Gay couples in a Texas restaurant

[Cinjin]

I agree. Morals aren't bigotry. Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as:


If a Christian's morals means they can't engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex that's just fine. However denying the privilege and benefits of legally sanctioned marriage to others based purely on gender while reserving that same privilege for yourself is bigotry.

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.

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.

Incorrect and obviously biased. The denial issued is not for special privilege as your statement suggests, the denial is for equal treatment, of which they do not receive. It is not a "special privilege" to be treated equally.

There is nothing in the anatomy of a man that is made to sex another man naturally. The same is said for females.
Homosexuals by nature can not procreate.

So? That point is moot when debating the definitions of bigotry and toleration. No one is demanding that you become a homosexual or even condone it. Whether or not two people can procreate should not decide whether or not they are issued the same privileges that you are, and it certainly isn't the deciding factor on whether they should be treated with simple human decency and respect.

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.

The definition of bigotry does not hinge on your definition of natural and unnatural ... or anyone's definition for that matter.

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.

Again, you use the term "special right" to defend your own agenda. It is absolutely dishonest. Asking for the rights that everyone else has is not a special right, it's a equal right.

The sex is unnatural in itself. 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.

Millions of heterosexual couples require invitro fertilization, adoption and surrogates, and once again using the term 'unnatural' does not excuse bigotry and intolerance. You are not the great decider of what the entirety of society accepts.

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.

So? This is easily overcome by any couple gay or straight. This is a non-issue.

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.

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.

This is your own homophobic bias. Furthermore, medical science has proven that homosexuality is not a choice, therefore, how can it be completely unnatural. Just because two men/women can't make a child doesn't mean that nature didn't intend them to be that way. Especially when you consider the overwhelming amount of homosexuals in the world. My point is though that you can't ascribe 'natural' and 'unnatural' to validating what should or should not be considered worthy of toleration. I find the worship of silly gods "unnatural." I don't believe in them, they serve no purpose. I personally think that since you can't find one in nature that they are indeed unnatural. Should I then be allowed to yell at a christian to stop praying in a public restaurant? You are using your own bias to justify your own bigotry. Pathetic.