...Dealing with these sexual disorders, you ask 'what is it supposed to look like?' 'what's the norm?' The norm is the heterosexual design of the body

There is a norm, there is a model of the way things are supposed to be. When you find yourself outside of that, when you find yourself not fitting the way things are designed to be, it's a simple matter of just learning how you ought to be and working to restore the way things are supposed to be.

When you then establish the law that says you can't discriminate against people who are homosexual, what you're really saying is you're putting the power of law behind the idea that these are people who cannot change and therefore we must protect them from other people who disagree with them.

The gay movement is an evil institution that's goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity in which there's no restrictions on sexual conduct except the principle of mutual choice.

Gender, race, ethnicity - these are all morally neutral. But homosexuality is - involves voluntary sexual conduct with serious public health, social, sociological implications. It's not irrational to discriminate on that basis.

If your definition of homosexuality is being able to do whatever you want to, and that you should be able to go and engage in sex with another person, and that because of that, the disease you have is going to spread to that person and they're going to take it home and give it to their wife, how much tolerance should we have for that? We should have zero tolerance for that.

If homosexuality is not caused by genetic factors...then that means it can be acquired... And if it can be acquired, shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to protect people from acquiring it? Shouldn't we lean to the side of protecting the children instead of affirming a scientific hypothesis that has no actual truthful foundation?