I honestly hope you're kidding. His statements were full of ignorance. There's a huge difference between freedom of speech and what he said. 

It's like saying "I don't get why Latinos have to sell drugs instead of getting a job for a change". or: "man, I don't get how those fat people just keep eating. Have they tried dieting?" Yes, it's not hate speech per se, but it's ignorance that can have terrible consequences. 

Also, you might feel like this is something "shoved down your throat", but I'm sure many white people said the same thing about black people or even women. Those isses felt like "shoved down some people's throats", because said people didn't give a damn about their fellow-citizens' rights just because it doesn't directly affect them. 

I honestly have little respect for people using the "shoving dowm my throat" remark about anything they don't care for and lack compassion for people they interact with on an everyday basis. What if you were gay and had to fight for your rights? Would you still see it as "shoving it down people's throats"? or do you think that equal rights magically happened by asking politely for them?

Government doesn't make laws on love. First of all love is chemical reaction in the brain that is predetermined to happen just like everything you do. Don't use words that don't exist in reality because it will be emotional debate instead of a rational one.

How is marriage a right? Who makes it a right? Isn't that just your subjective opinion?

       More freedom is always good.

Yeah, always thinking the very same thing. Someone I don't know, somewhere getting married doesn't really affect my life at all, and the gender makes no difference either. I also think that too many people are still seeing marriage as an exclusively religious institution, which it isn't.

Being scared of or offended by gay people is ridiculous and it is shocking to think that here in the "civilized" West, some people still need to protest and march for basic human rights. Despicable.

Funny thing is us heterosexual men don't give a rats ass, personally I don't think it's not right but regardless of what I think it's still your right to choose what you want or be with, so I don't judge but just keep in mind their are far more people that don't agree with this

You're so silly it's funny.

Two questions.

Is human rights subjective and if not prove to me there objective. Because other wise your argument is very circular in the sense you create your own terms then proclaim them true because you personally create the rights in your own head. For example, if I said it's disgusting that I can't marry 11 year old would I be right if I just claimed basic human rights?

Second question. Do you honestly feel people scared of homosexuals? The idea is to protect marriage not because we want gays dead or hate gays. Your attacking a straw man or some nazi group here. I know for a fact I don't hate gay people and that I just disagree with it.

Why respond if you can't answer? It's a basic philosophical question.

Edit: double post sorry. Merge mod if possible!

Marriage doesn't need protection. Homosexuality does not threaten it.

I would beg to differ. What you are doing is re-defining marriage and rights to whatever someone personally feels. Why not allow multiple wives and husbands? Why not allow marriage between animals and humans? Why not with children under the age of 13? Why not with anything. If you re-define basic rights as anyone could do whatever they like because it's right than you have to question why can't just create my own rights. Why are your rights more true than mine?  Why is anything not a right. Your left with everything relative and nothing meanings anything because it's meaningless like Nietzsche would say. 

Is human rights a man made idea in which is completely subjective and if so why not just say your opinion is as neutral as the opposite opinion? Example, did the nazi do anything wrong because they believe humans rights were for there specific people oppose to you who felt the opposite? Is it just a difference in moral opinions on human rights?