The oppression lies in punishing Christian bakers if they don't provide the service, which they refuse to provide because of their beliefs. I'm not appealing to those who oppose interracial unions, I'm explaining why that's a false analogy (I'm glad you're not endorsing incestuous marriage #theslipperyslopeisreal ). Interesting that you say if I used similar arguments on people who oppose interracial marriage it wouldn't work, since you're putting yourself on a similar keel with those whose view is born of prejudice and/or ignorance. You cite the theory that what causes homosexuality may be connected to another set of genes that confer a strong survival advantage, but you don't post any evidence (no links, books or names of scientists who came up with it) so your argument rings hollow. Even if that theory was true, it's not homosexuality itself that's advantageous. I have the science on my side and you chose to ignore it; ironic since anti-religious people like yourself tend to stereotype religious people like myself as being "anti-science" or "science-deniers". I meant if most or all of the population was homosexual, it'd put the population at risk. Also, I never said they weren't capable of having children only that they seldom do. That bit about in-vitro and similar procedures still proves my point. I said gay people still need something from someone of the opposite sex to produce a baby; for in-vitro, the gay couple still needs either a man’s sperm or a woman’s uterus. I wasn't calling homosexuality a mental illness. In hindsight, the schizophrenia comparison wasn't apt, so I retract that and say like problems arising from autism it can be worked around. The urge isn't sin, acting on it is. I'm not saying beat up gay people, call them names etc... I'm saying address it by pointing out the wrongness not forcing the person to stop or harming them. Also, bisexuals wouldn't have to abstain, they're still attracted to the opposite sex too. I explained why it's not a human right, like the right to vote; people claim voting’s a human right but children, illegal immigrants and convicted felons can't vote. By the way, your "they can't bear children" point also applies to gay couples unless they bring in another person. We're not talking about all laws effecting LBGT people, just gay marriage, so you misrepresent me there.

Christian conservatives are the ones complaining because they (I'm not sure I count as a conservative) are the ones being effected. The Christians bakers will serve gay customers, the only objection being raised is in regards to providing service for gay weddings. It should apply to everyone equally, but as you and I can see it isn't being applied equally.

Actually the example you cite is part of freedom of religion. Public school teachers can't proselytize to students, but neither can they try to make them apostatize. The intent there is so the government can't control people's views on religion, neither by converting them to a religion or enforcing state atheism. What kind of answer is that? My questions was "What counts as oppression?" I know the standard has to come from somewhere, we're just in disagreement over who has ultimate authority over that. Comparing incestuous marriage to interracial marriage is not a 1-to-1 situation. For one, there are no birth defects originating specifically from children being produced from mixed-race unions, while there are birth defects originating from incest. So by that logic, I hope you're not saying that incest should be legal as well? Another thing behind it is that homosexuality is proven to be an aberration even using a scientific, evolutionary perspective. From that perspective, part of the cause has been attributed to a birth defect either where part of the brain doesn't develop properly or a hormone imbalance. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/gay-brothers/480117/ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna Homosexuals rarely reproduce (and even then, they still need someone of the opposite sex to facilitate it), so it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective. Having said that, the choice to act on the urges is still within the person's control (abstinence is a thing), and therein lies the morality of actions. For me, I consider homosexual desires to be between autism and schizophrenia; an aberration but one a person may be able to manage themselves and not something to attack them over. Acting on those urges on the other hand, I compare to an autistic or schizophrenic person committing a violent crime (which needs to be addressed, even if it originated from something that isn't in the person's control) Marriage is not a human right, as I explained in a previous comment; pre-teen children cannot and should not be married, would you call that inequality? So comparing the prohibition of gay marriage to Jim Crow Laws (which denied many rights and enforced segregation - none of which effect gay people not being allowed to marry, which is akin to the law prohibiting under 18's from drinking alcoholic drinks) is a false analogy.

I meant you're projecting about the snowflake traits. Besides, in addition to not fitting the bill, I'm nowhere near a meat locker and it's summer where I'm at jks

I feel sorry for you and how much you're projecting. That meat locker remark was nearly funny.