I've seen GLBT folks all screwed up like that. I don't get it. If we see male dog humping another male dog, we call him mentally challenged. Tab A goes into slot B. We are designed to fit together. Anything else means your wires are crossed.
I don't hate GLBT people. At all. I just hate the agenda pushing.
I have found that most of those folks don't understand the difference between approval and acceptance.
Agreed. They really do NOT understand that there is a difference between tolerance (the word I prefer to use in arguments involving this subject) and acceptance. That's what REALLY irritates me.
That story made me throw up in my mouth a little, especially after seeing the photo. 
DING DING DING!!!!
They have contorted the meaning of the word "tolerance".
I'm going to cut and paste some things I've collected over the years because they are so relevant -
America is at a crossroads; we can choose to respect the rights of others without agreeing with them. This also means that sometimes we will have to stand up for what is right when the acts of others are harmful.
But what does it mean to be "tolerant" or "intolerant?" In the past, tolerance meant that other people have a right to their opinion, and the right to express themselves, and that even though we may disagree with their opinions, that we can tolerate their view and live in peace, with the understanding that all people are working toward truth. In recent years, however, tolerance has come to mean something radically different, that tolerance should be never saying that someone else is wrong. All value judgments are viewed as intolerant, except of course, the value judgment that says "value judgments are wrong." Rather than tolerating other people's opinions (or perhaps, learning from them), many people have come to believe that "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and hence not making value judgments, is the basis for tolerance.
We now believe the irony that intolerance itself should not be tolerated. As S.D. Gaede notes, "If the worst thing you can be is intolerant, then how do you express your moral outrage? If you are intolerant of someone who is intolerant, then you have necessarily violated your own principle. But if you tolerate those who are intolerant, you keep your principle but sacrifice your responsibility to the principle. Indeed, the only person who can find consistency on this matter is the individual who is wholly committed to tolerance, to the point of being apathetic." The irony of the dilemma is that people who express the most outrage toward intolerance, in this new definition, are themselves intolerant. When they call for tolerance, the effect is greater intolerance.
In an intolerant world, rational dialogue gives way to argument by insult. As Greg Koukl notes, "Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult-'you intolerant bigot'-than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. 'Tolerance' has become intolerance." When thoughtful principled arguments can be refuted by insults or speculation about hidden motives (a hermeneutic of suspicion), rational discourse breaks down. True Tolerance is the next victim, as the enlightened few seek to impose their own version of "tolerance" on the "intolerant."
