How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

You have that backwards. I only have to point to the lack of requirement between the two. Without that requirement, the law cannot distinguish between anyone per the 14th. The government doesn't have to have legal marriage. But if it does then it needs to be available to all who can consent. It is as simple as that. You are the one that has to make all the convoluted argument as to why sex is somehow tied to legal marriage in such a way as to violate the 14th. For legal marriage to be about procreation, it would have to be part of the legal definition of marriage. No other definition matters.

And those laws are just as much in violation of the 14th as interracial and same sex laws were, due to that lack of requirement of love, sex, and/or children. A lack of marriage does not stop nor nor inhibit sex between any banned group. Homosexuals were doing it before SSM was legal, interracial couples were doing it before that ban was lifted, and any consanguineous couples that want to, certainly are not waiting for to have legal access to marriage before tumbling into the bed. There is no actual connection between sex and legal marriage. It is a conflated assumption. Most people are straight an right handed, but neither has anything to do with the other. Frequency of occurance does not automatically mean related. Such errors are why the correlation/causation fallacy exists.

And that's why it was invalid as a law, along with the other issues that violated the 14th.

There is nothing in the law about such, nor does a lack of marriage prohibit or prevent any responsibilities of sex and procreation. This is why your arguments are the convoluted ones. For that assumption to remain valid on a legal level, then there must be a corresponding law or laws that make sex and procreation without marriage illegal.

.

What special right? No one as yet to show what same sex couples get that opposite sex couples don't. At best we get this odd concept of deservability meaning different benefits. If you are going to argue on the basis of same sex couples don't deserve certain benefits due to A, B and C, then say as much. But don't keep continuing with the falsehood of special benefits, because that is factually false.

 

Question: what does incest between two males have to do with procreation? Or between two females?

 

No one is demanding your respect. Only equal right. The demand of respect issue is one made up to try and denounce these things. You are just recycling the same arguments that were brought up about interracial marriage and relationships.

 

Thank you for confirming my impression of you.

 

I'm sure you have some sort of a point. Meh....probably not

 

That isn't right. It isn't even wrong. - Max Planck

Try marrying fifteen women, or fifteen sheep, or fifteen of your sisters, brothers, and children. You have rights, you know!

 

Many contracts limit the number of participants. That eliminates issue 1, 2 & 3.
Consent is required to sign a contract. That eliminates issue 2 & 5.

Incest marriages (including step family) have shown to be typically the result of abuse, but if you think they should be allowed to marry then you should push for that — it is a separate issue. Or is your argument really “well this group doesn’t have X right so we should also ban the gays.”

I’m sure you have the intellect to see why that’s a fairly bad line of reasoning.

 

It's not my line of reasoning. It's the line of reasoning of the homosexual who thinks that anyone who wants to marry should be allowed to.
Nor did I propose "banning gays" as you so improperly and dishonestly suggest. I find it to be a perversion but merely stating that brings an onslaught of
condemnation. It's rather like suggesting that a vile serial murder be executed. All the Leftists come out posturing goodness and decency for evildoers.

 

No one is making that statement, people have made the argument that there is no grounds to deny gay couples the right to sign a civil document. Which is why same sex marriage has been legalized.

If you have reasoning why a same sex couple with two children in a monogamous relationship should not be allowed to marry but a quick marriage by two drunken 20 year olds in Vegas that don’t even know each other that don’t plan on having children I would love to hear it.

You can believe it is a perversion all you wish, I believe bigots are perversions and society would be better off without them — be thankful peoples personal moral compass (or lack thereof) do not make laws or else you could potentially be in a different situation yourself.

I also don’t see what a murderer has to do with this conversation besides to show how deeply entrenched you are into bigotry.

 

Well, think about it. How could any sort of moral concept be determined if there is no universe to begin with? If there are no conscious beings, then morality doesn't have any meaning. You can't have conscious beings without a universe. We are way closer to a unified field theory than we are to a working theory of consciousness. So, it doesn't make any sense for a moral concept to spring out of nothing if those things to which morality applies can't also spring out of nothing. And then, what use is a god?

 

Which is much easier for me to do because I'm straight. How is that fair?

 

Well, the equivalent position would be that being albino is immoral. But it is ok as long as they dye their skin to look like they aren't albino. As long as they don't engage in the behavior of not hiding who they are, it is ok.

 

All of this is essentially a repackaging of the Heritage Foundation's "accidental baby" defense of same sex marriage bans.

It's a total smokescreen and was seen right through at the District, Appeal and, obviously, SCOTUS level.

For whatever reason, some people still think it has legs despite Obergefel and nearly five years of the recognition of same-sex couples' right to marry.

It's a weird obsession.

 

So, again, it's like stating that it's a moral choice for a redhead to not dye their hair. The 'moral' choice is whether or not to hide who you are. There is no moral choice involved in deciding if you are gay or not, only how much you hide it. I don't see any reason it is fair to make someone hide who they are.

 

All of which are perfectly reasonable. As long as no laws are broken, people can continue to be human .. yes? Or do you want to outlaw certain thoughts?

 

I said nothing at all about morality. And nothing at all about 'making someone hide who they are' (whatever that means).

ALL I said was that expressing sexuality (any varietal) is optional to human existence. The vast majority of us spend far more of our lives not expressing sexuality, than expressing it. Many many people never express it for an entire lifetime, and still live perfectly good and happy lives.

Since the above is patently true, and since we know that no one ever died as a result of not expressing their sexuality, it follows that we have the choice to manage those urges when conditions aren't favourable, or insist on expressing them at any cost. CHOICE.

 

Skin colour is not an optional expression. Terrible argument.

 

You will note that I've never suggesting outlawing thoughts.

However, we have laws that support equality in democratic representation, employment, public accommodation, the court room, etc. America stands for equality.

The case before the SC is about acts - firing an employee without any justification that is based on job performance.

 

Having a body that includes male and female characteristics is also not optional.

 

"the animal instinct to cringe away from overt sexual 'wrongness' (that's nature's response, remember) "

Cite please.

 

All of that is fine as long as the same standards are applied to straight people as well.

 

Neither is who someone is attracted to. The point people tend to make is that they will 'tolerate' a different sexuality as long as they don't have to see it. Just like you may tolerate an albino so long as you don't have to see it.

 

BEHAVIOUR is not an unchangeable physical characteristic.

 

Of course, why on earth wouldn't it?

There are many situations in which straight people need to keep a lid on the expression of sexuality .. in the interests of safety, or sanity, or whatever. The suggestion that the unbridled expression of sexuality is essential, is postively infantile. It suggests we're no more sophisticated than amoeba.

 

I never said anything about attraction. I'm talking about acting on that attraction. That part is always optional.