These two quotations are dealing with the same thing, albeit in different ways, so I am taking them as one for my response.

First, yes, had I or anyone said 'all gays mean to rape our sons and spread AIDS to everyone!', I WOULD be a homophobe. However, all that I and most reasonable people have said, is that we think their acts are morally reprehensible, and as such, should not be supported. That is not homophobia, that is a legitimately held religious belief, and to label and write off someone for their beliefs is not only offensive to them, it is offensive to the founding principles of this nation.

If you disagree with me, fine, but I'm not going to label you a 'fudgepacker lover', and likewise, you have no right to label me a 'homophobe'.

Likewise, with your claim that the argument is a 'why can't you tolerate intolerance', the fact is, it's not intolerance (at least, again, not for reasonable people. I make no defense for people such as Westboro Baptist Church, or their ilk); there is literally nothing intolerant in stating your religious beliefs.

Secondly, I try to not be mean-spirited in discussions like this, but saying 'if you use similar arguments as the KKK...' is, quite frankly, an absolutely ridiculous statement. Just because some assholes happen to have the same stance as I in a certain area(albeit in a much more offensive way), is no reason to state that someone needs perspective. Hitler supported a cheap car for the masses; does that mean anyone who supports such things should 'take a breath for some perspective'? Genghis Khan forced former nobility to adhere to the same rule of law as commoners. Does that mean anyone who dislikes how Wall Street execs get free rides out of jail, also enjoys raping and pillaging entire nations?

The last thing I will say on this, is that I am not trying to be a martyr. If that were my goal, I would have long since stopped trying to actually discuss the issues, and would be crying about how everyone is mean.

So, are you saying that we shouldn't listen to people, or that you disagree with my argument that liberals are writing people off? I am assuming it is the latter, in which case, I don't think this is a point I would be able to change your mind on. So I guess I'll just echo your sentiment, and say that I am free to say that I think you're wrong. Agree to disagree I guess.

I know what cisgender means, I watch South Park too.

As to your main point, I will freely admit I am no professional in this area; my opinions come from a religious basis combined with my own observations. A cursory google search brings up a page and a half of links to this study in Spain about brain differences in transgender people, and, to me, this both changes a lot, and changes nothing.

It changes much, because, just as I once believed you couldn't be born gay, before I worked with a couple of homosexuals, it turns out I may be wrong on the transgender issue in this instance.

However, it also changes nothing, because, from a religious basis, it is still a reprehensible act. We all have our trials in this life, but the whole point of being religious is that you are supposed to overcome those trials. A lesbian can be religious, but she must hold to her faith and live by it, and if that means not acting on her natural urges, so be it.

Now, do not get me wrong; I fully understand that, as a religious person, I can NOT expect non-religious folk from living by my standards. I get that, honest.

But, you(and the rest of the liberals) must understand that, to people who hold these legitimate beliefs, you can NOT force us to accept your standards, either. It's a double-edged sword, and liberals seem focused on pretending their edge isn't there.

You haven't written me off, and because of that, you're already doing better than 95% of liberals. High five, you can actually discuss something without getting pissed!

Now, I agree with you 100% that no one is the 'norm'. There is no 'normal' human brain(though there is an 'average', but we are not discussing that). You ask 'what is mental illness', and I believe that is an excellent place to start.

'Mental illness', as defined by the Mayo Clinic, is

Many people have mental health concerns from time to time. But a mental health concern becomes a mental illness when ongoing signs and symptoms cause frequent stress and affect your ability to function.

A mental illness can make you miserable and can cause problems in your daily life, such as at work or in relationships. In most cases, symptoms can be managed with a combination of medications and counseling (psychotherapy).

EDIT -I can NOT get these quotation tags to work on this whole definition, and I'm too rushed to spend time trying to figure it out atm. The definition ends right before this edit**

Now, I think this is a rather interesting definition. Let's look at this checklist in the definition and compare transgenderism to it. For a transsexual, would this issue affect their mood, thinking, and behavior? Yes. Are there ongoing signs and symptoms that cause frequent stress and the ability to function? Also yes. Does the issue make people miserable, and cause problems in their daily life, such as at work or in relationships? Also, also yes.

