How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

That was you drawing yourself in by making a jab.

You seem to be very confused, angry, perhaps even drunk, and doing a lot of self projection in this thread.
SCOTUS ruled and Gay Marriage is legal. It is you who has no care for the law.

Oh wait, did SCOTUS rule that incestuous marriage is legal?

You clearly need to take the edge off and have a cup of decaf. Angry is not a good look.

 

The observation clearly springs from a perceptual deficiency on your end, which is most likely a convenient contrivance in defense of your intellectually and morally bankrupt position.

lol

We're all aware of that, so you might spare us all the mindless repetition.

Seeing there is no such thing and never will be...

...any pronouncement along these lines is properly regarded as idiotic.

Get real, you couldn't cite a constitutional provision empowering SCOTUS to legalize "SSM" federally to save your life.

If it had, presumably you would not consider it a perversion. That, at any rate, is the sort of thinking - or whatever passes as such - that can be expected from those for whom America's founding principles hold as much meaning as the works of Shakespeare hold for a warthog.

I'm doing just fine, trust me.

 

"Marriage benefits" are not allotted specifically to homosexuals, therefore, they are not "special privileges" at all. And what does it have to do with me in either case?

 

There are no "marriage benefits for gays". They get the same marriage benefits as heterosexuals.

So you mean that if you have sex with a member of your own gender the government will compensate you? Yeah, sure.

 

Repetition is the mother of all learning and you seem incapable of accepting that SCOTUS ruled gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.
I support gay marriage which you equate to an "intellectually and morally bankrupt position". Oh the horror! That is your opinion and I could not care less.
In the next decade, you will be in an even smaller camp, screeching perversion and "there will never be gay marriage".

Carry on angry guy.

 

That is a way it is.
Gays have a right to receive government benefits for having relationship with Zero responsibility for possible procreation.
Heterosexual couples do not have that option.
Essentially benefits are paid to gays solely for sexual activity that has nothing to do marriage.

 

They are extended to homosexuals ONLY, i.e. special rights for homosexuals.
Why are you trying to defy simple logic?

 

I don't see how this answers my question about what you said earlier.

So why shouldn't a religious figure perform a gay marriage ceremony as a representative of his or her organization? Especially if that religious organization allows same sex marriage?

 

You need to talk to someone who is qualified to deal with your condition better than I am.

 

You are not being consistent in your application of these differences of yours.

To start with, your arguments point towards the bio parents of the offspring being the ones who are responsible for it, for which there is no argument. But you have yet to show a necessity for the parents to be married legally in order to have or be responsible for this child. The father is still legally responsible for the child married or not. That a husband is the assumed father legally is not a big deal, since the odds are he is, but the legal availability is present to have that changed if he isn't.

Then there is this whole "benefits without responsibility" argument. I cannot have children, and was in that condition before I married my wife legally. I am, as you say, "receive(ing) government benefits with Zero responsibility". And yet you have no issue with, and have never made a single argument over, such heterosexual relationships getting a legal marriage. My sister has no uterus. And yet your arguments show that you have no issue with her legally marrying a man and "receive(ing) government benefits with Zero responsibility". Face it, that is your excuse, but you don't really believe it given your inconsistencies.

Furthermore there is a slew of benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with child bearing or rearing. A family of two is still a family.

 

Quantity and type are two separate things. What other type of sex is not covered? And please don't even try the whole child or animal or inanimate object argument. These things are not able to provide informed consent to the marriage contract. That is based on an ability to consent, not the type of sex. Right now I can only come up with one remaining type that is not allowed.

That said, you are trying to push this from a sex perspective. But that is incorrect. The type of sex or even a lack thereof has no bearing on a legal marriage. Sex, the activity, isn't a requirement for legal marriage. Therefore the type of sex the couple may or may not have is irrelevant to legal marriage.

 

There is nothing in marriage that protects procreation. It will happen, legal marriage or not. There is nothing in allow same sex legal marriage that harms the protection of procreation. Next!

 

Incorrect. Those are marital benefits....not parental benefits. There is no stipulation married couples MUST have children in order to receive those benefits. Married couples receive the benefits REGARDLESS of children.

 

In your reading of our country's founding principles, did you miss the part about equality and justice for all?

I've long heard that the difference between a liberal and a conservative, is a conservative gets in power and asks, "What can I do to make it better for me and those like me. ". Whereas when a liberal gets in power, he asks, "What can I do to make it better for everyone."

 

Not true as repeatedly pointed out. We give new marriages to people who cannot reproduce, such as the elderly. There is no might there. My sister who has no uterus can get married. There is no might there.

This might have been an argument if potential to have kids was a requirement of legal marriage.

 

Nope...they are extended to anyone legally married.

 

You don't understand marriage as anything other than a legal formality do you?

 

Legally, that’s all that matters. If you want to create a special ceremony that only your church recognizes, with special handshake and all, you are free to do it. Just don’t expect any different legal treatment at the end of the day. And gay married couples have THE SAME legal recognition- not special recognition.

 

They are not providing benefits for any kind of sex. Why is this hard for you to understand? Any benefit a married couple might have regarding children are to be had regardless of how those children were obtained. Natural birth, adoption, etc. Sex need not be there.

 

And to think that it is necessary to inform him of that very simple fact.

 

God created marriage and now government stuck it's nose into it.. maybe government should butt out. Then thiscwhole issue goes away.

 

More than once even. Very sad.

 

No god created marriage. It is the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship. Within such a contract, sex is optional (as it is without the contract.)

That some obsess over the contracts of strangers and fantasize as to their private activities is a peculiar perversion.

 

It is rather disturbing how much they obsess over that