How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Basically as long as it’s consenting, sex for pleasure is absolutely moral.
Going on the assumption it’s understood the above statement does NOT include any adult with a minor. That would NOT be moral.

 

In what way are gay people bothering you personally?

 

Nor does it automatically imply that any sex act for the purpose of pleasure is immortal.

 

Out of curiosity how are you defining "adult" and "minor" in this context?

 

My initial point was one of how socially acceptable practices wax and wane. Polygamy was my example. While not yet moving for legal status, poly in all its forms is becoming more and more socially acceptable especially since the modern day practice is on par with monogamy as far as cultural male bias, or the lack thereof, is concerned.

 

So explain to me how these Drag Queens being past sex offenders is different from if the program had hired a straight cis man or woman who ended up being a past sex offender? We'll ignore for the moment the extremely bias sourcing of two of those stories.

 

Many including me would have once thought that. If fact, it appears to be along the same lines as a great many variations in our genetics.
Given the horrendous treatment that was common to gays for a long time, why would anyone choose to be in that position if they had a choice?

It takes some mental adjustments. But there are many things like it but easier to grasp, such as the way we respond to hot peppers. I can't eat a jalapeno- even touching my tongue to one sends me running for something to relieve the burn. My son eats them like I would eat potato chips. Turns out there is a chromosome variable that gives people different levels of sensitivity to capsaisin, the hot chemical component of hot peppers. The sensitivity is not inherited, it's one of the random things that cause us all to be unique. You can't learn to alter the reaction; it's built into you. You might tolerate the burn to look tough, but the effect doesn't change. It's genetic.

 

But sexual offenders in regular dress isn't a problem. That is what you imply when adding the "in drag" part to it.

 

Technically speaking, heterosexual intercourse is a norm and everything else is deviation, making homosexual intercourses a deviant behavior.

Having said that, humans are intelligent species and can recognize which behavior is harmful and which is not - sex with children, animals, close relatives is considered perversion, while same-sex intercourse is considered harmless therefore everyone treats it as part of the norm.

While personally I think male homosexual intercourse is disgusting, I couldn’t care less what they do at home. Their behavior is such a nothingburger that it doesn’t even warrant any kind of insults or disrespect.

Also, there are some pretty gross things that heterosexuals sometimes engage in, that I would never do myself such as - sucking on anus, swallowing body fluids, being peed/defacated on, etc.

 

Actually that is exactly what society does. Now that doesn't mean society gets to encode into law what is and is not socially acceptable. And it isn't exactly a right of society. But it is indeed a characteristic of society that it determines what falls under social acceptability, and that list is constantly changing.

 

So?

The US is a free country. The essence of our being good citizens in a free country is to mind our own business as long as something doesn't harm us personally. There is no logical way you can maintain that homosexuality harms you personally in any way, Your continued hatred of homosexuals, therefore, only shows how much you hate this country and all it stands for.

 

Asides from dressing in woman's clothing? Nothing, sex offenders should not be trusted with kids.

 

No sex offender needs to be around kids. Your strawman asides.
The ones in question are drag queens. Ergo, pointing that out, does that 'offend' you?

 

Moral by whose standards??

 

So just checking. Are you only including actual sex offenders or anyone who manages to get on an RSO list?

By including the "in drag", it leaves an impression that you are associating those who dress in drag with sex offenders. When the reality is that the drag is irrelevant to whether or not they are sex offenders, why include such, unless you have an agenda?

 

Because it is a simple fact. All sex offenders are perverts, these happen to dress in drag, you will just have to live with it and me pointing it out.

 

Also, people dressing in drag are more likely to be diddlers.

 

Source? How do they compare to, say, priests?

 

Whose would you accept?

 

I don't really care who have sex with whom as long as it's legal since it's really none of my business. You were the one that brought up the morality clause, so you should back up your position.

 

Why the hell would it be any different if you wrote it?

 

It's common sense, it's deviant behavior, no matter how much the left tries to re define it. It's abnormal, like a kid seeking negative attention.

 

I'll take that as your admission that you have nothing. Not only that, but a dodge of what I actually asked.

 

Source of proof?