So, by this definition, transsexualism hits every single point of a mental illness.

Anyways, I guess that about covers the body of this part of your response, so I'll just answer your question and then jump to the end of it.

How should we deal with a gay man(or woman, I'm as sexist as I am racist or homophobic), you ask? Simple, just like you would deal with anyone else, by treating them with the respect that any human being deserves. However, to be treated with respect you must deserve it. If I walked around town wearing an 'I <3 POONTANG' t-shirt, yelling about how much I looooove sex with women, I could not and should not expect respect from people who believe that sort of statement should not be a public spectacle. Likewise, if a homosexual acts as gay as they possibly can, they should not expect to respected.

Your last point, 'which should we fix? Which CAN we fix?', I will address as well. Yes, we should fix people being huge dicks to others because they are different. Nobody likes an asshole, and we should correct those people.
However, while gay-rehab camps don't work, because they're run by assholes, that does not mean that we shouldn't try to help people with body image issues either. A teenage girl has bulimia, a body image issue, so we try and help her. A teenage girl thinks she should have been a man, an obvious body image issue, we should try and help her.

I disagree with you here, a lot of people have been ignoring points. Some are providing legitimate arguments against his points, yes, but to say that 'no one' is ignoring them is flat out wrong, sorry.

And I agree, an opinion is not untouchable, or at least shouldn't be. That is what being open-minded is all about.
___

Now, I've addressed your points, and, in danger of going off topic and making myself a hypocrite, I just want to make sure my stance on a couple of these things are crystal clear.

First - My issue with labeling is that labels were, very originally, a means of dehumanizing an opponent, either a single person, an opposing tribe, or an enemy nation.
So, since labeling is inherently a way of making the label-ee lesser, we must take very deep care in this age of not following this same mistake.

Let's take 3 examples. An inner-city youth, an adult farm worker, and a suburban stay-at-home parent. So, from these 3 very non-descriptive examples, your mind can draw a picture of them. Maybe the youth is a young man making straight As trying to get out of the inner city; the worker is trying to support her family back in her home nation; the parent is doing the best he can to raise his kids.

But then, slap a label on them; an at-risk youth, an illegal immigrant, and a soccer dad.

These labels immediately reduce your mental image of a vibrant human being, trying to overcome their own trials to improve their life and those around them, to a one-dimensional paper cutout, whose motivations and struggles have no bearing on how they are treated.

That is why I have such a huge problem with labels. Each and every one of the, what almost 8 billion inhabitants of this planet is a person, and NO person can be reduced down to one word without ignoring and demeaning what it is to be a person.

Second - I said before that I am religious, and I fully understand that I cannot force others to live under my religious code. I get it, and this is like the 4th time this post I've said it, so there's no excuse for anyone to miss it.

As a religious person, when it comes to these LGBT issues, there are 4 options.
1. God does not like these illicit unions, and I do not like them because of that.
2. God does not like these illicit unions, but I think they're ok.
3. God does like these unions, but I believe He doesn't.
4. God does like these unions, and I do too.

Now, as a religious man, I have seen nothing to indicate that God likes LGBT actions, and much to indicate that he does not. Obviously, I could be wrong, it is a possibility that I acknowledge. So, the responses to the 4 options are thus:
1. In doing God's will, I am on the right path and should stay.
2. Directly disobeying God's will, commiting a great sin.
3. Being legitimately ignorant, still a sin but much less so.
4. Doesn't really apply, so...

Anyways, please note that I have not said 'God doesn't like LGBT people', because, as a loving God, he would love them just as much as the most holy person on earth. However, just because you love someone, does not mean you love or support their actions.
___

Anyways, I know this is a long post, and I do apologize, but as you said, you must be able to defend your points, and I try my best to do so, and if that means writing way more than I'd like, I will do so.