population control plain and simple

he controls the future pushing only their own genes forward

[2/10] - angry rant, little evidence, not convincing.

This article doesn't really come off as very convincing. Their main point is not very concisely put or well formatted for reading, but it's one we've heard repeated many times before:

The male-female and extended family model has been the blueprint from the beginning, and both society and the newborn child rely on it to be strong, secure, and stable.

The homosexual lifestyle is portrayed as being cool, fun, and contemporary, as opposed to the traditional family paradigm which is seen as being prosaic and boring.

The entire article simply takes it as a given that the first sentence is true, which leaves it as ambiguous as we began. Are nuclear families more stable than gay relationships? Let's look at census data! Are children raised by homosexuals at a disadvantage? I want to believe the premise, but there's no attempt to cite any kind of facts anywhere.

The second sentence, on the other hand, is where most of the article spends its time. They ride a fine line between criticizing the current Dem culture of fetishizing minorities (which, again, is a premise I want to believe) and just complaining like an old man on his porch about the dang kids these days.

Once we get down to the bit about transgenderism there are links to studies, but at this point I feel the article has somewhat lost its focus. First we were talking about culture wars, now we're talking about transgender recidivism? It contributes to the original point only indirectly, and makes this feel less like a written article and more like a rant.

Overall it's an article that won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree, and doesn't contribute to the discussion.