How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Staying together their whole lives, raising children together....

Wait, are you trying to say a piece of paper makes a difference to you? That if the government were to suddenly get rid of legal marriage, you'd say to your wife, "well there is no legal marriage anymore, so I'm outta here! That was the only thing keeping me here."?

 

Exactly. A piece of paper does not make a committed relationship.

 

That's been my point this whole time, but some people want to make sex and a function that has only one purpose, when that clearly isn't so.

 

Your "renter?"

 

According to Gallup 26% of the population wants “relations between consenting adults” to be criminalized
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
I guess you could argue they are all Democrats but that’s quite frankly dishonest.
If you look at their other statistical analysis on same sex marriage, 83% of Democrats and 71% of independents support same sex marriage vs only 44% of Republicans https://news.gallup.com/poll/234866/two-three-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx

Using the above data one can put together a picture of what the base is that wants to criminalize same sex relations.
It’s mainly Republicans... and seeing that only 30% to 40% of the population identity as Republican it reaffirms my statement that “you call bs on”.
Feel free to refute it with actual data, I would love to change my mind and let me even consider voting (R) again.

Of course they pushed for it to be legalized in private first. It was once a crime. The ultimate goal is always equality however. Full, 100% equality.
I see no problem with mentioning gay people exist in the classroom, I don’t think it should be pushed one way or another however.

This is a perfect example of one of the issue with many people that dislike gay people doing, they say gay people are flaunting their sexuality when in reality they have sought out the information.

Most gay people just want to be left alone (and have equal rights)

 

No idea

Republicans have been against gay rights for the last several decades.
Banning same sex marriage is in their party platform, it’s understandable that they would want to ban a group that is pushing for equality

See the data in the post above this one

 

What I mean is, what are "Log Cabin Republicans?"

Being against same sex marriage is supporting the criminalization of gay people's existence? Surely you can't be serious!

 

Nope, there were a number of states which barred any familial recognition of same sex partners whatsoever.

It's moot now, but I've often posited that if certain sates had proffered civil unions as an alternative, same-sex marriage may have taken longer to come around than it did. It was the depth of the opposition that brought about the backlash resulting in same-sex marriage. Social conservatives never learn it seems. They pick a scapegoat, highlight it and then witness the debate fall from their favor as it comes under scrutiny. There was never any rational purpose served by preventing same-sex couples from marrying.

You don't have to. It's just "marriage". People of the same sex aren't excluded anymore.

I don't remember the USSR having same-sex marriage?

I see it as a question of "individual" rights. Not exactly a communist premise.

 

Yes they are but each of these scenarios has a victim and are non-consensual.

 

So those people that are born are not aborted right?

 

I don't agree with Democrat policies on most things. I have never met a single person that wants to criminalize my existence outside of Islam.

 

Only until the hedonists libs on the supreme court rule that children have a right to privacy

 

The autocratic liberal judges pandered to a vocal liberal minority

 

We are allowed to police each other. Speaking of which, where were you on the evening of August 4?

 

I don't know if it's rare. But I cannot imagine a child being indifferent on the subject. People are fascinated enough even with their remote ancestors, hence the success of ancestry.com. Your parents, I'd postulate that most want at least to know who they were.

 

About 70 percent of adult adoptees express feeling moderate to significant degrees of “uncertainty and ambiguous loss” regarding their birth parents. One study found that 70 percent of adoptees experienced such feelings. The remaining 30 percent “expressed security and no apparent [sense of] loss.”2)

Adoptees in search of more knowledge about their birth family members frequently express dissatisfaction, anger, and helplessness at their lack of insight into this aspect of their identities.3) Some adoptees say that their family members’ disapproval (or their fear of such disapproval) of their desire to search for their birth parents contributes to their avoidance of and secrecy about the subject.4) In contrast, those adoptees who do not express such feelings of loss say they experience acceptance and candid communication with their adoptive families. The reason they most frequently cite for their security is “the love and closeness in the adoptive family.”

More here:

http://marripedia.org/adoptee_s_search_for_biological_parents

All things being equal, children prefer their biological parents. If they didn't, they wouldn't search for them.

 

Yes.. I have rentals. And to tell the truth, stereotypical gay males take much better care of them than other people.. as long as they're not the nutty fight with each other types.

 

My "vision" of marriage (one man, one woman [I know, the horror, right?]), is not really a vision, but an understanding based on 3000 years of tradition and ordinary language to support it, in almost every culture on Earth. American proponents of gay marriage can only point to a split supreme court decision from 2015.

As between a broken marriage featuring abuse, hatred and sadness and a safe, happy homosexual union, sure I'd prefer the latter.

I don't see much difference between a legal marriage and a committed but not legally recognized marriage. I am in Texas, and common law marriages are as valid as church marriages here. (See how progressive we are? LOL.)

 

Sure but that doesn't change the fact that tens of millions per year around the world are aborted.

 

Well I'm not talking about them. If the pregnancy was aborted the child wasn't born so it's irrelevant.

 

We've already established that it was religious social-conservatives that used to marry kids and progressive women that pushed for raises in the age of consent.

 

Nope, they ruled on the merits of the case as presented before them and, although it's wholely irrelevant, same-sex marriage enjoyed majority support at the time of their ruling and continues to do so to this day.

 

Given the religious bias of the site, Im going to have to put doubt on the reliability of their articles. But I won't dismiss it outright until I've gone over their articles more, which might take a while.

That said, that still shows no evidence that bio parents are inherently better at raising children then non. As noted, we have multiple examples of non biological parents successfully raising children and no study to show otherwise. I will note that simply looking at foster children will have a skewed effect given the number of time, on average, they change homes, and kids adopted at older ages would have the same issue, unless they simply went from bio parents to adoptive, say by suddenly becoming orphans with a family already selected by the bio parents. And this still does does nothing to show how homosexuality is a perversion.

 

Irrelevant to what?

 

Well why the hell did a HS principal ask you if your renter was gay? What the hell was the context of that conversation?