9. MORAL STANDARD: From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?
Morality is subjective, not objective; however, every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as none of those things directly affect another person's rights to those things. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, and right now, your fist is firmly imbedded into my overwhelmingly queer nose.
10. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?
The standard of morality in a society comes from the morality of the majority; if most people think a certain way, their society will reflect that. However, as is the case for homosexuals in America, sometimes those morals are based in prejudice or misinformation, and as such, we should shine more light on the issue and let the majority reevaluate its morals.
11. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system if it contradicts another?
This is a trick question, as no society currently has it totally right. So long as any person is oppressed at all without any sound reasoning whatsoever, it is not a good moral system.
12. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?
No. This is why the KKK still exists. You can have your opinions so long as you are not stripping us of our status as equal members of society.
13. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what gives them the moral right to change society's morals when the majority condemn homosexuality as morally wrong?
Ah, but we're not trying to change your morals, nor does the majority condemn homosexuality as wrong anymore; we're simply trying to gain equality. Say what you like, condemn us all you like, we don't care what you think so long as what you think is not actively oppressing us.
14. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, including those who disagree with them?
Yes, everyone has the right to judge the morals of anyone else. See above.
15. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to condemn those whom they label "homophobes" when they are just expressing their personal moral preference?
Yes, because that expression of personal moral preference should not be imposed on the rest of society, especially when it's based in something as subjective as religion. Muslims believe that women should cover their bodies so as to preserve a woman's modesty. However, they do not try to force non-Muslim women (in countries that practice religious freedom, that is) to cover their bodies because they understand that their beliefs are not the beliefs of everyone else, even if they personally believe that those women should cover themselves. They continue to practice their religion without interfering with the rights of others; the same cannot be said about homophobes.
16. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals say that "homophobes" are wrong because they want to restrict homosexuals' rights and impose their values on them, then what gives the homosexuals the right to impose their sexual values on others?
The same could be said about Christianity; what gives you the right to impose your religious values on others?
17. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences?
We're not trying to change society to match our moral preferences, we're trying to change the laws so that we're considered equal members of society.
18. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, and they also believe they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences, then how is that not arrogant?
Arrogance is not a justification for oppression. This question makes no sense.
19. CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights be granted to those of Alternate Sexual Orientations (ASO) such as pedophilia, incest, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, fetishes, frotteurism, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.? If not, why not?
No, because none of those are sexual orientations, they're fetishes, and several of those things are legal anyway so long as both parties involved have given their informed, enthusiastic consent.
20. CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights also be granted to heterosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior)? If not, why not?
You already have rights. New laws would protect everyone from being discriminated against due to sexual orientation (which is not necessarily behavior, mind you; for example, you're not asexual until you lose your virginity) and that includes heterosexuality.
21. CIVIL RIGHTS: If equal civil rights should not be granted to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (excluding homosexual behavior), then what is it about homosexuality that deserves special status protection where other sexual behaviors do not?
Equality is not special status protection, and many of the "Alternate Sexual Orientations" (fetishes) listed above do have some sort of legal protection, so long as both parties are able to give informed, enthusiastic consent.
22. CIVIL RIGHTS: If homosexuals are granted privileges due to civil unions and domestic partnerships, shouldn't the same be offered to heterosexuals?
You already have those privileges. You tend to call it "traditional marriage".
23. FAIRNESS: Shouldn’t an equal amount of sexual-orientation-promotion be offered to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (i.e., pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation) such that they are also promoted in parades, schools, movies, sitcoms, magazines, schools, etc.? If not, why not?
No, because those are fetishes, not orientations. As I said before, sexual orientation is whom you are attracted to, not under what conditions you become aroused.
24. FAIRNESS: Would you, if you are pro-homosexual in practice and/or ideology, promote and support heterosexual parades, heterosexual oriented TV, and overt heterosexual appreciation and promotions in school classrooms – the same as is occurring with homosexuality? If not, why not?
I was wondering when the "what about straight pride" question would come up. No, I do not. Heterosexuals don't need pride parades nor special appreciation or promotion, because it's already accepted as normal, and a majority of the media is aimed at heterosexuals to begin with. This is why we have things like black history month- every other month we learn about white history, wherein black history is hardly mentioned outside slavery. One month out of the year is taken to focus on black history, because otherwise, it would go practically unmentioned.
25. FAIRNESS: If being intolerant of homosexuality is somehow wrong, then why are the homosexuals not wrong when they express their intolerance of those who disapprove of homosexuality?
Because our expressions of intolerance are justified in that we are being denied equal rights. Our opinions are not actively stripping heterosexuals of their rights.
26. FAIRNESS: Isn't it hypocritical to say that homosexuals want tolerance for everyone, but at the same time they practice intolerance of the those who disagree with their behavior?
We don't want tolerance, we want equality. You can be as intolerant of us as you please as long as that intolerance does not directly affect our legal status as equal members of society.
27. FAIRNESS: If homosexuals want tolerance, then when they try and change the rest of society's views about homosexuality, aren't they demonstrating their intolerance of the majority position?
We want equality. That's literally it. The majority position used to be that black people should be slaves- the majority isn't always right.
28. FAIRNESS: If you affirm that it is okay for homosexuals to show their intolerance for the majority view against homosexuality by trying to change the rest of society's view to conform to their own, then shouldn't it be okay for the majority to try and change the moral view of the homosexuals and have them conform to the majority?
Please refer to my above answer.