News flash ignoramus, my liberty has been repeatedly attacked by religious organizations. I take every opportunity to point out the fact that these organizations still oppose my rights because they harm me and the people I love for no reason. I am better than the bigots I ridicule because I have done nothing to hurt them beyond saying disrespectful things whereas they oppose my right to marry and adopt (among other things). If you feel that I am being unfair tough, I don't care if you hate people who are progressive and I don't care if you label me a freedom fighter. Such a regressive attitude is utterly disgusting and I have no problem with calling people out for their religious or conservative nonsense.

Additionally, your statement that "Only when they run their mouth too much by insulting and disrespecting the general population. No one is attacking them just for being what they are. They are being attacked because they believe they are allowed to take a shit on people's beliefs,culture, religion and tradition" is still one of the dumbest things I have ever had the misfortune of reading on this forum. You must be extremely sheltered to have never witnessed disriminatory behaviour directed at homosexuals.

Edit: Damn right I am morally superior, I may be disrespectful (rightfully so) but I have never infringed upon the liberties of others. Therefore I am indeed superior to any individual who has opposed a civil rights movement such as marriage equality. I hope my mean old comments are not interpreted as an actual, material attack upon the freedoms of religious individuals for that seems to be causing some confusion. If you take words typed onto a forum to be as great of a threat to liberty as actively preventing marriage and adoption than you are insane.

It's true that marriage was practiced before the Scriptures were wrtten. However, that doesn't matter. God intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman in the beginning, long before the first book of the Old Testament was written. Just because it wasn't recorded in the Scriptures until later does not mean that it isn't true. 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says that if I rape a virgin woman she is forced to marry me. Now, it also says that I am to pay the father 50 shekels of silver to compensate him for the loss of his property. As I do not have 50 shekels of silver may I offer an alternative payment or would that displease God?

Word use does convey attitude; yours was obvious.

I know my own attitude better than you, especially when you're just relentlessly assuming crap just to berate me because once again, you  have no actual arguments.

Empowering people to discriminate is a terrible idea, laws need to be in place to prevent inequality, not license it.

''Empowering'' would be if you allow the law enforcment and goverment institutions to discriminate. I explicitly said I was against that. I said I believe people should have the right to choose for whom to work and for whom not to work for, FOR AYN reason they see fit. To force them to do otherwise, would be to promote slavery.

And I am neither self-loathing, (I quite like myself) media driven, (I have a journalism postgrad and am well aware of how the media works

and as for morally bankrupt, that's rather laughable; since when does favouring fairness and equality make someone morally bankrupt? Excusing discrimination and persecuting people for their orientation, THAT is morally bankrupt.

No, favoring  forcing people to work against thier own beliefs or to shut them down otherwise is morally bankrupt. And I didnt persecute anyone, what the hell are you talking about?