Did you expect a long novel about pro and con arguments about det whole LHBTIQ (and whatnot) and the whole Pride movement? How nicely our society is progressing towards the most pervert "equality"? What people are behind this, driving and financing these movements throughout the Western World, through every state institution? Did you expect a dissection of the agenda?
I am sorry to dissapoint you. Why? Because it is useless. The only thing usefull is to try to make people think for themselves. To stimulate their own "spine reaction" and "gut feeling".
No matter what political creed you might belong to, no matter what kind of specie you are, no matter what gender you are (PS: there are only two biological, but numerous mental diseases);
Please look at the picture below and do some thinking of your own....
The conclution is up to you to make.
"The worst form of inequality is to make unequal things equal"
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society"
As a reminder we can look at how our ancestors viewed this, because there are sources both from Scandinavia and the greater Germania.
From the oldest surviving Scandinavian law codes called the Grágás laws that were re-instituted in 930 on Þingvellir, and the identical laws passed on later by the King of Norway Magnús góði Ólafsson we can read;
"There are three words - should exchanges between people ever reach such dire limits - wich all have full outlawry as the penalty: if a man calls another ragr, stroðinn or sorðinn (lust for sexual intercourse with a man, a man whore, a homosexual). As they are to be prosecuted like other fullréttisorð and, what is more, a man has the right to kill in relation for these words"
The name Grágás means "grey goose", because the book was hardcovered in grey goose leather, and the laws written down with a grey goose feather pen - representing the fact that the grey goose was viewed as the longest living bird, equivalent to the law itself.
From Tacitus Germania from 98 AD we can read:
"The Assembly is competent also to hear criminal charges, especially those involving the risk of capital punishment. The mode of execution varies to the offence. Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog. This distinction in the punishments is based on the idea that offenders should be made a public example of, whereas deeds of shame should be buried out of men´s sight"
Our ancestors were so evil? - you might ask from an individual modern "progressive" point of view. You have to understand that they lived in tribes that consisted of few individuals, and no more than a few hundred maximum that were collectively dependent on eachother. They lived natural, and they immitated and followed the natural laws. Our ancestors did not torture individuals, nor did they generally speaking punish individuals to inflict pain or suffering. Our ancestors understood that degenerative elements and weakness had to be weeded out before it even was able to set root. If they did not weed these elements out, the tribe would suffer and become weak. The tribe would become vulnerable, and the tribe as a whole would be sacrificed for the individual sake of these deviations. This is a question of tribal survivalism, and not a question of the individual right to be a burden on the same tribe.