Nope, but hey, try more attacks that ignore the information presented, that's fun!

Thank you think "traditional families" (which you're referring to nuclear families, I presume) are under attack, and fail to realize that 1) Group raising is superior to parental rights 2) it's a much more modern concept than actual traditional families and 3) that there's no such attack happening in any field in the US, is absolutely hilarious.

That you think there's any group trying to elevate LGBT over cis-sexual or cis-gendered people is outright laughable. There's not been a single political challenge for such a thing, unless you think that trans people being able to use the proper bathrooms and not be harassed or murdered is "elevation".

I don't think you understand the laws in place, nor the social functions thereof.

I don't think you understand modern sexual psychology, basic sexuality, hedonism, QoL, or modern ethics. This is obvious from your statement:

(men and women have clear differences, different roles and responsibilities, but equal rights)

which is completely at odds with current accepted understanding of both gender and sexuality (They don't have difference, are a spectrum, and masculinity/femininity is a social construct that, like most traditions, should be done away with).

I don't think you understand basic philosophy, economics, or the goals of society as a whole. I don't think you understand the functions of government, or civics therein, as you don't seem to grasp the idea of taking care of all people in a nation.

You don't understand technology, AI progression, AugR, automation, or the many disruptive technologies that are being created here and now.

Almost all of your argument stem from traditionalism and naturalism, both of which are inapplicable if you look back far enough into human history, and a failed understanding of what is best for children, society as a whole, and the race.

But no, yeah... I'm the one operating off of emotion.

Seriously, you want to say "rah rah, freedom!" instead of recognizing economic freedom as the required precedent for that invalidates anything else you're on about... but I went ahead and responded to the whole of it anyway.