Gay couples in a Texas restaurant

[Esquilax]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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!"

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?"

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?

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.

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?

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...