The surest way the LGBT community could prove you wrong, Matthew, is to say something like this: "Our deepest-held belief about our state in life is that we were born this way -- so making our sexual identities illegal seems like a bad idea to us. But let's face it: the vast majority of the human race was not born this way, so the idea of a man having sex with a man or a woman having sex with a woman is revolting to the rest of you. So we have to navigate the waters here as if our most deeply-held belief about ourselves (and the rest of you) is true. That means we can't expect the rest of you to accept the way we live any more than we can accept the way you live as a norm for ourselves."

If they said this in any meaningful way, then it would be time to take them at face value rather than as people intent on hiding their real motives. I mean: this is how someone like Camille Paglia approaches this problem. She completely agrees that what Queer advocates want is nothing like Christian homes and families, and all she wants is to be left to her own devices. She knows what she wants is nothing like what you and I want, Matthew -- and in being honest about that she establishes a basis for the dialog.

The LGBT position today is deeply dishonest. It's like any other cult you might find which opposes historical Christianity: it has to lie about what it means when it uses common terms in order to fool the uninformed listener into a state of complicity. And what the rest of us are faced with is a very simple choice: allow ourselves to be lied to by them and by doing so concede all of our moral and cultural stock in this fight to them, or demand that they tell the truth about what they are requiring of us and see if that's what we can accept.