(February 26, 2013 at 1:28 am)Nobody Wrote: Their denial isn't based purely on gender at all. The sexes involved in homosexual relationship already have civil rights and are not discriminated against because of their gender.

Yup. That's why there's still states where one can lose their job for being gay.

Quote:The denial is based on affording a special privilege to unnatural deviant sexual behaviors, amid actors in the commission of said behaviors, who expect to be taken as equals and entitled to behave unnaturally, while acquiring the government privileges, benefits, and exemptions they declare are an entitlement because their unnatural passions should be seen as equal to that of heterosexuals.

Ugh.

So, is marriage a "special right" for heterosexual couples too? If not, why not? Why do heteros get exclusive use of marriage?

Also, for something to be unnatural it'd have to not appear in nature. For one thing, humans are a part of nature, but if that isn't enough, then here's a list of animals observed doing the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ani...l_behavior

Seriously, do people just not care what the definition of natural is, when they start making claims about things humans do being unnatural? Why do we get a special dispensation from being a part of nature?

Quote:There is nothing in the anatomy of a man that is made to sex another man naturally. The same is said for females.

Having seen both live and in person, I beg to differ. You just need to stop seeing sex as just penis in vagina, and to stop giving such special significance to the same, since that's undeserved.

Quote:Homosexuals by nature can not procreate.

Oh, I get what you're saying! We should restrict the marriage rights of the elderly and infertile! Oh good, I thought you were just being bigoted.

Quote:The discrimination here is in claiming passion has a civil right to exercise itself regardless of how unnatural it is.
Sex is not a civil right entitlement.

I feel like I need to say this, because nobody else has yet: who the fuck said homosexual relationships are just about sex? In my experience, it's been anti-gay bigots that are the most focused on gay sex, not gay people themselves.

And if homosexual relationships are all sex and nothing else, then why isn't the same true of heterosexual sex?

Quote:The actors in homosexual relationships have civil rights as individuals and as Americans. What they want is the special right to enter into a marriage for all that that means that is above and beyond individuality when it enshrines relationship and sexual behavior and potential procreation.

And now you'd need to provide a reason why only straight relationships and sexual behavior should be socially advanced, beyond the already debunked procreation argument.

Quote:The sex is unnatural in itself.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote: And any children that would be brought into the relationship would enter through unnatural methods, i.e. foreign intercession beyond those who are intimately involved in the relationship being physically, anatomically, biologically incapable of being the genetic bearers of their own offspring.
i.e. two men can not have children together. Nor can two women. It requires in vitro fertilization by a donor outside the relationship in the case of homosexual males, via surrogate. And in the case of lesbians, it requires a male sperm donor and implantation into one of the women in the relationship, if they wish to bear their own offspring.

And again, why is this acceptable within straight infertile couples, but not within gay ones?

Quote:In these methods, the child itself can be a product of an anonymous donor and thereby be denied knowing who one part of their ancestral heritage and genetics, belong to. Which can be complicated in the event that information becomes medically necessary for them later on.

Sounds like you've got an issue with sperm banks, not gay people.

Quote:It's a matter of approving the unnatural, because the actors involved believe they are entitled to pursuit of unnatural desires simply because they feel same sex sexual attraction. And the pardon that's expected is that they're consensual in acting on those desires regardless of the fact they are unnatural. And as such, rather than people being able to freely opine homosexuality is unnatural, they're labeled bigot! While to avoid that label they're suppose to tolerate what is not natural.

When they opine that, they're also wrong! Crazy!

And yeah, when a person continues to hold an opinion that is demonstrably wrong despite all available facts for no reason other than their personal opinion despite the fact that they know it hurts people, then that's bigotry.

Quote:It's convoluted and disingenuous for a homosexual advocate community to argue the merits of tolerating homosexuals, while decrying and being intolerant of those who object to homosexuals having special privilege due to their unnatural sexual libido.

Once again, it's about as much about sex as heterosexual relationships are based on sex.

And also, you're making a special exception for criticism based on orientation: in what other situation would you be okay with someone outright criticizing you in an overbearing and self righteous manner?

The basic point is that there is no legitimate secular reason why members of the LGBT community should be set below heterosexual people, any that hold any ground whatsoever encompass other groups that most people are mortified to imply. Like denying marriage to the elderly and infertile.
The issue is not like that of the modern hardline feminist, who generally believes that women should be placed over men. LGBT advocates want equality for both sides, hetero and otherwise. The fact that someone speaks out against intolerance of homosexuality doesn't automatically mean they decry heterosexual relationships, it means that they're decrying bigotry, which is what it is.

