I totally agree. Doesn't that mean you are discriminating against a person who hates something you don't like? That being a person who hated someone because of race or sexuality. My point being, everyone should be able to make their own choice on who they associate with for what every reason they choose without government restrictions. We should just not be able to take violent actions that interfere with anyone's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness..

The Civil Rights immediately lead to quotas, within a few short years. more of those intended consequences

Indeed. But leftists seldom see it that way right Maph?

Again I ask

Explain how it is biologically normal or essential?

Homosexuality is indefinable not natural despite how much you'd like it to be (Parts don't line up for any conceivable biological purpose, remember?)

Also, NEWSFLASH: Neither society nor I have to like or even approve of anything you or I do. This is the homosexual agenda: to force acceptance of their unnatural deviation. You make that point perfectly clear in your words.

Explain how homosexuality has a biological purpose or is essential to the propagation of the species?

There is no limitation placed on the homosexual community in anyway. Anything normal couples have in society can be achieved by homosexual couples by way of legal means. This includes civil unions, transfer of wealth apron death, and power of attorney. What sought by the homosexual agenda is to be considered normal and or natural. Its not either of those things.

Avoid these question like you did the biological one.

How are homosexuals not male or female like everyone else?

How are the existing rights for all human beings not applicable to homosexuals?

agreed to the first part. communities don't get special rights

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."
This is NOT about protecting groups-this is specific to individuals' rights. Please read the first part of the clause....PROHIBITS the making of a law respecting an establishment of religion

'When a group is being specifically targeted for persecution, then they need to be specifically targeted for protection, regardless of what attribute the persecution is based on.'

This is an interesting comment and should not have been voted down.
However, I disagree with it on two grounds:

1. I suggest that the correct word here is not persecution but discrimination. Once this is illegal an Italian restaurant cannot advertise for Italian staff. It leads to absurdity and bullying. Should it be ok or should it be illegal to employ anyone but Italians? The quick answer is that there is already a tax (a fine) on employers who do that- it is the penalty they pay for not employing the best person. The market does that better than government. Now, you will recall some time ago on here there was report of a study on discrimination in employment - it exists, the biggest offenders were government and regulated industry. There, employment criteria give preference to being likeable, fitting in, members of the club, and so on. Actual performance is less important than a pleasant environment with like minded fellows. There is no market mechanism to fine the guilty. Ok, here, short of abolishing government and regulated industry, there should be regulations to ensure the best person gets the job. (The technical term is market failure). Libertarians would disagree with me here. I think you will find there are such already in place, they do not work very well. Often there are quotas to make it seem to be 'fair'. Any quota works in favor of some and against others.
2. Racial etc. persecution does exist, the amount of it today in your and my country I'd guess to be negligible. But what is persecution? Violence is already illegal. Gangs of toughs beat up that group, businesses are confiscated, they are monitored more closely for infringement of laws.
The successful Chinese businessman is 'invited' to play a game of golf with the general or the mayor. They voluntarily agree to bet on the game, big. For 'health' he had better lose. This does not happen here, but in a nation not far away. Ethnic small businesses are targeted to pay protection money -often by gangs of the same ethnicity. All this should be, and already is, illegal.
When there is a group being specifically persecuted in this way, no special law is needed to stop it. Once it was Italians, Jews, Blacks, now gays. The law needed should not be discriminatory- for or against, I agree that there are often enforcement problems, the local police could then be given guidance on how to allocate resources. Attempts to inflict on police recruitment the usual meaningless personality tests favor only the con-artists, selection by quota degrades overall performance.

In summary of my long boring post- bad stuff exists. Big government actions usually make things worse.