How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Of course, the issue before the SC today is about firing people for being transgender - regardless of marriage.

The anti-transgender folks seem to be arguing what Alito argued - that our founders didn't know about transgender, so it can't be construed that they intended to protect people who are transgender when they made statements about equality, such as in our constitution.

Of course, the founders didn't consider blacks equal, either. And, our civil rights laws have been found to be consistent with our constitution in sc case after sc case. And, they didn't see women as equal.

 

lmao. Here I was thinking your understanding of it is merely deficient, when you evidently haven't even read past the big print.

Consistent failure to mark the federal/state distinction in this context is a sure sign of constitutional illiteracy, FYI.

Not in the least, obviously.

Then she's not a he, obviously.

 

Well, I did see comments about benefits of marriage, with hints that the justification is based on the possibility of children.

Beyond that, I'd point out that anyone can have children. Marriage, a partner, particular organs, etc., aren't required. My sister chose to have a child from a central American country - and, what a wonderful addition to my extended family that has been.

 

Stock answer: " Well cannabalism and murder exist in nature too but that doesn't make them blah, blah, blah......".

 

Ok, dude, while I agree with your position, and noting a few side comments about transgenderism have occured, this is an outright thread jack. The topic is homosexuality, perversion or otherwise. While I am not dismissing the issues trans have, it needs its own thread

 

Congrats to your sister, however, typically when one "has a child" they are one of the genetic contributors. Adopting and raising a child usually isn't seen as "having" one, but it is as equally important.

 

Actually murder doesn't exist in nature, except among humans. Other creatures do not have laws against certain killings. Murder is an unlawful killing. That's why killing an enemy in war, or imposing the death sentence on a convicted individual (assuming that was a legal punishment for the crime) is not murder.

 

I think it drifted because of an observation that certain people dislike male homosexuals but lesbians are barely considered.

Now that gays have secured many legal rights the ire is being directed towards transexuals but usually only male to female transexuals.

 

I was quoting what others would say in response to Natty's post.

It's not my position, far from it!

 

True, but wrt the law, it's totally equal. The responsibilities are equal. The tax ramifications for a child are equal. Etc.

 

right, why close relatives are banned from government marriage benefit?
because they can have an incest.
Incest = sexual intercourse.
Moreover, marriage is about sex.

 

Heterosexual relationship requires government regulation.
How else you going to make man responsible for his children?

 

No, it is not true.
In case of heterosexual couple both partners are responsible for pregnancy.
It is not the case for gay couple.

 

Yep, two men can have children if one simultaneously inject his sperm in three holes of another man.
They might even have triplet.

 

Christian denominations don't see it that way.

They say marriage is about the two people being married - their relationship, their mutual support, etc.

They say children are something that may happen after that. But, even then the primary issue is the marriage - at least partially because any children will be in trouble in failed marriage.

Many do see sex limited to marriage.

The laws related to marriage of close relatives, those younger than the age of consent, etc. come from the state.

 

Government does not know about that, so the law covers any heterosexual couple, because they might procreate.

 

Your explanation is not convincing at all.
But I am happy that you have no argument.
So, indeed marriage is about sex.

 

If there exist states that don't recognize same sex marriage, this can be a problem.

In my state, marriage law doesn't reference gender. So, it can't apply differently to same sex couples than it does to opposite sex couples.

Our constitution includes that each state must recognize the marriages of other states. States aren't really going to find it possible to ignore the marriages performed in other states. Working this out may take time, but there isn't any question at all that in the end, same sex marriages will be treated equally, including wrt children.

 

Let's remember that marriages contribute resilience to the state by being units of mutual support that can otherwise fall to the state to supply.

In totally simplistic terms, if your spouse needs help, you are on the hook. If you weren't married, then the state would be on the hook. Having couples supporting each other is a significant advantage.

And, that has value to the state.

Children are recognized in tax law and in our social safety net features as legal dependents. Marriage is one factor in determining dependency.

 

Like I said, that may still be true in some states.

But, marriage is marriage. Any state that treats a same sex marriage as not including mutual responsibility for children is just being caught in transition. It's not a logical end state for marriage law.

For those states, residents should demand that the laws for marriage be equally applied.

 

No, marriage is not about sex. There is no requirement for a couple to be capable of or intend to have sex.

 

A man is responsible for his children regardless of marriage. Are you seriously unaware that unmarried fathers are still required to pay child support?

 

Yes it is

 

You don’t think the government knows that two 90 year old male and female can’t procreate? That’s why procreation is entirely irrelevant to marriage.

 

The reasons that religious organizations (such as the Catholic Church) restrict sex to marriage do not have to do with this thread topic.

And, all marriages have the opportunity for sexual relations.

You need to reread my post, as you keep getting sidetracked on the sex thing.