I don't really watch much TV so I must have missed it, but it seems to me that one should not be attacking an argument made on a TV show like Glee or whatever while pretending more substantive arguments don't exist. 

Marx was certainly influenced by certain Christian thinkers, whether he would have admitted to it or not and despite having a distain for religion. So yeah it could be argued, it could also be argued that he was anti-Judeo-Christian Civilization because he would have liked nothing more than to destroy it. 

You are going to have to explain to me why that is not a straw-man argument. 

Reading a few of his articles, the man strikes me as a kook, prone to exaggeration.

Look at the part where mentions "barring psychotherapists" from counseling patients to resist their same sex urges. The website he links to is a CNN article about the conversion therapy ban for patients under 18 in California. The purpose of that therapy is to re-orientate people, not to simply tell them to avoid having sex. It is quackery, and the APA says so, frankly forcing your child to attend such sessions is abusive in my book. If they want that therapy, and want to throw away their money, they can get it when they turn 18 and we know they are not being coerced by their parents threatening to cut them off. It hasn't been banned anymore than smoking or voting has been, you can do it when you are 18. 

Sorry I was reading the article that was in the hyperlink, not the address that you pasted to the top. I was assuming they were the same thing.

The second bullet point in the article which you linked to, what is the point of it? 

Is he implying that this study is proof that expanding gay rights leads to more sexual assaults? That is what it seems like to me. 

By the way he acts like the US media is covering something up:

"...(the latter evidence was published in the Brazilian newspaper Folha in 2011, and I was able to read it because I speak Portuguese; otherwise, I would not even know about the study)..."
The publication date on top of that article which he links to was January 18, 2012 at 9:04pm (not 2011 as he says), There are dozens and dozens of US media websites that published the same report around that time. Go do a custom google search for January 2012, you'll see them. 

I was about to comment on how certain people interpret scripture, but I don't want to open that can of worms. Not today. 

I'm trying to understand the relevance of bringing up  the story about 19,000 sexual abuse cases other than to be purposely misleading.  You can read a story, in English, about that here. It is a problem but it is has little to do with DADT, there is no point in bringing it up. 1% of men were sexually assaulted and 20% of women in the the US military, and one does not have to gay to sexually assault a member of the same sex. Sexual assault often isn't about sexually pleasuring yourself more than it is about getting a thrill out of humiliating others. So once again, relevance? 

It must be exciting getting together for the Gay-Wanker family reunion. 

It's funny I have never had an issue with it. Does it only auto refresh with certain browsers? 

You really expect me to click the play button on that youtube video with Ono Yoko?

Exact quote:  "I know there are some who think individuals are condemned to hell for having certain attractions."

My point really was a about clarity, when you say homosexuality is a sin, most people outside of the bubble hear that and think you are referring to attractions, as the word homosexual if used by the proper dictionary definition is used to describe a person with attractions to the same sex.  

As I said there are some individuals who do view having an orientation who view homosexuality the orientation as sinful, whether or not the bible justifies that is another question.

I think it is important that people use language that clarifies what exactly is being condemned as sinful. 

I think the media and the society has a way of making the thing that sets apart minorities of one sort or another the thing that defines them. If you are black, it is you blackness that is your defining characteristic, if you are gay it is your gayness, when, who knows, you might be a Cubs fan, or you might like to read science fiction books, and those are the crowds you identify with first. Those surface things really are overly played. That is partly our fault as well as the fault of those who really do want to be defined by surface things, which I think is a minority of minorities.

Why not just mint 17 of them and wipe out the debt completely while he is at it? 

In all seriousness, I haven't thought about this too much. it would probably make it harder for the US to sell debt in the future. I'm tempted to think that would be a good thing because we wouldn't be able to get ourselves in the kind of mess we are now again, but really it isn't a good thing. 

if you were to use more precise language I think you can avoid problems and misunderstanding. By "homosexuality" am I safe in assuming you are referring to sexual acts? I know there are some who think individuals are condemned to hell for having certain attractions, is that your view?