How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Yes! And even though I'm convinced that homosexuality, per se, is a deviant, aberrant behavior which developed because of a possible variety of physiological malfunctions and defects -- I don't CARE who sticks what in who, or who sucks what, or who stuffs whatever up someone else's anal pore.

We have FAR greater problems in way too many other areas of our lives. BUT -- I rebel strongly at the idea of any publicly-funded institution (through 'tax-breaks' or otherwise) or, any of its employees (while at work) attempting to indoctrinate anyone -- INCLUDING STUDENTS IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL -- with the idea that homosexuality, or ANY kind of sexuality, is 'normal' or 'OK'....

 

They are.

There is no such thing as "same sex marriage".

They stopped (and still stop) themselves from marrying, no matter how they wish to bastardize what a marriage is. It's still not a marriage and it never will be.

 

I comprehend it just fine. I just disagree.

 

What I want to know.. is why the homosexual lobby insist on the bogus term "gay marriage" when traditionalist were mostly fine with terms like "union" and "partnership" which would have included same sex couples who aren't homosexual?

 

You don't believe *ANY* kind of sexuality is okay?

 

There is. You are free to pretend it doesn't exist, of course.

 

Feel free to disprove any of the sources there. If I feel something in one of those articles is wrong , I go to the reference to show it as such. But they have gotten so much better over the year that their articles are pretty accurate nowadays.

See, this is the thing you are not getting. There is no one objective definition of a marriage, which is why there are so many variations of it. Simply because you hold to a given ideal, that doesn't make it objective. Marriage is a construct. There is no natural equivalent. Sure you have some species that mate for life, but plenty of others that don't. Marriage is what people make of it. It's why some will only accept a legal marriage as legitimate and other will only accept a religious marriage, under their specific religion and subset, as legitimate. Marriage is at its most basic, a commitment to a joined life for the sake of each other's welfare and to any offspring that might occur, with no requirement for said offspring.

 

As far as the legal marriage went, if anyone had bothered to actually make a legal institution that had all of the exact same rights and responsibilities as legal marriage (all other types aside), you might have actually gotten this. But no, all proposed bills had to provided less for those in unions other than what they wanted.

 

(*Sigh!*) That's NOT what I said or meant. I meant that the idea of any publicly-funded institution (through 'tax-breaks' or otherwise) or, any of its employees (while at work) attempting to indoctrinate anyone -- INCLUDING STUDENTS IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL -- about sex, sexuality, or anything having to do with sex (except, where appropriate, for studies of the scientific facts regarding biology and/or physiology) should be completely FORBIDDEN! In other words, in school, or in publicly-subsidized or publicly-funded organizations, you can talk about penises, vaginas, ovaries, testicles, and their physiological functions -- but not (NOT) what constitutes some kind of politicized, acceptable "normal" in the behavioral area of "who-does-what-to-who" for achieving orgasms.

It's one thing for some stimulus (any possible stimulus) to give a male an erect penis, or, a female a wet vagina. But, whether or not such a stimulus is "normal" or "acceptable" is bullshit -- and it foments propaganda that liberal manipulators use deliberately to indoctrinate masses of people with their own conceptions of "newspeak" and political-correctness.

. Just because something EXISTS doesn't mean it's "normal"....

 

It may not be what you meant, but you certainly did write it.

This might be a sticking point. I have not seen or heard anyone professing to label any kind of sexuality. Do you have any information that suggests otherwise?

I believe you are misusing the word "indoctrinate' here.

Teaching tolerance has nothing to do with indoctrinating anybody. Again, do you have any back-up that indicates this?

 

well it does seem to be pretty normal and it's probably been that way for centuries

I think you'll find whatever information you choose to find.

 

indoctrinating people with sex and sexuality is fundamental component of just about every level of our society.

The point is to get people to breed

 

You say that yet here we are

So you're just going to deny reality?

Cope however you need to that's your business.

 

I don’t know who the homosexual lobby is, but I know why I wanted to marry my spouse. I love him and want to take care of him. Marriage is a good way for me to be able to do so. There are numerous legal/tax benefits to being married. He is able to use my VA medical insurance. It made the process of us buying our house less financially complicated. I could list many more reasons, but I think the ones I have listed thus far are more than sufficient.

I don’t know who these traditionalists are, and I don’t care what terms they’re okay with.

If you want you can marry your same same-sex partner without being homosexual. Nothing stopping you if that’s what you want.

 

No, you didn't. You should re-read what I said.

 

There is no such thing. A mockery/bastardization of marriage is not marriage.

 

That’s funny, because my husband and I are married. We’ve got a marriage certificate and everything. We file our taxes as a married couple too.

Going on seven years.

 

No, you aren't. You and your legal partner are indeed trying to mimic marriage, however.

I believe you.

I believe you.

Congratulations on mimicking marriage for almost seven years.

 

So you don't remember the oberfell decision?

 

Normal is a statistical concept. The word gets used as prescriptive, but it's root meaning is statistical. As such, homosexuality is perfectly normal. It simply occurs less frequently than heterosexuality.

Strictly speaking, Nature doesn't exist, in the way you use it here. Nature doesn't have intent. There is also a theory that says gays served an adaptive function in primitive humanity, providing help raising young, along with other ways to assist the community.

There is simply no rational reason for the bigotry...

 

you're arguing against reality here.

 

Marriage has changed a lot over the centuries...

 

I remember it. It doesn't suddenly change the objective truth of what a marriage is, though. It just means that SCOTUS decided to accept delusions rather than truth. Delusions are quite popular these days, ya know...

 

Projection.

 

No mimicry needed. We’re married. On what grounds can you say otherwise?