How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

There was not much self rule involved with legal changes such as gay marriage

Just a handfull of unelected demogods in black robes dictating new rules

 

Thats your story not mine

 

Thats a copycat one pervert and a fax machine movement

NAMBLA was a real group

 

Mine is based on real facts. Or do you think catholic priests are liberals? I know you won’t actually answer.

 

No

When the relationship of male and female sex is the accepted norm for 100,000 years I call that an established standard

 

I think priests who rape young boys are homosexuals

 

Most do. Some don't. Vegan/vegetarians don't. Just like some 'self professed' heterosexuals are found in washrooms with same sex individuals.

 

Care to post some facts to back up that false statement?

 

You have the right to state and express your opinions. But you DO NOT have the right to force your views on consenting adults. Or to use the law to force your relgious views on every else.

 

That you think the 2 are in any way comparable is disturbing. You should never be allowed around kids or animals.

One of which was unconstitutional. Which is why same sex couples can and do marry. Consenting adults vs raping a child. Can’t compare the two.

The constitution precludes bans on homosexual relations. I’m sorry you hate the constitution but thankfully you don’t matter.

Who is pushing for removal of either?

 

I think it's a great shame that this thread drags on. Gay people are now accepted in many countries, pride marches are in many cities, some heads of state are openly gay and gay marriage is also accepted in many places. And yet a few people still spend their time spewing hatred on sites like this instead of getting on and enjoying their lives.

I wonder what their problem is?

 

Nope! 140 years ago is within our nation's history and within the living history of some people who are alive today, in other words they have or, more likely, have had relatives, whom they knew, who were alive around that time. It was certainly still legal to marry (female) children for the first few decades of my grandmother's life.

It doesn't matter if it was 14 or 140 years ago. My whole point was that our legal system allowed people to challenge and overturn "traditions" which effectively rendered them powerless, particularly when it was shown there was no rational basis for those "traditions" to remain in legal effect. In some countries people, mostly women, still can't do that to this day. I'm glad our country has the legal mechanism to not be like that.

Fact!

In certain places in the US men could have sex with girls as young as 7 (I'm guessing they had to be married to them in church before they could do that).

Fact!

It was progressively minded women who pushed for raises in the age of consent:

http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm

"Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, although their ultimate goal was to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign was eventually quite successful; by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen."

Do I really have to say it?

I'm here all week.....

 

So which is it: an "established standard" or a "cultural tradition" that homosexuality should be illegal?

You seem to be moving the goalposts.

And what is the rational basis for that claim?

Merely saying it's an "established standard" or a "cultural tradition" is just circular logic and that won't (didn't) fly in court.

 

NAMGLA existed, you said there was no such thing and I proved you 100% factually wrong. It was a real group.

Own it!

NAMBLA is also only a tiny organization today. It doesn't represent mainstream homosexuality any more than NAMGLA represents mainstream heterosexuality.

 

So you admit they aren’t liberals. Cool

 

They brought a challenge that there was no rational basis to prevent them from marrying and won.

Unelected judges are a part of our legal system and make decisions all the time that people across the political spectrum don't agree with.

 

I have not had sex outside my marriage, ever. Even before marriage when my spouse and I were dating.
So, no, you are not saying anything I advocate.
I do know, especially among the young, sex is for pleasure, most hoping it won't result in pregnancy. And if fact, try things to prevent a pregnancy.

 

Good. Address this to the OP!!

 

Conclusion: not all sex lead to procreation. Why are so many righties prudes?

 

No evidence whatsoever. What you think doesn't matter.

How about addressing the issue you started. WHO is preventing you from talking about this topic?? Pages of off topic later, you still have not answered this question.

 

Judges are only "good" when they enforce laws you like. Got it.

 

I'm addressing it to you...........oh well.

 

Your point being what and why are righties "prudes"? What makes a "prude". I'm a rightie, your somehow believe your sex life has been better than mine or something? How so, what made yours better than mine?

 

I don't think I did that.

 

Again, whatever. We just have some people who never matured past the fifth grade, and still need to freak out about gay people. The fact that a gay person can marry never changed their lives in the slightest bit. Two gay people holding hands in public does not change a homophobes life any more than two heterosexual people holding hands in public. It's all about immaturity and sexual repression. Time to grow up. The world ain't all about you.