(February 26, 2013 at 3:17 am)Ryantology Wrote:

(February 25, 2013 at 11:08 pm)Nobody Wrote: I think you'd make a better point if you didn't disrespect the topic with such drivel as "rooinin sankitty" in your speech. It's isn't cool. It just shows you don't respect the dialog so how can you espouse respect for tolerance?

The value of my point is in no way determined by how I choose to frame it. I do not 'respect the dialog' because I do not recognize the necessity of the dialog. This is not a topic which should be up for debate.

Well then, if that's true and you're true to your word you should not engage in this debate thread should you?

(February 26, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Nobody Wrote:

(February 26, 2013 at 3:17 am)Ryantology Wrote: The value of my point is in no way determined by how I choose to frame it. I do not 'respect the dialog' because I do not recognize the necessity of the dialog. This is not a topic which should be up for debate.

Well then, if that's true and you're true to your word you should not engage in this debate thread should you?

Since when was this a debate thread?

(February 26, 2013 at 7:44 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 26, 2013 at 1:28 am)Nobody Wrote: Their denial isn't based purely on gender at all. The sexes involved in homosexual relationship already have civil rights and are not discriminated against because of their gender.

Yup. That's why there's still states where one can lose their job for being gay.

Name those States please.

I had a reply all set to post and I went to check on another tab and left this one after minimizing it, and the whole response cleared.
So rather than go to all that trouble of replying again point for point, I'll say this.

It's telling to the issue of homosexual activism that seeks equal rights and civil equality,while hoping to prosecute by law those who don't agree to revoke their moral standards, or religious ideologies, and instead tolerate what is otherwise intolerable to them.

Homosexuals could have the right to civil unions, and those unions could be contracted to include the exact rights and privileges that are presently afforded in the heterosexual civil contract of marriage. However, many do not want that. They demand the right to have 'marriage' printed in the language of their unions contracts.
When in truth after a civil union ceremony they would be free to call themselves 'married', if they wished.

However, having that inclusion into the civil contract that is marriage, would entitle homosexuals the right to violate the first amendment rights of religions and their institutions, in the event those institutions (churches) refused to agree to preside over a homosexual marriage ceremony in the church.

The religious bigot homosexual therefore, isn't so much focused on simply achieving a civil right to be equal as a homosexually active citizen who already enjoys civil rights as an individual. Rather, they want the legal right to violate the civil rights of others in the course of those homosexuals objecting to people who do not tolerate or approve homosexuality. It's a heterophobia, and a bigotry amid the homosexual community that makes itself known in such pursuits.

If there was a modicum of respect for civil rights in general, homosexuals wouldn't resort to such behaviors as to pursue legal action against those who stand by their civil right to freedom in religion.
When religious tradition and bible scripture decrees homosexuality is an abomination, the first amendment protection guaranteed the religious in this country should not ever be able to be violated by homosexuals who seek to sue those churches, due to their religious beliefs!

If it's a matter of freedom and civil right, religions should be entitled to the right that predates any the homosexual community seek to achieve to date or in future, to be protected under the first amendment and hold to their faith without having to be persecuted, harassed, terrorized, and intimidated by radical extremist homosexual religious bigots who demand and expect the civil right once they achieve equality in marriage.

Homosexuals example themselves in part and in select groups, to bear an agenda that wants payback on the straight community once they can use the weight of the law to exact it.
They play the victim, but in truth they're the aggressor. They want to be able to legally force people out of their free right to opinion and religious beliefs. They want to make people tolerate deviant unnatural behaviors, when those same people otherwise stand morally opposed.

And no matter how a bisexual wants to frame it, even going so far as to bring animals into the discussion, homosexuality is not a natural biologically accommodating sex act.

With regard to your citing homosexual animal behavior in a debate about homosexual rights, I'll say this; As soon as animals can enter into marriage contracts, lobby their political representatives, and march for civil rights equality, you'll have a point.
As it stands, that you equate animal consciousness to that of humans makes a point all it's own.

You can call people who stand by their moral standards and personal opinions anything you like. It just goes to show you don't respect people having the right to disagree with homosexuality and it having the special right to be considered equal to straights, which it's not.

