How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

People who aren't intimate getting married does happen sometimes. But that isn't the intention of the marriage, and that becomes very clear when we see all the effort we go to stop green card marriages. However in most cases these types of marriages don't really harm society so we don't put in effort to stop them since it is very hard to enforce. However since relatives clearly aren't going to be intimate and its not beneficial for society for them to be intimate, there is no reason to provide them with marriage. If close relatives want to bind their finances, I suggest other legal options like a trust.

 

Were that the case, one could not help but wonder where the hell you're getting all these cockamamie distortions of my position.

Please, I understand a million times better than you do.

Sure, I get it: by your hopelessly shallow operating definition of the term, people have been designing universes for millennia. They're called plays, films, novels, operas, computer games or whatever. What they all lack, just like anything you could design, is creatures with their own desires and perceptions; and no one has ever tried to create a "universe" with such creatures in it because no one has the foggiest idea how to do it. And since you are likewise ignorant in that respect, you have no idea whether such a creature could exist, even on a metaphysical level, outside spacetime as we know it, along with wave/particle duality, quantum entanglement and all the rest of it.

All that being the case, the only universe you could design would be one in which nothing mattered beyond your own sense of empowerment, and the only difference between you and the evil god you think the Bible portrays is that you'd have a different set of victims.

 

No "special rights" have been identified - certaily not in this thread.

And no, if a law is unconstitutional it must be removed. The SCOTUS does this. So do the courts of individual states.

 

Is redhead in human population normal?
How about left handed people. Is that normal to have them in the population?

 

I think some think, that it's a special right for some, if the laws don't allow some to be discriminated against.
I don't think that's a special right, just a mechanism to stop people from discriminating because of a physical/personal trait they don't like.

 

State marriage includes mutual support commitments that would otherwise be backstopped by our social safetynet.

Marriage makes our society more resilient and reduces the load on our social safetynet features.

 

14th Amendment reasons.

If American Citizens Couple A can be legally married in Massachusetts and then move to any state in the union and be treated with all the RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES of a married couple (Social Security, Hospital access, Protection from testifying against a spouse, and a thousand more) then American Citizen Couple B that is legally married in Massachusetts MUST have access to those SAME rights and privileges - regardless of sex. That is the guarantee of the 14th Amendment. No ifs, and, or buts ...

 

Homosexuality is nothing more than satan's attack on God's institution of marriage.

 

That is why it should be available to every couple not only to pederasts.

 

Not sure what are you are trying say.
The basic logic is
if government provides benefits to gays to allow them to make a family it should provide benefits to every couple that can make family.
that is all.

 

The question is why the activity that is 100% private should be rewarded with public benefits.
All they said is that we want gays and no one else to be happy, that it,
No reason, no justification, just pure emotions.

 

I see some assumption errors here. First why would a lack of legal marriage prevent such intimacy? And why assume it would encourage such? What harm is there is the consanguineous couple is sterile or same sex?

As to why the legal marriage route vs other legal means, there are several reasons. First we need a good reason to deny it. Since sex, love and children are not requirements of legal marriage, then they need not be automatically assumptions, especially in such cases where the natural repulsion would prevent intimacy.

Secondly, the cost of a marriage license vs all the other documents needed. Why force a couple who are going to build a long term household to spend extra money, when a inexpensive all for one exists?

Third, you can't get all the benefits of legal marriage via other legal means. The right is a spouse to not testify against their spouse is one that comes to mind. Plus, as a legal spouse, inheritance rights are secured, compared to the normal family right which can be more easily challenged in probate. That's just a couple of examples.

To address green card marriages, that is an effort to stop a bypass of the normal immigration laws. I am not going to comment on the justification or validity of those laws. That is a separate issue. But trying to limit the use of one set of laws to loophole another is a legitimate limit, and has nothing to do with how the legal marriage laws affect citizens when only citizens are involved.

 

You did not present anything.
If procreation and sex are irrelevant there is no reason to ban close relatives from benefits.

 

No.

People tend to follow social norms more than you think. When you establish this monogamous relationship called marriage and make it a norm, people are going to be more likely to do that. Having a beneficial legal contract of marriage makes people more likely to want to do that and makes things more convenient for them. Also, it does make things somewhat painful if you want to break off the marriage, acting as a bit of a deterrent for breakups.

Not much harm honestly.

There is more than just sexual intimacy. There is also emotional intimacy as well. Two people want to share their lives together and be as one.

We do this to make sure they are really serious about this contract. I would actually make it more expensive to be married and make it even harder to divorce. Lets make marriage serious again.

Spouses shouldn't have this exception for testifying. Inheritance can still be given to family members but since they are not intimate life partners it will be a little more difficult.

But notice the assumption that if someone isn't intimate with their partner then they aren't really married and we can safely assume they are trying to bypass immigration laws.

 

Well, the only argument I've really gotten is gay=bad for reasons that I wouldn't understand, but don't question it or daddy will be angry.

So, the closest thing to an argument I can get from this is the god of the gaps argument around consciousness. Of course the problem with god of the gaps arguments are that once we do figure out what something is, that little foothold gets smaller and smaller. We have no reason to think consciousness is any different.

Now, if consciousness cannot exist outside of our current laws of physics(if so, how is a god possible?), then it is a result of the laws of physics. In that case, something that was not bound by the laws of physics could make it however it wanted, and we are back to square one.

If, there is some external laws that force the direction our laws of physics have to take, then THOSE just become the laws of physics, and once again there is no need for a god.

And how is this different than any other perception of a god?

 

You think marriage is currently only allowed for pedophiles? Are you married? Let’s hope not...

 

That is already the case in many states, isn't it?

 

But we have evolved as has plant life and animal life so that the food we need IS pleasurable, well maybe not kael, and why we search to find it and even prepare it to make it taste better. If all food tasted bad we probably won't have lasted very long.

 

What you think should be and the reality of what is are two different things.

The reality is that 100 plus years ago, a man could simply buy a divorce from the Church with a large “donation “ and take ALL the assets and leave the woman with nothing. The courts and government recognized this inequality and laws were applied to marriage. People in government didn’t just wake up one day and decide to get involved in marriage, it was the outshoot of hundreds of lawsuits and hundreds of years of inequities.

 

Why don’t you just google marriage restrictions in the state you live in. It’s not hard. Why guess.

 

You having fun venting your frustrations from not coming out ?

 

You really need to study up a little. A good percent of women and most men in their seventies who have partners, still have sex with them.

 

Christ hung out with mostly males. If he wasn’t homosexual, he gave a good imitation.
You believe in Satan ? That’s as unproven as believing in a God. Hell is living inpoverty and suffering and dying as a child which 20k do everyday in the world. Being a professed Christian and jet setting with no concern for the poor, is as Un Christlike as as anyone could possible be. That’s Satanist.

 

Fired? What does employment have to do with this conversation?

And what do you mean by 'open to'? I don't care (nor want to know) what people do behind closed doors.

 

ewww