How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

The law doesn't prohibit any type of sex.

Justice Alito hated that. But, he lost in Lawrence v Texas.

It does have consent requirements, but that's obviously unrelated.

 

No, I'm saying they're creepy.

 

Because for many straight women, overtly lesbian females are creepy. Many straight men have the same visceral reaction to feminine and overtly gay males. It's nature, there's nothing you can do about it. Relax is right

 

OK.

So, if you were a justice of our SC you would rule in favor of the employee who was fired (in the case before the court today).

 

Many men have had visceral reactions to working with or for females in the job environment.

The same goes with white men having visceral reactions to working for those of color. The same can be said of religious differences.

If our rules were based on "visceral reaction" we would be in big trouble, equality wise.

I think your "relax" is the only possible direction for a country such as ours where we believe in equality and equal opportunity.

 

Sorry, not aware of any such.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ivided-over-lgbtq-job-discrimination-n1063886

 

You mean many bigoted straight women find lesbian females creepy.

 

I've never sign a birth certificate for.any of my four kids, so it would be a state thing. Have you bothered to actually read the article or are you just going by my excerpts?

 

Well, you’ve been staring over and over about how the husband is forced to sign his name as the father even if he’s not the father and over and over I’ve asked you for such proof which you have yet to do.

 

Your logic is very convoluted, mine is very simple and clear.

What is point to ban close relatives from marriage?
Apparently marriage is somehow related to sex and procreation.

Actually that is exactly why anti-miscegenation laws (ban on mixing races) prohibited marriage between races.
Because marriage assumed sex and procreation.

Remember!
Not required!
BUT assumed possibility of sex and procreation

I do not understand why people are trying to justify special rights for homosexuals

 

Yep, and smoking dope also against Federal law (still), but dope smokers allowed to get married without any kind of conditions.
Don't you think it is because smoking has nothing to do with sex and procreation while incest does?

 

No idea what your babbling rant was meant to convey.

 

You're worried about male cousins or brothers marrying?

Really?

 

Beyond that, I do not know of any "type of sex" that is against the law when it involves people who can and do consent.

In Lawrance v Texas, Scalia was outraged at his loss, stating that without any prohibitions on same sex behavior, he was confident that same sex marriage would become legal.

I don't know if he was right about the cause/effect of that case, but that argument against same sex marriage definitely died and same sex marriage became legal.

 

I see marriage as creating stable partnerships (hopefully lifelong) that create stable societies. Many of these relationships do have children but not all of them. Marriage for homosexuality will hopefully reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and help settle them down.

 

A talk radio show host said last week, "I had an epiphany last night. I wondered why I should respect transgenders when they don't even respect themselves.
They didn't want to be male or female, shunning science, and tried to "convert" to the other sex. It's absurd and impossible and I have no respect for such nonsense." (Or words to that effect.)

The same can be said for homosexuality. Men who have no use for women are mentally sick and unfit to reproduce. They are Darwinian outcasts. Yet they DEMAND our respect? Please. Stop the nonsense. Stop hating those who see it for the perversion that it truly is. That's bigotry, calling others with a different and historically normal opinion "bigots." No, it's not at all like slavery either. Not remotely.

 

Trans people feel like they are the opposite gender. To be true to themselves and respect themselves, they decide to transition rather than live a lie.

How? How is having a procedure and dressing up as the opposite sex shunning science?

So?

Gender conversion procedures are a real thing and many people are happy with their choice. Why not just let people do what they want to do with their own lives, and only worry about your own?

How is being outside the norm "mentally sick?" This is just another example of a culture of over-diagnosis where a quarter of the population is "mentally ill" for one reason or another for not being like everyone else. I remember when being mentally ill used to mean you couldn't function as an adult.

Actually gay people have the same parts for reproduction that you and I do.

So are old sick people. You are using a classic eugenics argument here.

Correctly identifying bigots doesn't make one a bigot. You shouldn't hate or disrespect people because of their sexual orientation, but instead look at the way they actually treat others and their character. There is so much more to you than who you are attracted to. What you do when a kid is being picked on is so much more important.

 

It's always about men isn't it? There are female homosexuals too you know?

No they demand equal treatment under the law because their taxes are paying for the legal system and, presuming you are an American Citizen, deserve all the same rights as you do. I doubt they give a flying fig about your respect.

Maybe listen to a little less talk radio? It's toxic and consuming. Better to meet people face-to-face and get a sense of who people really are in the real world.

 

Show in our constitution where our founders suggested that our government gets to decide that people may be treated unequally by our government NOT because they did something wrong, but because the general population includes some bigots who just don't like them.

 

So they believe in one god or more? Then they're not an atheist!

 

Zero people care about your idea of respect.

The only perversion here is people like yourself that believe the rights of others should be subject to your absurd nonsense. I don’t understand what is so difficult about the word equality for some of you to comprehend.

 

How are they "mentally sick?"

 

That radio talk show host is an idiot. The rest of the comment from you is nothing but nonsense.

 

I didn't say that, not even from the beginning. The article does mention that as one way that a husband can be considered to have assumed that responsibility. There is no claim it is the only way. The fact still remains, that a husband can end up with the legal responsibility of a child not his through these laws. In most cases he can fight it, if he wants, but in a few instances he cannot, especially if he doesn't act in time.