Healthy heterosexuals can procreate. Healthy homosexuals never will.
To interject that somehow infertile straight couples are equal to homosexuals who seek foreign methods to bring children into their relationship is an extraneous implication.

In and of itself, couples in a marriage who want to procreate and are healthy can. Homosexuals by nature can not. Just because they can circumvent nature in order to bring children into a relationship doesn't mean that's a natural process in the least. And to think comparing infertile straight couples to fertile homosexuals makes a point that dismisses objections to homosexual marriage, is intellectually dishonest.
There is research aplenty as to how homosexual marriage would impact a free society.
And you don't have to like the term, 'unnatural', for it to remain valid when referring to homosexual sex. It is biologically aberrant. How's that? Better?
The anus is not meant to receive a penis! It's meant to evacuate the bowels.
One shouldn't have to explain basic sex education 101 so that someone understands the biological processes that occur and why during heterosexual sexual arousal. And why two people of the same sex are then in direct opposition to that natural biological cycle.

People not have to agree that homosexuality is normal or entitled to the special right that then permits the homosexual to violate others civil rights.
Morality isn't bigotry. Homosexuals can sling that word around all they like, but in the course of pursuing their extremist agenda they example heterophobia, and religious bigotry, even Christophobia, to be specific .

One doesn't gain support in their pursuit of equality while demonstrating the predisposition that forewarns once they have it they'll seek to overthrow others right to civil individuality.

The present day map of States that have gone so far as to amend their State Constitutions to forbid homosexual marriage and/or civil unions, demonstrates that contrary to homosexual bigots agenda, and lying propaganda to the contrary of the true facts, the majority of Americans do not support homosexuals, as a minority community, having the right to special rights.
Probably because what's occurred in those States wherein homosexuals are entitled to marry or enter into civil unions, certain activists among them have persecuted and sought to legally muzzle the civil rights of heterosexuals in certain key areas of community.

And they've even openly disrespected the religious as they flaunt their behaviors intending to make a spectacle of themselves while claiming the title of victim, when it's not tolerated.

I'm in no wise religious. However, claiming ones self a victim and then acting the aggressor and religious bigot, is no way to further the civil rights movement for the homosexual community, when such behaviors as is demonstrated by more than a few homosexuals stands to forewarn those watching about the contrast in respect for non-homosexual's civil rights.

Homosexual bigots don't make a very good first impression.

Same-Sex "Marriage" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">

Quote:The denial is based on affording a special privilege to unnatural deviant sexual behaviors, amid actors in the commission of said behaviors, who expect to be taken as equals and entitled to behave unnaturally, while acquiring the government privileges, benefits, and exemptions they declare are an entitlement because their unnatural passions should be seen as equal to that of heterosexuals.

Ugh.

So, is marriage a "special right" for heterosexual couples too? If not, why not? Why do heteros get exclusive use of marriage?

Also, for something to be unnatural it'd have to not appear in nature. For one thing, humans are a part of nature, but if that isn't enough, then here's a list of animals observed doing the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ani...l_behavior

Seriously, do people just not care what the definition of natural is, when they start making claims about things humans do being unnatural? Why do we get a special dispensation from being a part of nature?

Quote:There is nothing in the anatomy of a man that is made to sex another man naturally. The same is said for females.

Having seen both live and in person, I beg to differ. You just need to stop seeing sex as just penis in vagina, and to stop giving such special significance to the same, since that's undeserved.

Quote:Homosexuals by nature can not procreate.

Oh, I get what you're saying! We should restrict the marriage rights of the elderly and infertile! Oh good, I thought you were just being bigoted.

Quote:The discrimination here is in claiming passion has a civil right to exercise itself regardless of how unnatural it is.
Sex is not a civil right entitlement.

I feel like I need to say this, because nobody else has yet: who the fuck said homosexual relationships are just about sex? In my experience, it's been anti-gay bigots that are the most focused on gay sex, not gay people themselves.

And if homosexual relationships are all sex and nothing else, then why isn't the same true of heterosexual sex?

Quote:The actors in homosexual relationships have civil rights as individuals and as Americans. What they want is the special right to enter into a marriage for all that that means that is above and beyond individuality when it enshrines relationship and sexual behavior and potential procreation.

And now you'd need to provide a reason why only straight relationships and sexual behavior should be socially advanced, beyond the already debunked procreation argument.

