger to anti-gay declarations, told listeners, "I firmly believe the homosexual agenda represents the greatest single threat to religious liberty we have ever seen in the history of our existence as a nation."

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty That The U.S. Has Ever Seen Bryan Fischer Claims

I also believe homosexuality is wrong. I have good reasons for opposing homosexuality as a normative lifestyle based on science, medicine, and faith. Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

The homo agenda is only a threat because it is a small part of the Libtard agenda. The lib agenda is the fundamental threat.

You have figured it out.

Is all part of the slippery slope.

Voting rights for African American men.
Voting rights for women.
Ending mixed marriage bans
Allowing women to control their own reproduction.
Preventing the government from telling us what kind of sex we can have in our bedroom.
Marriage equality for homosexuals.

I can see why that would be threatening to many.

What a compelling and comprehensive list of (claimed) accomplishments.

We all 'know' that the slippery slope is real.

This is just one demonstration of it.

And Merry Christmas to all- may everyone's lives be filled with love and joy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

...that the U.S. has ever seen, Bryan Fischer claims.

On his "Focal Point" radio show, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer recently claimed that the "active, aggressive homosexual lobby" represented a threat to U.S. democracy.

As Right Wing Watch first reported, Fischer, who is no stranger to anti-gay declarations, told listeners, "I firmly believe the homosexual agenda represents the greatest single threat to religious liberty we have ever seen in the history of our existence as a nation."

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty That The U.S. Has Ever Seen Bryan Fischer Claims

I also believe homosexuality is wrong. I have good reasons for opposing homosexuality as a normative lifestyle based on science, medicine, and faith. Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

The homo agenda is only a threat because it is a small part of the Libtard agenda. The lib agenda is the fundamental threat.

You have figured it out.

Is all part of the slippery slope.

Voting rights for African American men.
Voting rights for women.
Ending mixed marriage bans
Allowing women to control their own reproduction.
Preventing the government from telling us what kind of sex we can have in our bedroom.
Marriage equality for homosexuals.

I can see why that would be threatening to many.

What a compelling and comprehensive list of (claimed) accomplishments.

We all 'know' that the slippery slope is real.

This is just one demonstration of it.

And Merry Christmas to all- may everyone's lives be filled with love and joy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID: ↑

'That's not the way it works. If marrying whoever one wants is a "civil right" which has never been true in all of human history, then it needs to be explicitly included in the Constitution vis a vis constitutional amendment. You don't get to assume it's there when it's not and then demand the rest of us come up with a constitutional amendment to overturn your phantom "right".'

Incorrect.

The right to marry is fundamental, accepted, and settled, safeguarded by the Constitution's guarantee to a right of privacy, prohibiting the state from engaging in unwarranted interference in matters both personal and private:

'[T]he right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.'

FindLaw Cases and Codes

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument,' the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

 

[GreenBean]

Good thing support for his ignorant opinion is dying along with the ignorant people in the older generations that agree with him.

contraie pierre - his informed opinion is not dying - it is gaining popularity - the Gay Agenda is on the verge of getting a serious and long over due beat down

 

[GreenBean]

Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

Neither do the homos you dumbass, but they would like their civil rights respected, those assholes eh?

BS- It's not rights but privileges they seek

 

[Dragonlady]

Says Nature... who designed the species and homosexuality which deviates from that irrefutable standard.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans, and has been identified in numerous species. Thus, your argument is based on a false premise. If we are to use your argument that what is natural for lower species proves what nature intended for human sexuality, then the presence of homosexual behavior in lower species proves that it is natural for all species, and not a perversion at all.

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways. It is true that in earlier times, a man could end his marriage if his wife were barren, as great importance was placed on having heirs, but this is no longer the case. Someone pointed that marriage has changed over the years and that is true, but it is still a legal contract between two people who wish to cohabit.

 

[Political Junky]

What do these people have in common:

Bradley Manning
Bo Bergdahl
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Janet Reno

they are all men?

Why are fake christians so nasty and mean spirited?

I swear, you phonies must be the most unhappy people on the planet.

I'd love to know how often some of these "christians" actually attend church.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says Nature... who designed the species and homosexuality which deviates from that irrefutable standard.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans, and has been identified in numerous species. Thus, your argument is based on a false premise.

