Why is it considered morally wrong for homosexual Americans to expect equal rights?

Attempting to answer hate with reason...facepalm.

1) Why is it considered morally wrong for homosexual Americans to expect equal rights?

It isn't. What I find odd, though, is that in ANY given city, county, state or territory of the U.S.A., homosexuals already have ALL of the same rights as do non-homosexuals. That situation is guaranteed by Federal law.

So: I do not consider it wrong for homosexual Americans to expect equal rights. I *do* consider it pretty arrogant for homosexual Americans to expect additional rights be granted at their mere demand when none of their fellow citizens currently enjoy those demanded rights!

2) Why aren't the religious right insisting that divorced people, hateful people, prideful people, and liars should have restricted or fewer rights.

Irrelevant. The "religious right" - and the remainder of Christians - are not publicly demanding that homosexuals have restricted or fewer rights. They are publicly demanding that homosexuals not be granted new rights - rights that are not already enjoyed equally by all citizens.

3) Shouldn't they be fighting for a new class of citizen specifically defined by the sins they commit?

No, they should not. The classification "convicted criminal" already serves that function.

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

I don't consider it morally wrong for homosexual Americans to expect equal rights...I just think it is morally wrong for them to expect differential rights...even to the point that they're willing to redefine the concept that gave another group of people differential rights to incorporate themselves in that concept instead of fighting against the prejudicial concept that is already their enemy.

The concept I'm talking about is "legal marriage" and I find it morally wrong that our government can sanction or actively engage in preferential treatment for ANY group of people based on a personal "lifestyle" choice. At the moment, that preferential treatment is reserved for opposite sex couples...and I can easily understand why homosexuals find the gender of the parties involved to be a discriminatory and pointless characteristic. HOWEVER, I think it is even MORE ridiculous to change that defining characteristic to whether or not the two people have a sexual relationship!!!

If you want me to support your bid for "equal rights", you need to make sure that those rights you're demanding are equal to mine...if you're asking for greater rights than I have, I'm going to continue to cry "foul". Don't you see that this issue has NOTHING to do with the right to get "married"...it has everything to do with all the rights that our government reserves to married people!

If marriage wasn't a legal concept that gives specific legal rights to both parties (e.g., rights ranging from hospital visitation to child custody to inheritance to divorce)...rights that are denied to people who are not married...then I seriously doubt that homosexuals would be fighting for the right to "marry"...they'd just form their lifetime partnerships and call themselves "married" or, more likely, call themselves something completely different just to distinguish themselves from opposite sex couples.

My beef is that it incredibly is ETHICALLY incorrect. i'm an area-born citizen of the u . s . a .. As i'm wholesome and waiting to artwork, I pay an identical taxes as different workers in my earnings selection. And yet, i'm denied each and every of an identical rights as heterosexuals -- i'm no longer able to legally marry my existence companion. for that reason, it fairly is intrinsically incorrect that my tax criminal duty isn't below that of heterosexuals who can get married/divorced as many situations as they choose. it fairly is a extremely common representation i've got used to describe the area to right this moment human beings -- it incredibly is like going to Disneyland. once you pay the admission fee, you could pass on each and every of the rides as many situations as you like. yet while i pass there and pay an identical admission fee, i'm no longer allowed to holiday the Matterhorn, Pirates of the Caribbean, and area Mountain. So via fact those are off-limits to me, I shouldn't could desire to pay the finished admission fee. And as for marriage, i purely can't draw close why it is not allowed. i'm no longer speaking approximately forcing church homes to permit ceremonies, yet what could be incorrect with getting hitched at city hall? in spite of everything, we are purely speaking approximately human beings being conjoined interior the eyes of the regulation, so i do no longer know the way it incredibly is offensive to governments -- whose purely forays into "morality" are top and purely rules coping with criminal acts against others [you recognize, the justice equipment]. i haven't examine the different solutions, yet i'm specific there are some "loving" people who've denounced us. Gotta love those Christians -- they trumpet obnoxiously the international that they are CHRISTIANS, yet then do no longer difficulty with minor concerns like truthfully behaving the way the guy asked. [And does not or no longer it incredibly is exciting that they are putting out here besides -- they woulnd't, um, be hoping to bump into visuals, could they?]

They [the religious right] like to control as many others' lives as possible.

It's not by people who aren't ignorant bigots. And IMO, those people are the only ones with opinions that matter.

it's not...