Quote:The sex is unnatural in itself.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote: And any children that would be brought into the relationship would enter through unnatural methods, i.e. foreign intercession beyond those who are intimately involved in the relationship being physically, anatomically, biologically incapable of being the genetic bearers of their own offspring.
i.e. two men can not have children together. Nor can two women. It requires in vitro fertilization by a donor outside the relationship in the case of homosexual males, via surrogate. And in the case of lesbians, it requires a male sperm donor and implantation into one of the women in the relationship, if they wish to bear their own offspring.

And again, why is this acceptable within straight infertile couples, but not within gay ones?

Quote:In these methods, the child itself can be a product of an anonymous donor and thereby be denied knowing who one part of their ancestral heritage and genetics, belong to. Which can be complicated in the event that information becomes medically necessary for them later on.

Sounds like you've got an issue with sperm banks, not gay people.

Quote:It's a matter of approving the unnatural, because the actors involved believe they are entitled to pursuit of unnatural desires simply because they feel same sex sexual attraction. And the pardon that's expected is that they're consensual in acting on those desires regardless of the fact they are unnatural. And as such, rather than people being able to freely opine homosexuality is unnatural, they're labeled bigot! While to avoid that label they're suppose to tolerate what is not natural.

When they opine that, they're also wrong! Crazy!

And yeah, when a person continues to hold an opinion that is demonstrably wrong despite all available facts for no reason other than their personal opinion despite the fact that they know it hurts people, then that's bigotry.

Quote:It's convoluted and disingenuous for a homosexual advocate community to argue the merits of tolerating homosexuals, while decrying and being intolerant of those who object to homosexuals having special privilege due to their unnatural sexual libido.

Once again, it's about as much about sex as heterosexual relationships are based on sex.

And also, you're making a special exception for criticism based on orientation: in what other situation would you be okay with someone outright criticizing you in an overbearing and self righteous manner?
[/quote]

(February 26, 2013 at 7:14 pm)Nobody Wrote: However, having that inclusion into the civil contract that is marriage, would entitle homosexuals the right to violate the first amendment rights of religions and their institutions, in the event those institutions (churches) refused to agree to preside over a homosexual marriage ceremony in the church.

Bullfuckingshit.

Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. It is not something religion invented or owns. To say that it would violate first amendment rights, and insinuate that religious organisations have any rights over what a government grants to people as marriage, is down right fucking bat shit crazy.

I'd reply to more of your points but I have a habit of not being able to read enormous amounts of uneducated drivel.

(February 26, 2013 at 7:24 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(February 26, 2013 at 7:14 pm)Nobody Wrote: However, having that inclusion into the civil contract that is marriage, would entitle homosexuals the right to violate the first amendment rights of religions and their institutions, in the event those institutions (churches) refused to agree to preside over a homosexual marriage ceremony in the church.

Bullfuckingshit.

Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage. It is not something religion invented or owns. To say that it would violate first amendment rights, and insinuate that religious organisations have any rights over what a government grants to people as marriage, is down right fucking bat shit crazy.

I'd reply to more of your points but I have a habit of not being able to read enormous amounts of uneducated drivel.

Fuggedaboudit Napolean. Haven't you figured it out yet? He is morally superior to you.

His moral code is the only correct one and you are a silly, morally deficient, cromagnon whiner if you can't see it.

If you don't know what true morality is and don't know how to stand up for your morals, just ask him, he'll be happy to put you on the right path.

(February 25, 2013 at 1:22 am)Ryantology Wrote:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JibZ2U3o-M&feature=youtu.be

---

It's kind of heartwarming, assuming you have a heart.

Firstly, thank you for posting this, I found it moving. I wanted to keep context for what I'm about to say...

When I see things like this it makes me wonder, to what end?

Obvious issues aside, it seems it is in our nature to find a reason to subjugate others. Emotionally, intellectually, physically, psychologically, financially, morally, fashion, cars, salary, houses, shoes, gadgets... the list is seemingly endless and I see it every day.

Is a totally tolerant society possible, is it what we really want or need and if so where do we draw a line? If we eliminate racism and homophobia what will take its place, if anything? Is tolerance in and of itself an act or display of superiority? What are the social and personal drivers behind tolerance and what does it seek to achieve? Is it to assuage liberal guilt?

I don't have the answers to any of these questions but it seems to me this is a better place than most to ask these questions. I'd like to try and unearth reasons for both tollerence and intollerence, perhaps through honest and open dialogue we can root out the imperative that is at the heart of it all, if there is one.

Thoughts welcome.


MM

(February 26, 2013 at 7:14 pm)Nobody Wrote: Name those States please.