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs. The issue is that the deviation is not a viable excuse to accept the behavior which such promotes. Some people are prone toward all manner of poor choices. We do not claim that the chronic deceit should be accepted as normal. We do not accept that the need to steal the belongings of others is normal... and so on. What's more... there is no valid reason why we should, and every valid reason why we should not.

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. ...

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman... . and that man and that woman can both be as queer as a 5 legged deer, but to be married, the participants must be of the distinct genders.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

 

[GreenBean]

Says Nature... who designed the species and homosexuality which deviates from that irrefutable standard.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans, and has been identified in numerous species. Thus, your argument is based on a false premise. If we are to use your argument that what is natural for lower species proves what nature intended for human sexuality, then the presence of homosexual behavior in lower species proves that it is natural for all species, and not a perversion at all.

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways. It is true that in earlier times, a man could end his marriage if his wife were barren, as great importance was placed on having heirs, but this is no longer the case. Someone pointed that marriage has changed over the years and that is true, but it is still a legal contract between two people who wish to cohabit.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans

Sorry to burst your bubble cum guzzler - but that's a myth perpetuated by the Gay Agenda. Animals have a variant sex drive - it differs from Human Beings in that they lack the requisite intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong. Most animals will even mate with inanimate objects if you spray them with the proper pheromones . So far as Animals pairing off male male and female female -yes it happens but it is not necessarily on a sexual level - can't 2 men or two women or even 2 animals of the same gender have a lasting non-sexual bonding with out turd burglars such as yourself making something vile and despicable out of it !?

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways

Wrong again penis breath - Marriage is the initiation of a family -a bond that permeates generations - not just 2 people getting their rocks off. If perverts such as yourself and your phallic fellowhood and sushi sisterhood choose to cohabitate - and mockingly call it a marriage -LMAO - go for it faggot - even perverts have rights - However -when you try to preach your mental illness as normal to the Children of REAL couples you've gone too far.

 

[Howey]

Says Nature... who designed the species and homosexuality which deviates from that irrefutable standard.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans, and has been identified in numerous species. Thus, your argument is based on a false premise. If we are to use your argument that what is natural for lower species proves what nature intended for human sexuality, then the presence of homosexual behavior in lower species proves that it is natural for all species, and not a perversion at all.

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways. It is true that in earlier times, a man could end his marriage if his wife were barren, as great importance was placed on having heirs, but this is no longer the case. Someone pointed that marriage has changed over the years and that is true, but it is still a legal contract between two people who wish to cohabit.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans

Sorry to burst your bubble cum guzzler - but that's a myth perpetuated by the Gay Agenda. Animals have a variant sex drive - it differs from Human Beings in that they lack the requisite intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong. Most animals will even mate with inanimate objects if you spray them with the proper pheromones . So far as Animals pairing off male male and female female -yes it happens but it is not necessarily on a sexual level - can't 2 men or two women or even 2 animals of the same gender have a lasting non-sexual bonding with out turd burglars such as yourself making something vile and despicable out of it !?

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways

Wrong again penis breath - Marriage is the initiation of a family -a bond that permeates generations - not just 2 people getting their rocks off. If perverts such as yourself and your phallic fellowhood and sushi sisterhood choose to cohabitate - and mockingly call it a marriage -LMAO - go for it faggot - even perverts have rights - However -when you try to preach your mental illness as normal to the Children of REAL couples you've gone too far.

OMG look what crawled out of the glory hole. GreenBean ! I was hoping you had died a particularly bloody death! Oh well.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says Nature... who designed the species and homosexuality which deviates from that irrefutable standard.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans, and has been identified in numerous species. Thus, your argument is based on a false premise. If we are to use your argument that what is natural for lower species proves what nature intended for human sexuality, then the presence of homosexual behavior in lower species proves that it is natural for all species, and not a perversion at all.

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways. It is true that in earlier times, a man could end his marriage if his wife were barren, as great importance was placed on having heirs, but this is no longer the case. Someone pointed that marriage has changed over the years and that is true, but it is still a legal contract between two people who wish to cohabit.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans

Sorry to burst your bubble cum guzzler - but that's a myth perpetuated by the Gay Agenda. Animals have a variant sex drive - it differs from Human Beings in that they lack the requisite intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong. Most animals will even mate with inanimate objects if you spray them with the proper pheromones . So far as Animals pairing off male male and female female -yes it happens but it is not necessarily on a sexual level - can't 2 men or two women or even 2 animals of the same gender have a lasting non-sexual bonding with out turd burglars such as yourself making something vile and despicable out of it !?

