Anti gay rights laws are the new jim crow and anti jew laws. And no more justified.

Actually, I would beg to differ on your first point of argument. Homosexuality being unnatural is one of the biggest deterrents to the acceptance of the practice. The mere fact that it is unnatural causes people to ridicule, and detest the practice. To compare a gross act of the perversion of what is naturally occurring is to again, insult thousands of year of human evolution. And to compare homosexuality to polyester, fake breasts, and bifocals of all things is ludicrous. These are all improvements on what occurs naturally. Please explain to me what homosexuality improves. Otherwise, this point has been defeated. Your second point is also redundant. I explained that if we allow homosexuals equal rights, we are equating them to a functional heterosexual couple. This will lead to other fringe groups being allowed the same rights, and that in my and many other's opinions, is degeneracy. Reverting from something good and right to something of lesser value. In this case, it is moral degeneracy. Oh yes, the right of assembly is allowed. However, to walk in public in horrendously revealing clothing is very stressful to many others. Also, the very sight of such an assembly is pleasing only to those in support of the movement. This, also contributes to the degeneracy of the moral fiber of this country. To have homosexual parades in which all of these lewd sites take place is ludicrous. They touch each other, wear little or no clothes, among many, many other things. This is wrong in the eyes of both the law, and in the eyes of many Americans. No matter what you say or believe, the majority of this country is against it. The notion that homosexuality is genetic is a belief of mine. In no way is it proven, otherwise, the subject of homosexuality in America would be a totally different issue. Anyway, it is not an insult. It is in fact very true. The fact that transsexuals, trans genders, and homosexuals commonly jump on the same political bandwagon is reason to believe this. These obvious deviants to natural affairs all want the same rights. Now, this would have been unthinkable in the 50's. However, it is unmissable now. By this trend of liberal thinking, will other deviants be able to ask for rights in the future? Perhaps murderers? Perhaps pedophiles? This is not insulting anyone! However, homosexuals in the 50's were comparable to these other fringe groups I have mentioned. It is was unthinkable to be an open homosexual. Again, it is a pattern being set. Obvious groups that would not have dared vouched for themselves just might be granted amnesty under this wave of liberalism. On your point of "they just want to have fun", that is not revalent at all. Everyone wants to have fun. It is in what degree and what fashion. Touching on each other in parades is not an acceptable form of fun, especially in public. Now, your point that they earn a living is valid. They do. But, does this mean they are right? No. Either you are a benefit to humanity or you are not. Your point of homosexuals not being one of the biggest groups prone to aids and other diseases is quite incorrect. I have an aquaintance who is a paramedic, and this is quoted from him: "When I got my Paramedic licence in 1993, there were five primary groups who were Aids prone: 1. Homosexuals 2. Inter venous drug users 3. People with multiple sexual partners 4. Haitians 5. Individuals who have had blood transfusions prior to 1984." I think this is reason enough. Also, before the time of "politically correct thinking", aids was referred to as "gay fever". I don't think this came about for a special reason. Also, from http://www.leaderu.com...: "Some 89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals or intravenous drug users." Enough facts to presume that if not the highest volume of the disease, certainly among the groups that have it the most. Actually, hypothetically, if you agree with me that homosexuality is a genetic trait, we could take this gene out of humans entirely. I believe it was James Watson that suggested this. Also, please stop comparing my words to other outrageous notions. It is nothing like being black or a woman. To suggest that would be totally idiotic. And to compare me to a Nazi simply means you have run out of effective means of retort to my points, so you stoop to name calling. Now, in my own experience, no matter what these organizations say, I will still go along with the notion that a child needs both effective male and female influence to be a successful person. Also, the amount of people who support this fact certainly are not absent: http://www.narth.com... http://www.narth.com... http://www.family.org... http://www.citizenlink.org... I could go on, however, it would give no more support to my argument than those have. In my final wrap up, giving in to their demands for "equality" (in comparison with the lifestyles of married heterosexual couples) would really only mean allowing them to be legally married and adopt children, which is an obvious perversion of decency. It would not quell the cultural phenomenon of the gay rights revolution, it would only give it a boost. It is not like they're living under constant fear that the Gestapo is going to kick in their door at any moment and throw them on the next train to a concentration camp. "Rights" have become a byword for over privileged special interest groups with an agenda. They feign victim hood and persecution to make their overblown demands seem justified. Is it not enough that they're allowed to live, unmolested by angry mobs and vigilantes, in the top tiers of society and enjoy all the fruits of a civilized society without discrimination in employment or housing? Rights do not comply with The Right in all cases. Gay "Rights" are a slippery slope. I suggest you all watch America is a Changing Country, by Dr. Pierce, filmed shortly before his passing. Disregard the racial parts and skip to the parts about alternative lifestyles and their emergence in US culture. (Also, I did not say they are subhuman in any form. They are humans just like you or me. The problem is their lifestyle. Again, calling me names and accusing me of things does nothing more than demonstrate your lack of retort.) Please notice my opponent did not make a single point of his own. Obviously, there is nothing more to do here than to attempt to refute my points.