How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

The only thing I would cimplain about that is the so called press in the USA is completely out of order. They are given priviliged status and are abusing it to the maximum. For example, they are allowed to knowingly spread blatant lies about individuals without any consequences.That must be regulated. You try to ruin someone's life based on lies, you should do the time in prison or pay a massive financial fine.Furthermore, knowingly publishing confidential security services materials which are not in the best interest of the general public should also be classified as a crime.The liberal press should be reigned in. Too much power.

 

Sexual preference is core to identity ... it is crazy talk to say otherwise. So when heterosexual couples have sex with out the intention of having Children .. is this a perversion as well ? He said it was a perversion - his justification was straight out of the Eugenics/Social Darwinist hand book.

How is it that you figure someones sexual preference is not part of core identity - not part of the natural order.

Explain por favor.

 

I have argued the same .. In France I believe - if a someone accuses someone of rape - and it is proven to be a lie - the liar gets the sentence that the person accused of rape would have gotten.

 

I agree this is the way it should work.... though the sad thing is no false accuser would ever admit to lying then, so is a catch 22

 

The false accuser is proven to be a liar in some cases without having to admit guilt.

 

Based on no evidence whatsoever.

 

Trump does the same. Is it your position he should be doing time in prison?

 

Normal and emotionally healthy people, will be able the understand it.

 

I like tacos. Its a preference. It's not who I am. Besides, it provides more freedom and liberty if your concept of self isn't so constrained by surface level things that are outside of your control.

If sex didn't feel good, we probably would not exist. It's just a natural consequence of evolution.

 

You are correct that it is like a preference for Taco's - but preference is not a choice - When one goes to a buffet and tries two new foods - the person does not choose which one he likes and which one he does not - he/she just likes one or the other.

Similarly - when someone looks out into the world and finds that they prefer blondes over brunettes -- or thin over large .. old over young .. none of these are preferences that someone chooses ... they just like what they like. When a gay person opens their eyes and look out onto the world - they find themselves attracted to what they find themselves attracted to.

 

Only repressed homosexuals care about this subject. If you are secure as a heterosexual you really don't give two shits what another dude does with his dick.

 

I would guess, living vicariously, is a thing for you.

See how dishonest? See how that works?

I just pull that out of thin air and label you with it.

 

No. You should ask yourself what happened when people started to have sex at the beginning of time.

 

Well all sex WAS for procreation if you go back far enough. That's my point.

 

No, all sex is natural, it's just that it has different results for different people. And the NATURAL result - at least for sterile people - is procreation!

There is one NATURAL purpose. That's my point.

 

Glad to see a true naturalist, one who would never do anything or support anything that wasn't. Ordering and controlling electrons in such a way as to create an entire virtual universe where one can go to find others who agree with their chosen biases certainly seems like an unnatural perversion of the main purpose of electricity, which is to run your bodily functions and light up the sky during a thunderstorm. I'm sure you just forgot this, the internet can be quite distracting, but now that I've reminded you, when will you be quitting this forum and all your other activities that use this type of unnatural control of electricity? Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

(homosexuality is more natural than the internet you know)

 

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Therefore it is natural. I agree that it's an abnormality,but that doesn't make it immoral or evil. It's simply a naturally occuring abnormality which occurs in a large number of species.

Some scientists believe it is a natural response to over population, and that the rate of animals born homosexual will go up as a population grows, as a way to lower birth rates by ensuring that some in the population will not breed.

 

So if the only moral purpose of sex and marriage is reproduction, then should other people who can't have children be banned from getting married? Should a women who has reached menupause be forced to divorce her husband? Should people who are paralyzed be banned from getting married since they can't have children? Should people who are sterile be banned from getting married?

I mean the far right always say that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have children together, and that is the only purpose of marriae. So why isn't that applied to ALL people who can't have children?

 

I'm confused, because I swear I didn't say anything about the "moral purpose of sex" or "marriage."

I would suggest that you direct that question to a member of the 'far right.' Why are you asking me?

 

The far right? Erm, if you want to see the far right, go on the Daily Stormer and look at their plans to exterminate gays or put them in camps. Believing gays should stay away from kids is simply centrist opposition to the far left

To answer your post, straight couples weren't just made by Nature to produce offspring, they were also made by Nature to *raise* them. A child needs both male and female role models to develop.

I agree with you that homosexuality is natural, but gay parenting is completely against nature. There are tons of animal species that have gay sex, but show me a single one that has gay couples raising their offspring...

 

There is not a single legitimate study that shows homosexual couples being unable to raise children as well as hetrosexual couples. And no, bigot groups like the Family Reseatch Council are not legitmate sources of studies, since they openly hate gays.

 

There are plenty of single parent families that would disagree.

 

Okay, let's use all the children that are getting adopted in gay families right now as test subjects.

But on one condition, you people are legally responsible for anything that goes bad.

Also it's pretty funny to see you shift the burden of proof.

 

Something that I find ironic is that you claim the reason gays can't raise children is because a child must have both a mother and father, and can not be properly raised without both under any circumstances. But the only time you apply this is with gays. You would never support taking the kids away from a single mother or single father who were straight. But you would support taking kids out of a loving home with two parents if they were gay.

This is no different than the other homophobic hypocricy like claiming that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because marriage should only be used for procreation, while having no issues with a straight couple who can't procreate getting married.

 

What a strawman salad! You're clearly debating in bad faith here.

I'm against single parents adopting children, just like I'm against gay couples adopting children.

I don't support taking children away from their single parents because it's worse than being raised by a single parent, which is still pretty damn bad. The difference is that you can't prevent couples from separating, while you can easily prevent gays from adopting.

I don't support taking away children from their gay "parents". I'm against them adopting children in the first place, so this case never presents itself!

There is no hypocrisy except in the words you made up and put in my mouth.

Open a dictionary at the page "phobia" and educate yourself. Trying to claim your political opponents are mentally ill is textbook totalitarianism.