Gay couples in a Texas restaurant

[Esquilax]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

The sex is unnatural in itself.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?