How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

If a state were to enact a civil unions statute that explicitly guaranteed the same enjoyment of rights for gays consecrated as "unified" under that law as are guaranteed to heteros under that state's marriage law, what would be your objection?

 

Right, because if the Catholic Church is known for one thing it’s that it’s liberal...

 

I am not gay, and do not presume to speak for them
That said, What is the problem with just calling such folks as married.... like any other married couple?

 

You only have sex when you want to procreate??

 

You are addressing the wrong person. ...oh well.

 

Prude is having sex purely for procreation. Even with your spouse. STD is off topic irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Ah...can't backup the nonsense you spouted?? That is 2 strikes.

 

With todays science DNA has proven there is ONLY two sexes. All the rest has to be mental illness, or perversion.

 

No, according to the plain English language of the US constitution, specifically the 14th amendment.

An amendment would be required, repealing the 14th, in order to criminalize homosexual relationships or sexual activity. The composition of the court is irrelevant to that. This is already settled law.

 

That is would be unconstitutional. Separate but equal has already been adjudicated. Can’t do it.

 

This is irrelevant to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Also, perversion is entirely subjective.

 

What has that got to do with homosexuality?The transgender thread is that way --->

 

How do homosexuals being able to legally marry impact your life?

 

Not my cup of Tea ....... however the same % have been around since the beginning of humans.

With modern times we just know about it more..........

 

If you say so

 

Not only that, i make every effort not to enjoy the event.... so as not to pollute the sacred procreation ceremony. Unfortunately, i have yet to discover how to consummate the procreation ceremony without having an orgasm.

My wife is more pure than me. She never orgasms. as far as i can tell, she is not even tempted. Of course i do my best to support my wife's insistence on purification of the procreation ceremony by avoiding orgasmic pollution

Btw.... for those who are comedically challenged..... this was intended as a joke

 

I really didn't want to ignore you, belligerent as your posts are, but I'm going to have to. I was asking another poster for his legal opinion, not complaining to you about anything. Goodbye.

 

Did you not understand the question???

 

Thank you. We did not fight this hard to be called 'civil unionized' If you think about it, it would be a sad commentary on us as a community, if we could readily be bought off with some benefit package duplicate to marriage. We have to have a rather shallow and superficial definition of marriage and equality.

 

1; The supreme court's ruling is not "opinion". According to the constitution, the supreme court has the sole authority to interpret the constitution. Their rulings are law.

2; I take great comfort that the court protects equal rights. Only someone who doesn't support equality under the law woudn't.

3; If there wasn't clear precedent that marriage is a right, I would support a constitutional amendment making it one.

 

1) I cited the chief justice's dissent. It is his opinion. Written dissents are called "dissenting opinions." Even the majority opinions are called "opinions." Since justices are unelected and have no business writing our laws, they could hardly be called otherwise


2) So do I. But equal protection cases that reach the supreme court always involve competing opinions regarding the existence and extent of our "rights." If it were as simple as demanding "equality!" we wouldn't need courts. For example, is polygamy a right? Can we reasonably disagree? Ask a polygamist. He would answer yes and no to those two questions.

3) That's fine, and far better than lawyers with robes deciding, but too simplistic. Is there a minimum age for marriage? Why? Don't 16 year olds have rights? Do you have a right to marry your sibling? How about waiting periods? Can a state limit your right to marry until you have been divorced from your first spouse for at least 24 hours? 10 days? 2 years? All these things will have to be litigated, depending on the wording of the amendment you would advocate.

On edit, what would the amendment you envision say exactly? Take a shot.

 

I wish the 5 unelected lawyers on the supreme court had given you the opportunity to fight more, state by state, "small d" democratically, instead of usurping the decision.

 

Pretty good one! I figured you were either joking or a monk trapped in an involuntary marriage.

 

If it happens in nature, then it is normal.