Introduction:
These following musings will likely result in accusations of hate. This couldn't be further from the truth. If you disagree with my arguments, please do be the favor of addressing the arguments instead of calling names or making absurd accusations. I am also well aware that I am assuming of a certain degree of reader knowledge, and skipping over a lot of foundational arguments. I also assume you are smart enough to connect the dots and fill in the details without further strawman and ad hominem nonsense.
Principles
All humans are created equal. By this, I do not mean that all people are identical or interchangeable. We have unique talents, capabilities, interests, value scales, goals, backgrounds, et cetera. No one has a magical authority over anyone else.
The individual is the foundation for any discussion of rights. Only individuals reason, choose, and act. Only individuals are in a position to claim rights.
Lockean principles of life, liberty, and property. These define a universal and reciprocal sphere of individual authority, defining the point of committing or being subject to trespass.
Judeo-Christian theology. I know. Many, if not most, people don't like this, and I am already treading on thin ice here by citing libertarian principles. But it is part of my worldview, too.
Application in general
Race, nationality, gender, etc. are irrational ways to decide who has what rights. Any right one would claim for oneself must be universal and reciprocal. What rights I would claim, I must also be willing to grant to my most hated adversary.
Society is a shorthand term for an aggregate of individuals, and not an entity with any claim to rights. Society cannot be a victim of trespass or be owed a debt. Only individuals can suffer trespass. Governments can only recognize and respect rights, or trespass against them. And they only do the latter, because governments do not represent society as a whole or any specific individuals outside the political class.
It is absurd to claim a right to commit trespass against life, liberty, or property while claiming a right to the same yourself. This is why political action is antithetical to peaceful, productive society because it necessarily infringes upon the very individual liberty governments claim to protect.
There is a higher power that has established rules that promote better human lives if we choose to follow them, and if we have divine immortal souls, then He has offered a path to a fulfilling spiritual life as well.
Application to LGBTQWTFBBQ
OK, time to dive into the minefield of gender identity and sexuality as it intertwines with politics, theology, and individuality. Left-wing politics has turned any discussion into a morass of virtue-signalling and self-righteous indignation.
Oh, boy. I mean, uffda. Can't use gendered words in anything lest some special snowflake get butthurt, amirite? Oh, wait, I'm not Scandinavian. Now I'm guilty of cultural appropriation? No, it's probably OK since I am white, and Scandinavians are extra-white.
Yes, the above is patently absurd. But there is just enough of an element of recent real events to make it slightly plausible, and that is why serious discussion is difficult. It's why I use a pseudonym for serious online discussions. There is a minority of people who do become vindictive when confronted with dissent. This is where questioning any pronouncements of the LGBT movement results in accusations of hatred, too.
So, what are "LGBTQ rights"? Life, liberty, and property? OK. Don't murder or imprison gays for being gay, and don't steal their stuff. Equality means they aren't subhuman, and should not be treated as such. Self-defense, freedom of association, freedom to form contracts, etc. should be embraced. Voluntary associations of which I don't personally approve, including LGBTQ relationships, don't require my approval. Live your life. This is the baseline measurement for tolerance, right?
HOWEVER...
That kind of tolerance should not then also require me to accept such behavior as entirely appropriate and worthy of celebration. I don't agree that it is 100% natural, and I am deeply suspicious of the political machinations of the self-appointed LGBTQ "leaders."
The debate over marriage licenses isn't about equality, it's about begging for government permission. A license means only that you have been granted a political indulgence to do something that is otherwise illegal. That isn't fighting for equality as free people, that is fighting to be subservient, and it is quite undignified.
The demand for recognition of gay marriage or gender identity at the point of government guns isn't about equality, it's about imposing violence upon others. It isn't the use of reason to support your argument, it is the use of violence to quell dissent, which makes you look like you have no rational argument.
I am as disgusted with the "straight pride" efforts in response to Gay Pride Month as I am with gay Pride Month itself. Why do you demand public acclaim and adoration? Just be you. No need to be obnoxiously confrontational. Definitely don't demand political favors or privileges at the expense of anyone else.
As for theology, we are called to a higher standard by Christ. We are not called to impose that standard upon others at gunpoint, but to be a beacon that guides those who also seek something more than what the world offers. We can't try to use politics to create a Kingdom of God on Earth, because politics is antithetical to Christianity. It is wholly of this world, not of our kingdom. Christ offers salvation from damnation, not damnation itself. Governments seek to damn all men who do not obey their arbitrary edicts. Christ's example was charity and ministry to the sinner, not hatred. His rebuke was an offer to embrace the repentant, not threats of punishment.
Conclusion
I'm sure this rant has been rather disjointed. It's a complicated matter where emotion and prejudice reigns, but I hope these musings have offered a new perspective. And if you really, truly disagree, the downvote button and comment editor are right below.