I'll do you one better. Here's a map: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A22sThNCYAA7qkO.jpg

Oh, and that's not some archaic artifact from the past. That's a map from September last year.

Quote:It's telling to the issue of homosexual activism that seeks equal rights and civil equality,while hoping to prosecute by law those who don't agree to revoke their moral standards, or religious ideologies, and instead tolerate what is otherwise intolerable to them.

You can still have your religious ideologies, but you can't discriminate based on them. That's the law. And if you want to hold bigoted beliefs, then you have to be prepared for the fallout of that, just like racist folks have to deal with the consequences there. Where do you get this idea that the marriage equality movement wants to prosecute everyone? You're just flat out wrong. Certainly, we'd want government agencies who discriminate to change, but as for private entities... they can just deal with what happens as a result of having unpopular beliefs.

I find it telling that your main complaint is that you can no longer be a freewheeling, discriminatory bully without consequences, though. That's interesting.

Quote:Homosexuals could have the right to civil unions, and those unions could be contracted to include the exact rights and privileges that are presently afforded in the heterosexual civil contract of marriage. However, many do not want that. They demand the right to have 'marriage' printed in the language of their unions contracts.
When in truth after a civil union ceremony they would be free to call themselves 'married', if they wished.

Historically, having one standard for most of the people, and another for a minority group, ends up working out terribly for the minority. I believe it was called segregation. Beyond that, you still haven't provided a reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to just get married. Why is it just for heteros, to you?

Quote:However, having that inclusion into the civil contract that is marriage, would entitle homosexuals the right to violate the first amendment rights of religions and their institutions, in the event those institutions (churches) refused to agree to preside over a homosexual marriage ceremony in the church.

You are wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. In states where gay marriage is legal, churches can already refuse to marry gay people, without legal sanctions. However, they do have to deal with the social ones. Unless you can name for me one church that is currently being sued for refusing to run a gay marriage, then I'll have to conclude that you're flat out lying.

Quote:The religious bigot homosexual therefore, isn't so much focused on simply achieving a civil right to be equal as a homosexually active citizen who already enjoys civil rights as an individual. Rather, they want the legal right to violate the civil rights of others in the course of those homosexuals objecting to people who do not tolerate or approve homosexuality. It's a heterophobia, and a bigotry amid the homosexual community that makes itself known in such pursuits.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know I was talking to a simpleton. Because if you really believe that, you must just be an idiot.

Quote:If there was a modicum of respect for civil rights in general, homosexuals wouldn't resort to such behaviors as to pursue legal action against those who stand by their civil right to freedom in religion.

Name one. Give me just one single case where it's not warranted. One.

Quote:When religious tradition and bible scripture decrees homosexuality is an abomination, the first amendment protection guaranteed the religious in this country should not ever be able to be violated by homosexuals who seek to sue those churches, due to their religious beliefs!

Several states have legal homosexual marriage. Hell, several countries do. Find me an example of a single church whose ability to express their religious beliefs have been threatened by this, or admit you're talking out your ass.

Quote:If it's a matter of freedom and civil right, religions should be entitled to the right that predates any the homosexual community seek to achieve to date or in future, to be protected under the first amendment and hold to their faith without having to be persecuted, harassed, terrorized, and intimidated by radical extremist homosexual religious bigots who demand and expect the civil right once they achieve equality in marriage.

Actually, I find it interesting that in this long, wrongheaded, emotionally charged geyser of idiocy, you never once found the time to support your arguments with facts. Why spend all this time writing without providing a single real world example, unless... oh right, you don't have any.

Quote:Homosexuals example themselves in part and in select groups, to bear an agenda that wants payback on the straight community once they can use the weight of the law to exact it.
They play the victim, but in truth they're the aggressor. They want to be able to legally force people out of their free right to opinion and religious beliefs. They want to make people tolerate deviant unnatural behaviors, when those same people otherwise stand morally opposed.

Proof or STFU.

Quote:And no matter how a bisexual wants to frame it, even going so far as to bring animals into the discussion, homosexuality is not a natural biologically accommodating sex act.

Why do you prize penis in vagina sex so much anyway? It's not the be all and end all of sex. And why are you so focused on gay sex anyway? Nobody else seems to be, just you bigots...

Quote:With regard to your citing homosexual animal behavior in a debate about homosexual rights, I'll say this; As soon as animals can enter into marriage contracts, lobby their political representatives, and march for civil rights equality, you'll have a point.
As it stands, that you equate animal consciousness to that of humans makes a point all it's own.

