How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Virtually all straight sex between people of child bearing age has the potential to produce children. Regardless of birth control methods.

 

Sexual selection is not a voluntary choice which people suddenly decide to make, most people are born gay they are attracted only to their own sex.Punishing them for something that nature created is stupid,live and let live.If they do nothing to impact your life then why bother them.A family that lived near me had 11 children,the first ten were all heterosexual the eleventh a male was gay,they loved him just as much as their first ten kids as did his siblings.

 

This logic is like saying that the primary purpose for the mouth is eating and any other purpose, such as talking is a perversion. Body parts and processes can and do have multiple purposes. Furthermore, we have seen how there is much variation in humans while still having a statistical norms, such as right handedness versus left handedness and ambidexterity. That such variations exist in sexuality is really not that hard of a concept. Is homosexuality deviant? Yes, in the same that left handedness is deviant. They are deviations away from the statistical norms. That does not make them wrong or unnatural. In addition, homosexuality has never existed in such numbers that human extinction due to lack of procreation has ever been a danger. That is before we take into account that a sizable proportion of homosexuals actually do procreate. And the vast majority of their offspring are heterosexual.

The main flaw in your logic can be summed up from this statement:

This shows you are confusing the procreation process with the relationship structure, or maybe more to the point, conflating them unduly. One does not require the other, despite commonly occuring together. The same goes for procreation and child rearing. The same sets of people are not required for both. We have all the people successfully raised by adoptive parents to show that to be true.

 

Please proved documented examples of where your free speech has been removed on this topic, or of homosexuals forbidding you to express your opinion.

 

Given that the vast majority of homosexuals come from heterosexual couples, that statement is plainly false.

 

OK, guess I should specify, SAME SEX. See how long evolution favors their survival. Check back in a century.

 

No one. That is a standard observation on society. At one point polygamy, mostly polygyny, was socially acceptable. Then it was not, and now it is on the rise again. Societal standards have always shifted this way and that. What has changed is that we have shifted from making all social standards into law.

 

Yeah! How dare homosexuals demand not being made fun of by good Christian folk who support a President that appointed a sexual assailant to the Supreme Court and campaigned in favor of a child predator for the Senate. Where is their sense of "decency"?

 

I see you have no issue with adult women having sex with children. Otherwise, you would not have seen a need to specify "adult men" instead of simply "adult".

 

If you are putting all people of the same sex on a single continent, and all of the other sex on another continent, then what does it matter if they are straight or gay? No procreation at all, assuming you also isolate them somehow.

Tongue in cheek aside, you are still flawed in your thinking. Homosexuals by and far come from heterosexual reproduction of people who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex. So you can set up your isolated island for homosexuals, but the population will be sustained by those homosexuals who are born to straight couples.

 

Right...acknowledging someone is gay might turn kids into being gay. Is that your belief?

 

Which you clear are.

 

Polygamy is immoral in a society in which there is an institutionalized dominance of men over women. Where men can have several "wives", but women do not have exactly the same right to have several "husbands". It is also immoral when minors are involved in the marriage (or anybody who cannot exercise free consent for any reason).

This is not to mean that it is moral in any other circumstances. Because I don't know. There may be other considerations. But I do believe that in our society and with our cultural paradigm, as it is today, it would not and should not be morally acceptable. At a minimum it would require a huge shift in that paradigm.

 

False equivalency. Forced silence is not forced acceptance. Not that you have show either as of this post. Not gotten through the whole thread yet, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

 

How convenient.

 

There is a reason I specified polygyny as the most common historical practice of polygamy, or did you miss that? That said, polygamy only means multiple spouses (polygyny is one husband multiple wives, and polyandry is one wife multiple husbands), and doesn't actually indicate how spouses are treated. I do not wish to thread jack this any further, but we can start a new thread on poly and it's growing acceptance in the US and around the world if you wish to go further.

 

When it comes to sex, they are all personal primary purposes.

 

Not to mention the number that come from heterosexual parents.

 

So sterile people are engaged in unnatural acts?

 

I would say that would be the whole underlying point in desiring children, even if it might be subconscious. Mind you, we still have sex for just pleasure, but trying for children, or even just letting date take the reins on procreation is indeed a different mindset than pleasure alone.

 

I just thought of a better way to put it. All procreation is due to sex (setting aside modern medical advance for the moment), but not all sex is for procreation.

 

Actually homosexuality has nothing to do with consenting or not consenting. It is merely one's attraction. How one acts upon that attraction is where issues of consent come in.

 

Maybe. I can only go by my experiences and the people I've met over many years.

 

Funny how he and the rest of the righties say Kaepernick can't exercise his first amendment right in a work place, yet now here they are crying about the same. The irony.

 

Not true. You are projecting your feeling on an entire population.