How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

What did humans do before marriage was controlled by a government?

 

Not it's not equal, but are all of those things 'RIGHTS?'

 

I believe it is a right for all people to be treated equally by the government. We should all live by the same set of rules. Numerous articles in the constitution say something similar to this.

 

Well I'm with you there. I wonder though whether you would have a different view, if these taxpayer funded entities which deny same sex couples from adoption, education, employment and medical treatment, were actually NOT government funded.

 

So Rodger wasn't a problem with you? Ya know calling him a pedophilia and all..

Am I right?

Oh yeah he was a Republican..(that's different)

 

Because of course all the listed reduce procreation which was the argument for why gay sex is a perversion.

 

How does sex education and marriage reduce procreation?

 

The RCC thinks so....

 

He was fired from his job because he sucked.

 

I would have less of an issue.
I would have zero issue if people were just treated equally.
Should a baker be allowed to deny service if they choose, absolutely.
Should a baker be allowed to refuse service only to gay people but must provide services for people claiming religious affiliation, their gender, their ethnicity... thats BS.

 

I have no idea what you are referring to.
Who is Rodger?

 

For 97% of the population, homosexuality is bizarre and unfathomable. For 3% it is normal and natural.

This will continue as long as man walks the Earth.

 

Do you have an example of a same sex couple being denied from adoption, or a gay person being denied education, employment or medical treatment based on sexual orientation?

So in actual fact, you do NOT think that a baker should be "allowed to deny service if they choose." Your above two sentences are in conflict with eachother, aren't they?

 

Yes, I have numerous examples of each as well as the laws that have been passed to specifically allow such discrimination.

How do they conflict with each other?
If a gay baker cannot deny services to a religious couple then a religious baker should not be able to deny services to a gay couple.
If a religious baker can deny services to a gay couple then a gay baker should be able to deny services to a religious couple.
I care about equality in this instance, nothing more — nothing less.

 

The purpose of marriage law is not to require it but to encourage, support and sanction the nuclear family and heterosexuality which is vital and necessary to our society and species.

 

How does it encourage heterosexuality if marriage does not require either sex or procreation, and sex and/or procreation does not require legal marriage?

You do understand that the nuclear family is, historically speaking, a new concept, yes? Larger extended families were the norm except maybe among the upper classes.

 

Because it makes it more likely to happen and to happen in that nuclear family where if any children are produced that are in the best situation which is why we should encourage and support that and the nuclear family dates back throughout the history of western civilization and others.

 

What is the most clear and obvious example? And I'm not talking about an action taken against a gay person which is ASSUMED to be motivated by anti-gay bias just because the person is gay so of course it MUST be because the the person is gay, even though there is no evidence which connects the action to the gay person's sexual orientation. This has been the case with EVERY example that I've ever heard before.

Oh okay, I see what you mean. Well then what about simply allowing discrimination against both gay people and religious people? That would be equality wouldn't it?

 

Let’s take same sex adoption for example as I feel it is one of the most clear cut issues, first we must identify several facts, namely that most adoption agencies and foster care agencies are federally or state funded [1][2][3]. Numerous states or federal agencies have placed limitations or specific denials that the agencies can place on same sex couples [1][2][3]. Meaning that gay people are paying these organizations to exist and then being denied the services they are paying for.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/taxp...ption_n_5b16d9ebe4b0599bc6ddb039?guccounter=1

Some recent court cases:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/same-s...es-refuse-to-place-children-with-gay-parents/
https://www.npr.org/2017/09/23/5528...ame-sex-couples-seeking-to-adopt-are-rejected
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/0...s-trump-administration-over-refugee-adoption/

Absolutely, no person should have special rights or targeted penalties.

 

The rational for now allowing incest is different from the rational for not allowing beastiality.

One is within the legitimate purview of Gov't - while the other is not. Your mission - should you choose to accept it - is to explain which one is within the legitimate purview of Gov't - and why

 

Animals cannot consent?

 

Consent gets you half marks - but you failed to explain why incest is a legitimate purview of Gov't - and contrast with respect to the two situations.

The legitimate purview of Gov''t is protection from harm - direct harm - one person on another - rape, murder, theft and so on.

Essential liberty is outside that legitimate purview and thus "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Forcing oneself on another human (biologically related or not) - in a sexual manner in this case - is not part of "essential liberty" - and it is part of the legitimate purview of Gov't.

Having sex with a beast is part of essential liberty - since the beast is not a human.

Next question - now that we have clarified this distinction.

Beastiality is illegal. Is this law legitimate ?

Above is explained that it is not within the legitimate authority of Gov't to make such law - "Of its own volition". This does not necessarily make such law "illegitimate".

What justifies Gov't messing with essential liberty- while maintaining legitimacy ?

 

I disagree that the legitimate purview of government is only protection from direct harm by humans to other humans.

We have laws to protect animals from abuse and torture.
We have laws to protect plants and trees.
Laws to protect structures and natural formations.

 

Then you don't understand our system of Gov't .. Classical Liberalism - what a Republic is .. the declaration of independence .. and so on.

Just because Gov't makes a law - does not make that law legitimate. The DOI sets out the bar for legitimacy.

Your second misunderstanding is belief that because a law exists - means the legitimacy for that law came from Gov't - which was the point of the second question in the last post.

Just because the Gov't has no legitimate power to make law messing with essential liberty "OF ITS OWN Volition" - does not mean that law messing with essential liberty - such as those listed above - are not legitimate.

The question is not "what is the law" or "what should the law be from some moral perspective" - the question here is what the legitimate power of Gov't is.

Do you want totalitarianism ? (I will assume No) ... OK - then you want limitations to Gov't power. What then are those limitations ?

What are the limitations of Gov't power ? - as per the founding principles of this nation with respect to 1) where the authority of Gov't comes from - and 2) what the boundaries of legitimacy are .. as per the - The DOI - and the definition of what a Constitutional Republic is ?

In this nation - authority of Gov't comes from "consent of the governed" not divine right or "God" as was the case in the past.
The authority given to the Gov't as per the Social Contract - is protection from direct harm as stated previously. That is where this authority begins .. and ends with respect to essential liberty.

Jefferson summarizes - The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

This is straight out Classical Liberalism - the ideology of the enlightenment thinkers - that which the founders used.

Gov't can make law messing with essential liberty but - not of its own volition. It must appeal to "we the people" for a change to the Social contract to mess with essential liberty.

That is the safeguard put in place which protects essential liberty and restricts Gov't power- - the one Gov't has been trying to tear down for 200 years .. as that is what Gov't's are wont to do - gain as much power as possible.

In a Constitutional Republic - "By Definition" - the bar is not 50+1 or Simple Majority Mandate ( some leader claiming a mandate on the basis of winning some election)

The bar is "overwhelming majority consent" - at least 2/3rd's. If a law messing with essential liberty does not meet that bar .. that law is - by definition - illegitimate.

 

If in fact, the ONLY purpose of sex was to promote the species, then your post would make perfect sense. If applied to most animals on the planet, excluding Man, it does make sense. But Man is a different animal, & sex is MORE THAN simply a method of reproduction--it's a form of physical enjoyment & a form of spiritual & emotional bonding between two people. Someone once observed that "animals know. . .humans know they know." Sex is one of many areas of our life on Earth where humans ascribe more meaning to life & its activities than other animals do. Your argument here lowers human sexual activity to the same level of instinctual basic survival that we observe in other species. But for humans it's more--far more. We should be enthusiastic & happy in our human ability to feel & experience more in our sexual relations than the other species around us do, & grateful that we're capable of doing so.