First point, humans are animals, dipshit. Second, your argument was that homosexuality was unnatural. The moment I prove you wrong, you move the goalposts like any good dishonest bigot would. What a surprise.

I'm just glad it's all here in writing, so that everyone can see what a dishonest fucking coward you are.

Quote:You can call people who stand by their moral standards and personal opinions anything you like. It just goes to show you don't respect people having the right to disagree with homosexuality and it having the special right to be considered equal to straights, which it's not.

"Mommy, those mean gay people won't let me call them names and bully them without fighting back anymore! WAAAH!"

Quote:Healthy heterosexuals can procreate. Healthy homosexuals never will.
To interject that somehow infertile straight couples are equal to homosexuals who seek foreign methods to bring children into their relationship is an extraneous implication.

Only because it's a troublesome contradiction in your argument that you can't lie to get around, I suppose. Us people with normal, rationally functioning brains will continue to see it as proof that you're a lying dick.

Quote:In and of itself, couples in a marriage who want to procreate and are healthy can. Homosexuals by nature can not. Just because they can circumvent nature in order to bring children into a relationship doesn't mean that's a natural process in the least. And to think comparing infertile straight couples to fertile homosexuals makes a point that dismisses objections to homosexual marriage, is intellectually dishonest.
There is research aplenty as to how homosexual marriage would impact a free society.

Funny how you haven't provided even a shred of this plentiful research, then. Also, what does procreation have to do with marriage? Are you saying that the infertile and elderly shouldn't be allowed to marry either, or are you willing to admit that it's a moot point?

Quote:And you don't have to like the term, 'unnatural', for it to remain valid when referring to homosexual sex. It is biologically aberrant. How's that? Better?

Animals do it too. And, I can't stress this enough, but humans are part of nature too, fuckface.

Quote:The anus is not meant to receive a penis! It's meant to evacuate the bowels.

Three things: One, nobody here is mentioning anal sex but you. Gay relationships aren't solely predicated on anal sex. For one, that focuses only on male gays.

Two: Having been involved in a few gay relationships, I really do beg to differ. And are you against straight anal sex, too?

Three: Before you make that argument about bowels, I'd remind you that you piss out of your dick, but you have no problem sticking that inside a woman, I bet.

Quote:One shouldn't have to explain basic sex education 101 so that someone understands the biological processes that occur and why during heterosexual sexual arousal. And why two people of the same sex are then in direct opposition to that natural biological cycle.

It's the same process of sexual arousal, just focused upon a member of the same sex. What are you going on about?

Quote:People not have to agree that homosexuality is normal or entitled to the special right that then permits the homosexual to violate others civil rights.

Care to explain to us all how wanting exactly the same rights that heterosexuals currently enjoy is a "special right?"

Quote:Morality isn't bigotry. Homosexuals can sling that word around all they like, but in the course of pursuing their extremist agenda they example heterophobia, and religious bigotry, even Christophobia, to be specific .

Why not make a single cogent argument as to the harms homosexuality causes, before being so quick to label your bigotry as moral?

Quote:One doesn't gain support in their pursuit of equality while demonstrating the predisposition that forewarns once they have it they'll seek to overthrow others right to civil individuality.

That's the kind of statement one needs to prove, or else you just sound like a crazy ranting homeless person.

Quote:The present day map of States that have gone so far as to amend their State Constitutions to forbid homosexual marriage and/or civil unions, demonstrates that contrary to homosexual bigots agenda, and lying propaganda to the contrary of the true facts, the majority of Americans do not support homosexuals, as a minority community, having the right to special rights.
Probably because what's occurred in those States wherein homosexuals are entitled to marry or enter into civil unions, certain activists among them have persecuted and sought to legally muzzle the civil rights of heterosexuals in certain key areas of community.

I suppose I'd just be repeating myself by asking you to prove these things by now, huh?

Quote:And they've even openly disrespected the religious as they flaunt their behaviors intending to make a spectacle of themselves while claiming the title of victim, when it's not tolerated.

Right, because demanding not to be discriminated against is flaunting, now. Grow the fuck up.

Jeez, I don't think I've ever seen a bigger pile of disingenuous, evidence-less bullshit in my life...

I stayed up and watched like all of these one night. i love this stuff. make me happy to know people are more accepting of other people and will defend others.