It is so emotional as they are stridently seeking to gain sanction for their lifestyle choice. While most people would be perfectly fine if the LGBT people would just keep their lifestyle choice behind closed doors, as do most hetero's, instead they feel the need to throw it in people's faces. They insist on validation of their choice by assuming the veil of legitimacy afforded what the world and nature has considered normal since the beginning of time.

At some point, not only will they demand state sanction, but they will demand sanction from religion as well. They have already done so from the more progressive religious sects. When they have achieved this from Islam, they will have finished their task (good luck with that one).

Actually, you're mistaken, at least partly. The very first colonists, those in the Plymouth Colony, would have found slavery abhorrent. Many of them were fleeing their own type of segregation - that of religion - and since they needed people who were not of their religious beliefs to fill out the ship manifest to make the journey viable, they were very tolerant of others.

2) At the time of the revolution and later crafting of the Constitution, neither slavery nor segregation was the norm across the entire span of colonies, only in the south. Many of the founding fathers found slavery to be abhorrent as well, yet knew that it was an integral part of the economy of the south and so to form the union and to lay the foundation for the eventual end of slavery, they crafted these documents very carefully. They laid the groundwork for the end of slavery in the Declaration of Independence in declaring all men to be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The constitution itself does not mention slavery per se.

3) You make sweeping statements that are not supported in fact. It is the case today that there is still slavery in the world. Does that mean that it is still logical?

4) Let's see, the only biologically natural way for there to be the creation of human beings - and hence the survival of the human race - is through the union of males and females, so yeah, I find that to be a logical union.

5) I've said here before, marriage has no business being regulated by the state. The Fed gov't has no constitutional authority to do so. Many of the states do not have that authority directly listed in their constitutions. "Marriage" is a religious action that has been coopted by the state in order to bestow favors. If anything you should be arguing like me that the gov't has no business at all in marriage and should extricate itself from all such entanglements.

6) If you don't like it here, you are free to leave. Nobody is enslaving you to the Gulch.

When a serial killer breaks into your house and tries to kill you, but you pull out your gun and kill him instead, we recognize that isn't murder, but self-defense. Yes, you are doing the same thing to him that he was trying to do to you (i.e. kill him) but we recognize there is a distinction between attacking and defending, between initiation and retaliation.

When Eich donated money to a hate group and thereby helped fund persecution, he was initiating force. Therefore, any political or social action the LGBT community takes against him afterwords is a retaliation, and therefore a justifiable act of self-defense.

A group which is denied equal rights cannot truly participate in society. They cannot truly live. You may not have killed their body, but you have crushed their spirit. You have killed their soul.

I only advocate a tolerance for all people. I do not advocate a tolerance for all belief systems. Some belief systems should, in fact, be radically and fundamentally altered, or even abandoned entirely.

He donated money to a group that wanted to deny equal rights to the LGBT community. As far as I'm concerned, wanting to deny equal rights to a minority group is not much different from wanting to kill the members of that group.

Not necessarily. Killing someone who's trying to kill you is self-defense.

http://www.amazon.com/Pink-Triangle-Nazi...

If he had said he didn't think gay people should get married, that would be speech. But he went further than that: he donated money to a hate group. The minute he did that, he crossed the line from speech to action.

He can SAY whatever he wants, sure, but that doesn't mean he can DO whatever he wants, at least not without consequences.

Why isn't marriage a right? Seems like it ought to be a right to me. Everyone deserves to have a loving life partner.

Did he? I know Hitler claimed that the Jews were a threat to the German people (though he wasn't the first to say it – antisemitism had been brewing in Germany for nearly 400 years, ever since Martin Luther wrote his infamous treatise, "On the Jews and their Lies" in 1543), but I've never read that Hitler ever used the analogy of a home invader as a method of riling up the German people against the Jews. But then again, I haven't really ever read a vast majority of what Hitler wrote, so I suppose it's possible that he could have used that particular analogy somewhere. If you're aware of a specific quotation, could you provide me with the reference?

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Hitler, there's a very important history book that relates directly to the topic at hand, and which I think everyone here ought to read. It's called "The Pink Triangle," by Richard Plant:

http://www.amazon.com/Pink-Triangle-Nazi...

Cheers! ;)

Not necessarily. Whether a monetary donation constitutes an initiation of force or not depends on what the cause is that's being donated to.