Y'know what, I'm feeling like venting a bit after reading through some of this site a bunch today. Lemme respond to all of these individually.
1) Pretty sure that exists, if only unofficially. What's the problem?
2) As long as it's between consenting adults this has already happened.
3) Roe v. Wade, anyone? And "on-demand" trivializes the issue to almost comically straw-filled levels. Nobody just goes in to get an abortion "on-demand" like they'd order a pizza or rent a movie. Also this doesn't really have anything to do with gay people.
4) Again, this has already been decided. As long as no other laws are broken in the creation of said porn, nobody is victimized or shown without proper informed consent, and it isn't distributed irresponsibly who would actually care (or know)? And much like guns, even if we tried to ban pornography I doubt we'd get very far in enforcing said ban.
5) Define "propaganda". If you mean encouraging people to be gay as opposed to being straight, then nobody wants that. If you mean encouraging people to embrace their own orientation while respecting those of others, then HELL YES that needs to be taught, and not just in schools...
6) This just in: straight people get STDs as well. And people should be able to afford treatment so that one poor decision or dishonest/unknowing partner doesn't ruin their entire life. Gay or straight, or anywhere in between.
7)You're saying that people don't need to know the facts about AIDS? In any case, a government website wouldn't promote "hysteria" so much as provide solid facts to, if anything, /prevent/ hysteria.
8) Ignoring the out of nowhere transphobia (though honestly it's not that unexpected)... Why would gay people need abortions? I'm starting to think you just spontaneously threw in those abortion mentions because of some conservative talking-point Tourette's Syndrome. (Yes, I know that's not what Tourette's actually is.) As for health insurance coverage for abortions, reassignment surgery, and STD treatments, those should be affordable options, especially the STD one, which is a flat-out health hazard to not provide, and for abortions that aren't just because of a whim (which, by the way, includes most of them).
9) So you're admitting you want to be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people? That's good, up until now I wasn't quite sure about that, thanks for the clarification. (If it needs saying, of course we need anti-discrimination laws.)
10) Uh, no? We can encourage other countries to follow us in approaching more inclusive ways, but unless they commit atrocities on a genocidal scale it's not worth warmongering over. If other countries want to remain backwards we can't change that, but we can change our own country to not be backwards anymore.
11) So you're saying... military recruitment on the basis of "Hey, there'll be a bunch of hot guys to have sex with here?" Inclusion in the military (heck, inclusion in general) is much more subtle than that, bub.
12) I see you're a follower of Kim Davis and Roy Moore. This has once again already been decided; any couple can marry as long as there's mutual consent.
13) This makes absolutely no goddamn sense. Besides that "socialism" buzzword that confuses everything, nobody's forcing anybody to have sex, gay or straight, that doesn't want to. THAT'S WHAT "CONSENT" MEANS.
14) So in other words any "art" made by someone who's gay would, in your mind, be an obscene expression of their sexuality, rather than being, you know, ART? And if you're talking about actual obscene material, go back to Number 4, though that shouldn't necessarily be given a grant for any orientation involved.
15) Ah yes, the old "I can't speak out against gay people anymore because of PC hate speech laws trampling my freedom of speech!" chestnut. Listen here. You can have and express all the bigoted, stupid opinions you want, even with laws against hate speech. People calling you an asshole and not associating with you because of that isn't trampling your right to speak, it's them using theirs to express how loathsome you are of a human being. "Hate speech" is when you urge people to commit crimes against others. Which should be prosecuted no matter who the target was. If some liberal politician came out saying that atheists and agnostics like me should physically attack Christians for their beliefs, I'd want them prosecuted too.
16) This is just a buffet of unfortunate implications. So child molestation is less serious if it's heterosexual in nature? Or are you spreading that whole "all gays are pedos" tripe again? In any case, anybody abusing children deserves to be punished equally. It shouldn't affect matters at all if they happen to be gay or not.
17) Nobody ever said that this would happen, except in your paranoid fantasy world. Probably just wanted to hit that "immigration" buzzword somewhere and needed a way to bring it in. The closest I can think of to this happening is if people wanted to flee to the US from countries that persecute them for being gay. In which case, I fully support allowing them here, though not necessarily in a "preferential" manner. But again, nobody actually suggested that.
18) Uh? I'm not sure what this even means? Why would the government need to subsidize the "mass media" for being inclusive? That's already happening WITHOUT tax breaks or subsidies. And while we're at it, churches can't be taxed, but yet they're spreading an awful lot of anti-gay propaganda... Double standard much?
19) It's been psychological and psychiatric consensus now for a long time that being gay isn't a mental disorder. The only ones still believing that it is are the ones who can't accept that others can be perfectly happy and functional citizens when not like them.
20) Oh look, we're back to that "let me discriminate" nonsense again. Look. We get it. You don't like gay people. But if you ran a restaurant, would you actually be able to tell who was gay or not unless they came in on a date? And as for weddings, I'm fairly certain that if a pastor objects to marrying a same-sex couple, they can just go out and find another one to do it. Or maybe get married by a court official, and just leave the religious part of it out entirely?
And on a side note, if you meant "queer" as an insult or slur, then you should probably know that got reclaimed a long time ago. I don't think I've heard that as an insult in at least the last decade. Just saying.
