How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

How many people are born.

 

This is flawless logic. Marriage is the same level of perversion.

 

Well I guess it all depends on how do you define "many." Tens of millions per year around the world is what I consider to be 'many.'

 

Log Cabin Republicans

They are usually refused a booth at the RNC however
Hopefully that changes soon

It’s difficult for me to support a party (or a large percentage of its base) that supports criminalization of my existence

Ha, I was a Republican (still registered as one) when I world as an industrial electrician. They must put something in the water.
Democrat policies were generally hated in the field as I worked in a non-union area

 

That’s your preference and you are entitled to that. But it is only yours. I don’t think people should marry before 25 so they experience life.should we make that law?

 

In our country laws are written by men elected by the majority

Which btw can be changed in the blink of an eye by 5 UNELECTED demigods in black robes

Children are not safe as long as activist liberal judges exist

 

And are you only holding to your vision of marriage, only to legal marriage, or will a committed but not legally recognized marriage suffice as well? That's three options BTW, in case it wasn't clear, and none exclusive.

 

Some seek them out, many do not. Do you find the reasons behind the ones who do not rare and trivial? That said, knowing who your biological parents are and bring raised in a supportive loving manner are two different things. Which is better for the child? Their biological abusive straight parents, or a loving supportive adoptive gay couple? Mind you I am all for a child having both their biological parents in their lives, together or apart, whenever possible. But that still holds no logical argument as to why gays can't marry, have kids, or, and most importantly as it is the thread topic, as an indication of homosexuality being a perversion.

 

How committed can it be if they are unwilling to make it legal?

 

What over the top hysterics.

 

Homosexual activity is common in the animal kingdom generally. We are animals. It is normal.

QED

 

I think this is your problem. This limiter. No one truely knows when the "right biological circumstances" will occur. And humans don't have a heat cycle for attracting mates when fertile (in the cyclical sense, not the general). Sex has at least two natural purposes in humans. Procreation and pleasure. Either one can be the intent when one chooses to engage in sex, and make no mistake, it is always a choice. The other can be a consequence of the choice. But sex serves both these purposes, and they are as natural as can be.

There's that limiter again. So I will counter with, yes, sex will always result in pleasure under the right biological circumstances. And for the record, by eliminating the limiter, no sex does not always result in pregnancy.

 

You still have not provided anything conclusive to support this. I would agree that sex is the primary (and only) natural means for reproduction. But means and purpose are not the same. Maybe that's the issue, you are conflating the two.

 

Which means?

Why?

As in?

 

A third function: When having sex, oxytocin [and in men, possibly another hormone related to vasopressin] promotes pair bonding.

 

So for clarification, and if this is answered in a later post, forgive me, "full sex" is PIV with male ejaculation? Or does male on male anal with ejaculation also count? Does female orgasm factor in at all for "full sex"? What about a non ejaculate male orgasm?

Medical reasons to start with. Just because they have to get rid of it doesn't mean they don't want it. Additionally, for those who decide based upon other reasons, such as it would live suffering, might do so even while still wanting the child. They are doing what the feel is best, not what they want.

 

Function.

Most things in nature are multi functional. One obvious example in hand would be that a penis is used for sex as well as urination. You can use it to receive pleasure, to make babies, and to write your name in the snow.

 

Have to call BS on this one, there is not anywhere near "a large percentage of my party that wants to criminalize your existence". It does knock me out that the homosexual lobby went from "what adults do in the privacy of the bedroom" to "you have to accept homosexuality as normal" to actively promoting it in schools (as young as kindergardeners". I really don't care what you do in the bedroom, and often defend homosexuals when the subject comes up.. had a HS principal ask me if my renter was "gay" , I responded by asking "you looking for a date?".

 

Remember, marriage is a perversion as well.

 

Who is saying "you have to accept homosexuality as normal"?

 

Not really

Among animals the urge to reproduce is strong

But in many cases the strongest males prevent te younger males from having a female

Thats far different from confused human males who prefer other males

 

Liberals

 

So no one has ever said that. Got it

 

15% of all seagulls are lesbians.

We had a male cat that would sometimes rape another male cat we had.

Your own post concludes that males turning to males for sex is normal. It isn't far different. Either you are attracted to males or you're not.

Or are you saying that if you couldn't get laid by a woman. you would take a man?

 

What does that have to do with the question I asked? Are you saying that animals are subjected to man's law and that there are hundreds of thousands of murders who are never arrested and tried for the rabbits and birds they are killed and eaten?

No they can't. That is a misconception on yours and many others. There has to be a legal basis upon which to base that change. For example, there have been plenty of cases where judges have had to decide against a defendant and included in their judgement and encouragement to the legislature to change the applicable law. I remember one case in Utah, where the state was considering applying its common law marriage to those claiming polygamy, but not getting the legal licenses. By law, they were not violating bigamy laws (bigamy being different from polygamy), but the state would then force them into a condition of bigamy by applying the common law marriage when a legal certificate was already in place between a single couple of the poly unit. One family sued the state, and the judge found that application of the law illegal, because it forced an illegal state upon the family that did not active seek it. A later judge overturned the case, not because the merits of the case were wrong, but because the family could not legally sue the state since it hadn't actually applied the law against them. Their legal course of action was to try to have the law changed. The courts could not change it unless the law was applied and then the court could rule it illegal.

The same can be said for activist conservative judges. But I am pretty sure that any judge that makes a decision that you disagree with is an activist liberal judge.