How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Whose purpose?

So you don't believe in condoms or birth control pills... or even the rhythm method?

 

Qualified thumbs up.

 

For whatever reason, God, Darwin, fissures or bad luck ....

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...v-spreads-less-easily-in-heterosexual-couples

 

I doubt that there is any issue in what the legal institution is called. The only true thing that matters is that it is a single legal institution for all. So if it is a civil union for same sex couples then it is a civil union for opposite sex couple. And of course after that, there is no basis upon which to force anyone to call their relationship by whatever name. So, as they always have had, same sex couple will still have same sex marriage.

 

You realize this applies to same sex couples as well, right?

 

There is no pretending. The vast majority of them do not rape boys. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

 

And that is the exact way homosexuals are born too. More homosexuals are from straight couples than are from gays who have children (via natural or artificial means). In fact, most offspring of gay parents are straight.

 

That ol 'Coloreds Only' water fountain rears its ugly head. The water tastes the same and the treatment process is the same as the fountain across the street. What harm can it do to force those blacks to stand in a different line to get their water, just a few steps away, if it makes whites feel more comfortable? No sir, we will not accept a separate 'civil union' license or certificate, with separate wording. My parents were not 'civil unionized' and they were not civil union partners. My brother did not get 'civil unionized' either. We will not accept a different form at the county clerk's office with different wording from the one handed to everyone else. It's as demeaning as the 'coloreds only' water fountain. Government must treat our legal contract exactly the same.

On the other hand, you can call my marriage anything you want. I will politely but persistently correct you as often as I need to.

 

Exaggerated. The US population is roughly 327 million. Approximately 60 percent support SSM. That means about 196 million supports SSM and only around 131 million were "overruled".

 

I am confused....
We started talking about HS as a perversion
Then as immorality
But what seems to upset you is that HS seem to want to be treated like everyone else is treated?
And you feel that you have a right to convey your contempt of HS by ostracizing and humiliating them?

 

Actually that is his right. Mind you it only extends to his personally ostracizing people. And quite frankly there is no right to NOT be humiliated or offended.

 

I am straight

Own a business employing 27 people, minimum job warehouse manager's making $20 per hour.

My fiance (28 and I (37) have no desire to ever have children.

Is sex for us a perversion because "it's primary purpose is reproduction"?

Sex for my fiance and I is a bonding experience, a leisure experience, a stress relief experience and definitely a creative experience.

My fiance and I also do very well for ourselves and pay in LOTS of taxes. Our better sex life, makes us happier (much happier I might add), which makes us work much harder, bringing in more tax dollars and public good/service, making America better.

Why is this different for a homosexual? Why would you call this a perversion?

You are creating barriers where they don't need to be put and adding hate into a discussion that needs no more of it.

Most Trump supporters are vehemently in support of gay right's, I hope the OP agree's to call them more of a "Republican" than a "Trump supporter". Because I don't feel the OP properly represents the MAGA stance here. They represent the religious Right that the media likes to paint everyone on the Left as.

We are Lions

We want freedom

For every American

EVERY

 

Yes, no right not to be humiliated
Otoh, no right to whine when people you humiliate react
And... as these things go.... you can detest people for being HS in the course of everyday life...
But, when you have a store that offers a public service
You do not necessarily have the right to humiliate people as you might is you met as private individuals

You know.... maybe you hate ****ing black people
You detest them
Think they are all criminals and are basically monkeys
... you have a right to have these opinions
And you have a right to express those opinions
But if you run a restaurant.... you cannot post a sign that says low life ******s are not served here
And apparently if you own a cake shop, you cannot post a sign that says you serve cakes.... but not butt stuffing fruitcakes
Apparently it has to do with running a public accommodation

So.... then the question becomes.
Have the posters on this topic been unable to express their contempt for HS here? No
Have they been out walking in public and been restricted from expressing their opinions? No
Have they been required not to humiliate people? No

So, pray tell.....
What is the complaint that they have?
As far as i can tell, they do not like uppity HS pretending like they are equal citizens.
They want to make sure that those uppity HS understand they are not entitled to the same rights and treatment as anybody else. Am i missing something where these homophobes are being mistreated?
...

 

14th amendment.

I know it just burns your ass that the constitution gives homosexuals the same rights you have. I take great joy at the constant misery you are in over it.

 

The supreme court ruled that marriage was a constitutional right years ago. The ruling was part of the ruling against bans on interracial marriage. In the same ruling, that ruled that states can not prevent travel to and from their jurisdictions by US citizens. This was because states would pass laws banning their residents from leaving the state for the purpose of taking part in interracial marriages from other states.

The ruling in 2015 against state gay marriage bans was based on the fact that states which had such bans did not build a sufficient case as to why same-sex couples should be excluded from the constitutional right to marry. So the legal argument is settled You are wrong.

 

Out of curiosity, since you are using HS for homosexual, how would you denote heterosexual?

 

Actually, the bulk of the Constitution is about them - because they are American Citizens first. What's so hard for you to understand about that. If you're born in this country, the first thing you become is an American Citizen - with all the rights that come with that. Those rights don't suddenly disappear because down the road you find you are gay.

 

Hetro
Although usually it is not necessary to identify the sexual preferences of hetros

 

HtS

 

Well, thanks for allowing me to have free speech. Very generous. But if you are married under state law, I will of course call you "married."

 

1) I am not "wrong". I cited the chief Justice's opinion verbatim and said that I agree with it.

2) All of this is a matter of opinion, even at the supreme court level.

3) One should take no comfort in a guarantee of rights established by a majority of 9 (i.e., 5) old lawyers wearing black robes.

Or would you have said there is no right to marry if those same old lawyers in robes said there was none?

 

According to the current supreme court. You going to change your mind when the supreme court's composition changes, as it inevitably will?

 

Yes, I do.

 

Out of curiosity, were any of the proponents of gay marriage here outraged when Hillary Clinton and Obama came out in favor of civil unions? If so, why exactly?

How was your opinion better than theirs?

 

Edited after re-reading your entire post.