How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

I have no idea about Trump, he was elected by the people of United States. Yes it seems like many of his actions serve personal interests, but majority of politicians do that. That is why it is totally irrelevant to bring courts to this discussion, because judges are politicians.
I am probably not as smart as members of supreme court but I am expressing my unbiased opinion that is compliant with basic principles of logical reasoning.

 

You mean, likely.
Basic principles of logic ? That’s science. Kind of contradictory .

 

And removing the requirement of being a specific sex from signing a contract is... equal.

Which is why marriage equality is now the law, there was no reason to exclude them. They are similarly situated to many heterosexual unions. There were numerous reason gay people were unbanned from signing a legal document — they share property, custody, finances, estate planning, healthcare... To say there was no reason is well, a lie.

Then argue that to the SCOTUS, maybe they will agree. That is not however an argument to deny other groups but rather and argument for allowing groups — that you feel are treated unfairly — access to the law equally.

 

Marriage should be available to any two people who qualify.
We have laws regarding qualifications in exercising rights.
No one’s rights are absolute.

 

First those benefits have not been extended only to homosexuals. Heterosexuals already had them and they were extended to interracial when that was previously banned.

Secondly yes it is as unconstitutional as the interracial and same sex bans and for the same reasons. Yet we weren't able to get same sex done at the same time we got interracial done. Something the issue just gets corrected piece by piece, instead of all at once.

 

There is a difference between justification and what you will accept as justification. Just because you don't like the reasons, doesn't mean it's not justified.

 

The argument has turned into someone similar along the lines of “it was unconstitutional for black men to be allowed to vote because women could not...”
In actuality the unjust issue was that women were not allowed to vote.

The arguments are getting stranger and stranger

 

Marriage is for sexual/romantic/intimate relationships, not just for close relatives. BFF or family is different than a life partner. In the case of caregiving a trust would make a lot more sense than binding both of their finances together. The granddaughter would definitely not want to be personally liable for everything about the grandmother's finances and wants financial independence.

 

Did not we recently conclude that sex is not required for marriage? If sex is indeed required then why only sexual couples deserve government benefits?
Your expression "more sense" has no meaning when it comes to equality and constitution.

 

No reasons have ever been presented.
The reason - we want make them happy is not valid.

 

Those qualification should be clear then. Why government provide benefits?
So far no justification or anything that makes sense has ever been presented.
One man's penetration of other man's rectum is not a justification for benefits.

 

I did say sex wasn't a requirement for marriage. That is why I said sex/romantic/intimacy. If I said sex was a requirement than most elderly couples would be excluded.

 

There is absolutely no reason to provide benefits for gay sex. Gay couples are fundamentally different from heterosexual couples and only partial similarity can be detected. Actually they are more similar to closely related couple then to heterosexual couples.

 

sex, romantic intimacy are the same thing.
The question is WHY they deserve government benefits?

 

Our age limits are based upon ability to give informed consent, and even then they can be bypassed. If someone normally a minor can get an emancipation from the courts, then they are legally an adult and can enter into adult contracts. We currently have other limits which are as wrong as the ones for same sex.

 

Sex can occur without romance and intimacy. Romance and intimacy can occur without sex. As an example, see a lot of grandparents.

 

You are still making the factually false argument. There are no special privileges. An improper qualification does not make the benefits special or extra.

 

How is a monogamous gay couple with children less beneficial or more different than a regular heterosexual couple compared to... let’s say an elderly newly wed heterosexual couple with no children and no ability to procreate?

Or a quick Vegas marriage between two drunk strangers that will be annulled within a few days or weeks?

They are not proving benefits for gay sex, they are providing protections and legal avenues for same sex marriage.
This really confuses you doesn’t it?

 

But what are those qualifications? Anti SSM say that only man woman combos qualify and same sex does not qualify. So where does the line get drawn? Quite honestly consent is the only legitimate line. We can rule of thumb that with age, as long as we can account for exceptions. That's it. All others need to be allowed.

 

Both were unjust. But the argument against stopping one unjust practice is not that we are allowing another to continue. Otherwise, we would never have allowed interracial because we were not doing same sex at the same time, and we would never would allow same sex because we weren't doing consanguineous at the same time.

 

Factually false as far as legal marriage goes. There are no requirements for such and any two people can obtain the legal status purely for the legal benefits, except for those a certain closeness, by blood or by law. And yes there are people who would be willing to tie themselves to close relatives in order to gain the advantages of the legal benefits, to further the care of that person.

 

Again you simply don't want to accept what is presented. If we choose to establish a legal institute of marriage and we do not include as part of the requirements of that legal institute the producing of children, or the act of sex, then by default the law should not be limited by race, sex, Creed, orientation or really anything except ability to give informed consent. Law cannot assume without spelling out that assumption. The assumption of fatherhood has been brought up. But that assumption I spelled out in law. The law specifically stated under what conditions the assumption is made. There is no assumption of sex or procreation in marriage laws.

 

One man's penetration of a woman's vagina is not a justification for benefits either.

 

Sex, in this context is an act. Romance and intimacy are emotions or emotionally based. No they are not the same thing. But we do now see more of why you can grasp basic concepts.

 

Elderly. Not all are parents or.grandparents.