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways

Wrong again penis breath - Marriage is the initiation of a family -a bond that permeates generations - not just 2 people getting their rocks off. If perverts such as yourself and your phallic fellowhood and sushi sisterhood choose to cohabitate - and mockingly call it a marriage -LMAO - go for it faggot - even perverts have rights - However -when you try to preach your mental illness as normal to the Children of REAL couples you've gone too far.

OMG look what crawled out of the glory hole. GreenBean ! I was hoping you had died a particularly bloody death! Oh well.

ROFLMNAO! Well I think that it is WONDERFUL that evil is so often so dam' easy to spot!

Makes it that much easier to turn from them, through the effective use of the Ignor-cution system.

Life is simply too short to allow it to be corrupted by THAT level of idiocy.

TTFE!

 

[GreenBean]

Says Nature... who designed the species and homosexuality which deviates from that irrefutable standard.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans, and has been identified in numerous species. Thus, your argument is based on a false premise. If we are to use your argument that what is natural for lower species proves what nature intended for human sexuality, then the presence of homosexual behavior in lower species proves that it is natural for all species, and not a perversion at all.

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways. It is true that in earlier times, a man could end his marriage if his wife were barren, as great importance was placed on having heirs, but this is no longer the case. Someone pointed that marriage has changed over the years and that is true, but it is still a legal contract between two people who wish to cohabit.

Homosexuality exists in species other than humans

Sorry to burst your bubble cum guzzler - but that's a myth perpetuated by the Gay Agenda. Animals have a variant sex drive - it differs from Human Beings in that they lack the requisite intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong. Most animals will even mate with inanimate objects if you spray them with the proper pheromones . So far as Animals pairing off male male and female female -yes it happens but it is not necessarily on a sexual level - can't 2 men or two women or even 2 animals of the same gender have a lasting non-sexual bonding with out turd burglars such as yourself making something vile and despicable out of it !?

Marriage is not a contract for the raising of children as you have stated. If if were, then marriages would end once the children were no longer dependent on their parents, and the parents would go their separate ways

Wrong again penis breath - Marriage is the initiation of a family -a bond that permeates generations - not just 2 people getting their rocks off. If perverts such as yourself and your phallic fellowhood and sushi sisterhood choose to cohabitate - and mockingly call it a marriage -LMAO - go for it faggot - even perverts have rights - However -when you try to preach your mental illness as normal to the Children of REAL couples you've gone too far.

OMG look what crawled out of the glory hole. GreenBean ! I was hoping you had died a particularly bloody death! Oh well.

Sorry to disappoint you Faggot. How you doing... did Santa get you a new dildo this year , or perhaps a new HIV cocktail to stick in your enema ?? In either event you can stick it up your ass.

 

[Skylar]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry to burst your bubble cum guzzler - but that's a myth perpetuated by the Gay Agenda. Animals have a variant sex drive - it differs from Human Beings in that they lack the requisite intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong.

But what's inherently wrong with homsexual behavior? This is where your argument break down. As the worst that can be said of homosexuality is that its not particularly productive in terms of reproduction. But then, neither are blow jobs. Or masturbation. Or condoms. Or celibacy. Or your grand parents knocking boots.

So what? Who says that the only purpose in sex is procreation? Its certainly A purpose. But as all the infertile getting it on, and all the birth control demonstrates, its obviously not the ONLY purpose.

So if there is a valid purpose in sex that has nothing to do with procreation, why then would satisfying that valid purpose be 'wrong'? Or 'evil'? Or any of the other value judgments your ilk apply so arbitrarily?

There is no reason. You've offered us an arbitrary value judgment backed by itself. Which is the epitome of a circular argument.

And the 'greatest threat to liberty'? Your ilk are a melodramatic bunch, aren't they?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

Wolf packs have been known to drive homosexuals from their midst for the survival of the pack.

 

[Political Junky]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

Wolf packs have been known to drive homosexuals from their midst for the survival of the pack.

Link?

 

[Skylar]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

Wolf packs have been known to drive homosexuals from their midst for the survival of the pack.

And animals exhibiting homosexual behavior have remained part of an existing herd. You can pick what you like from nature, but you're the one doing the picking.

Not nature.

Just as all the subjective value judgments are yours, the responses are yours.