LGBT Civil Rights

"Your lack of ability to submit ANY argument in support of LGBT Civil Rights, has prompted an ending to our discusiions I"m afraid. In review you have submitted nothing but scholastic opinion, nothing with which the LGBT can prove beyond a doubt at all that they are nothing MORE than a group of Societies most degenerate sort." - While I agree it is weird, I have proven from first principles the validity of natural law/property rights, and how it pertains to LGBT rights. Also, the active/positive has the burden of proof within a debate. Force is active, therefor those who wish to use force have the burden of proof. You wish to use force to violate natural law/property rights, thereby you have the burden of proof. "You grounds for suggesting to grant civil Rights to them has been destroyed in reality and fact, by the proof of the LOSS of the civil rights of the greater portion of Society in an attempt to appease the lesser, group, vis a vis:" - No, you don't know what rights are. Rights are in a complete negative sense, and cannot deprive rights from others. "1. LOSS of majority populations Right of operating Business in CONUS, (Continental United States ) to deny service to customers based on their business and ethical spiritual beliefs in a privately owned and operated business, now FORCED by government to Service degenerates against their better judgement as Business owners." - This is unjustified, as it violates natural law/property rights. This is not what I advocate. "1. LOSS of majority populations Right of operating Business in CONUS, (Continental United States ) to deny service to customers based on their business and ethical spiritual beliefs in a privately owned and operated business, now FORCED by government to Service degenerates against their better judgement as Business owners." - Again, you should be able to refuse service, that is not what I am advocating for. "3. LOSS of Right to provide merely a toileting service but now are Forced To at their own expense provide SPECIAL toileting for this degenerate group of Societies minority!" - Again, there should be no force. It should be up to a business owner. "4. LOSS of right to call EVIL what IS evil, forceably threatened to be charged as HATE CRIME any attempt to expose this group for what it actually is. Sexual depravity!" - First off, being LGBT is not evil. However, I do not believe anyone should be charged with a hate crime for speaking out. "Additionally it is a proven Medical FACT. That the ability for a human being to CHANGE SEX is and always WILL BE a FALSE reality." - And? Appeal to nature? Just because something is natural does not mean it is virtuous or immoral. "In closing I have satisfied in empirical evidence the requirements of this debate, the valid reasons why the granting of Civil Rights to this group serves only to ROB the rest of Society of THEIR Right to a decent environment with which to raise their children, for the sole purpose of allowing sexual deviants the sexual gratification which has and WILL always be contrary to good order in every Society. This being proved by the imposition of DEATH to them in many countries!" - First, empirical evidence is not need, and is invalid when discussing rights and ethics. Its called Hume's Law, or Hume's Guillotine., moreover I do not want violate others rights, only for the government to protect their right to: Self owner ship, and ownership of property. " They have butchered the property rights of business owners everywhere, without due process of the greatest part of Society - the rights of freedom of expression, to acquiesce a group of persons bent on sexual perversions alone! Having already destroyed 3 recent Civil Rights of the majority of Society testified in News coverage everywhere, no less! And continues to ambush the greater good and civil order of Society as a whole!" - Again, I am not advocating this. Strawman, after strawman. "As to my opponent? You attempt to skirt your own responsibilities as an adult, to some fantasy of a nonexistent right to prove things, you are unwilling to study for yourself. In short. Your boring as a debate opponent, devoid of merit, devoid of reason, devoid of knowledge, merely regurgitating rumors, scholastic unproven nonsense, without the slightest empirical evidence!" - ad hominem after ad hominem. "I have proven by your own admission, of your lack of responsibility to society as a whole to prevent degeneracy from escalating, 2nd I have proven by your own admission it should " Not" be granted to people when it infringes upon the rights of others!" - I AGREE! It should not infringe on others rights! I think there has a big misunderstanding here