I don't know much about the political view of this topic but I know some biology and this knowledge I can apply to what I see in our society.
A community in this case, when is about living as society, the members must have the same interest for living together sharing the same principles, even when the principles might be "diverse" they must be in accord, in agreement.
We have the Amish community, people who live a kind apart but shares with other communities and every body lives in peace.
Religious people, like the Pilgrims, decided to move apart and traveled and created their own "community".
In the US, several religious groups wish to have their own community, this is to say, a place apart where all the members will share the same principles.
But, in one opportunity I asked to a homosexual why they don't look for having their own place and live together all of them, homosexuals, lesbians, the so called transgender, etc. This individual's face turned red and he called me names, and his reaction was very aggressive.
This event called me to investigate by my own a little more about this issue. Watching videos of communities from other species, I found out that those communities or colonies are formed by groups which have the same interest, like we humans do.
However, inside these communities, there were certain percent of other species which were together with the rest but were dependent of the others, and even more, these were even causing harm to the members of that society. In biology these are called "parasites".
Communities of people can live by their own and keep looking toward the future, they can increase their number without the need of receiving others from outside.
On the other hand, parasites need of a community and take advantage of it in order to survive.
I know my revision can be taken as "offensive" by many, but I am comparing human communities with other species communities. And in this revision I have found out that LGTB is not a community, they fit better as the parasites of the videos, like it happens with other species.
Please, do not think I'm insulting others, because in science there is not such a thing as feelings, moral, etc. In science is observation, analysis, review, tests, etc.
Then, I could ask for a test to prove my hypothesis, which might be giving all the necessary means to a large group of religious people to live apart forming a community in a certain area.
Same as well, giving the same necessary means to a large number of LGTB members to live as well a community in a separate area.
And later not to intervene under any circumstance with their lives, and check the results, lets say, after 10 years.
Communities survive because they have the same interest, same principles, same goals.
It should be very interesting and helpful if my experiment comes to be a reality. The expectation is how well those two communities will work by their own to survive satisfactorily for ten years.
It should be also a great opportunity for LGTB to prove they are indeed a "community", because I still have doubts about it.
Some human beings are born with both vagina and a penis. Australian researchers found that 1.7% of births have children with both male and female sex organs. That means for every 100,000 people, almost 2 thousand people are already intersex persons who don't understand why their doctors make a big fuss over their bodies, and surgeries used to be performed without telling the child who grows up confused why she identifies with men, or vice-versa.
I don't think I would call someone born with intersex organs should be automatically considered a parasite. Many of them just don't marry and try to get by as best they can alone, to avoid embarassment in school showers, or are humiliated by male coaches and other guys if they seem more male than female, but are lumped into the category of being "effeminate." And there are varying degrees of differences in this community of being born this way. Who's to say brain wiring is any different? We cannot see brain wiring, so it is less obvious than external organ development. My studies in human health gave me a different view, and I am perplexed why some people fall prey to favoring their own sex, because it has recently come tomy attention that some "normal" people become "gay" after the age of accountability due to being raped by a same-sex person, and they become convinced they must be gay on account of that incident. Some schools of thought think a rape can change the way a man thinks about himself, and the "rewiring" takes place during or after puberty, to the shock of his or her parents who saw their children dating opposite sex people, then suddenly withdraw and become fond of their same-sex friends. Back in the seventies, there were actually people whose jobs were to act in the behalf of parents to get their children back to a "normal" sexual identity. Their results were mixed for restoring a sexual identity consistent with their outer bodies that seemed completely normal. I haven't read recently on much study in this area, but medical people are reluctant to intervene due to lawsuits by dissatisfied parents or individuals who are comfortable with their bisexual nature.
I think the jury's out on this topic, and I have no idea except to know that both parents and the child affected suffer humility based on the mores of post WWII when guys came back angry that another guy approached them for sex on duty, and are in serious need of counselling, because they were offended to the point of impotence by their unpleasant experience.
Don't ask and don't tell seem a rather generous approach for all concerned, but parents could help their child if they knew their child was borderline, to teach him how they wanted him or her to be. That, too, could become a can of worms. It seems to me we just can't win whatever we decide to do about the situation in a family. Some men become impotent when they find out their grown son decided to marry a man. It creates hell inside a family in some instances, and much angst. Some families are at peace with a child's decision, others are totally ripped apart. I don't know that there's an answer for every person entangled in the web of strong feelings pro and con.
Within a single sex, whether male or female, some are so drawn so strongly to the opposite sex that they cannot have a relationship with just one person. Others are totally satisfied to have just one person as their mate for life. And others yet, while attracted to outside affairs don't engage in them out of respect for their spouse who doesn't deserve to have an STD if outside relationships result in that divorce-causing issue. It could be that the reason behind the bible's 2 commandments on sexuality--"thou shalt not commit adultery" and "thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife or anything that he has" make most people think better of staying true to one person for life. Others, eh, just stay away from churches so they can engage in private practices away from the scrutiny of friend or spouse. That only works if the spouse does not wind up with a extra-marital disease they did nothing to deserve, since it was brought home by the straying partner.
Throughout the ages, the Commandments seem to bring people to their senses if they believe fidelity is the right thing to do, and it causes them to keep their part of the marriage vows.
Experimentalism can cause lifelong pain later on. And people who despise religion are basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It's all a choice in America. It's a death penalty for a wife to stray in some countries. And in biblical times, it was a death penalty for both participants in out-of-wedlock experimentation in some societies, and a so-what in other cultures. Go figure! With all our freedoms, we have a dismal success rate in issues related to faithfulness to the partner. It was a shock for some of us to live through the Clinton years, a preparation for future indignities, except in families so strongly religious their marriages are chosen by parents, unless the person, once married, strongly objects to their partner's infidelities and bringing home sterility-causing STDs.
I'd call it the nightmare of freedom to choose to destroy one's spouse's life, career, social standing, and brings shame to some, strong anger to others to the point of seeking revenge for life against the opposite sex. Others forgive but don't forget. Some have to be placed into lifelong therapy after being dumped by a spouse or partner. Others tough it out but never share love again with the offender, which confuses him after he apologizes and expects forgiveness but doesn't get it for more than ten years. Others off themselves or their spouse rather than facing separation. Some kill spouse and kids on account of an affair that they feel should not have happened or didn't like the outcome of the spouse's behavior afterward. Others get their family to kill the spouse and extends the guilt feelings outside the immediate family. Surviving children blame the surviving spouse in the event the other committed suicide. Or are led to believe the survivor did no wrong whatever, which is true in most cases, but not all. And kids may not pay attention to the truth until they are close to death and realize the person they felt responsible wasn't. Or not.
I think blaming religion is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but that's just my opinion after living a long life with every effort made to do the right thing, and understanding the hatred people have if anyone bothers to tell them they're making a mistake by soliciting trouble in sexual matters. Often the person who does the right thing as best he or she knows is right, is ostracized by people who think doing the right thing is a corny way to live and despise do-gooders from the medulla oblongata to the cerebellum.