How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

That is incorrect, it is no more unhealthy than straight sex, now with sex, any sex there are risks, just like crossing a street, but just like crossing the street there are common sense things one can do to mitigate the risks of sex.

 

That argument only works if we ignore the fact that people have sex for reasons other than procreation.

Also, loving relationships can exist with or without sexual engagement.

 

Bull crap.

 

Exactly what I said, but lust has always been a problem.. but generally speaking, there are rules.. just look at most of the stories thru every culture and time have something to do with sex.
Humans are a monogamous species, just like the dove, it is our natural tendency, altho' we will find another mate after the death of our first mate.

yeah... I think we knew that, and your answer is a good answer to the question" why do atheist follow the moral code?" and it is they don't, just the ones that suit them:
there is no god, no afterlife and no punishment in the non-existent afterlife..

why not do everything you can to live it up; short of going to prison and getting killed.

 

It's not an argument it's a simple biological fact.

 

Which is your argument.

 

And with that you have contradicted yourself, if you disdain the behavior/activity then equally you must disdain those who practice such activities.

That is unless you want to contradict yourself again and claim you condone such activity.

 

A pothole in the road, but who cares or why?

 

No it's not.... It's a biological fact. Not one time in the history of humanity have two men laying together created a child amongst themselves the same can be said for two women doing the same

 

Really? So you'd befriend, for example, a rapist or a child molester? You know, because you don't have disdain for the sinner.

 

You are not thinking of the definition of argument that I'm using. I'm using the second one.

 

Who cares?

so you're expressing a double standard hence your position is disingenuous.

You're trying to use reproduction for the basis of your argument and there are heterosexuals that can't reproduce but they can screw all they want because that's not icky.

because it thoroughly debunks the reproduction angle you do not care about that you're just using it as an excuse.

There are people who are infertile in their youth.

You are saying they are as bad as homosexuals if they have relationships with the opposite sex because they cannot reproduce not in principle not fundamentally no way no shape no form no how..

But they're okay because they're not icky.

This is not an autopilot response it's a good response because it debunks your argument

anything that follows this is typically really funny.

presented to you when you make this argument because it debunks your argument.

can infertile people reproduce yes or no if you say no which is the only logical answer you can make then any sex they have is just as bad as homosexuality by your standard because you place the act of reproduction as the most important component of it.

That's your mistake and you can't preserve that argument because it failed.

as we've established by the Lily couples the infertile couples even fertile couples who don't have kids having kids isn't the only purpose of a couple your argument has failed.

your point also extends to elderly couples infertile couples and couples who choose not to have children.

So it's not a point about homosexuality no matter how much you tell yourself that it is.

no in general people do things that are unhealthy for instance you drive a car or do you ride in a car that's unhealthy because if you get an Iraq it can enter or kill you.

If it's irrelevant that people do things that are bad for their health then why did you bring it up?

that doesn't make any sense. You take a gay man that's never going to be with a woman and shouldn't ever be with a woman and he's going to be with a man but they're not going to have sex because they can't have kids why?

So they don't offend your sensibilities?

so does the vast majority of heterosexual sex. One would say that that's the primary point of it,. If it wasn't we wouldn't have accidental pregnancies.

again neither does the vast majority I would say about 99.9% of heterosexual sex how many kids do you have how many times have you had sex if those numbers aren't equal then you're doing it too.

And if you're being selfish that's a you problem that's not a problem with the act.

 

How does it do that?

How does a gay couple separate a man and wife from each other or from their kids?

I think you're blaming the state for a domestic problem.

 

I think the primary reason for the is they tend to take it personally.

Making issues personal involves emotion and some people can't handle criticism.

I think predominantly it expresses fear. Primarily among this fear is fear that you're wrong.

For people for whatever reason that's a difficult thing to accept.

 

Gay people are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. If there is sufficient reason to have sex with people of the opposite sex, they can, have and will do so. Not being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is not automatically repulsed by the idea. Homosexual people have had heterosexual sex for the purpose of procreation or because they are paid to in the porn industry. Heterosexual people in the porn industry also engage in homosexual activity for the same reason.

 

even if you consider homosexuality of perversion I don't know why you care about it heterosexual perversion is by many orders of magnitude worse. It is the exclusive cause of unwanted children it is the exclusive cause of 60 million abortions.

Compared to homosexuality which doesn't compare at all there isn't this fast worldwide chain of human suffering caused by it.

I would say you are one of these people who can't distinguish lust from Love. You don't think homosexuals can love each other if you do think that then you have to correct your primary statement that homosexuality is lust.

 

No one is claiming that homosexual sex results in a birth. That doesn't negate the fact that homosexuals will engage in heterosexual activity for the reason of procreating. Doing so doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual.

 

That would say not one single time in history two females have attempted to procreate with one another. Not once in history has that occurred likewise for two males.

 

When I pointed this out to him although a lot less eloquently he told me it was irrelevant.

 

I'm willing to go with him on that one, at least from a premise of a created initial human couple. However, even with that premise, it does nothing to negate any of the arguments we have presented about homosexuality

 

I was taught that if you borrow something, bring it back in as good of shape or better than when you borrowed it.
All we are doing is borrowing Earth while we are alive.

 

Heterosexual people have sex with people they aren't sexually attracted to so why would it be different for homosexual people? I'm really not understanding why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

 

It's also a biological fact that homosexuals can and do engage in heterosexual sex for the express purpose of procreation.

 

When you say things like this, do you actually think you are contributing to the discussion? Don't you think everyone knows that? What is your point in saying this when obviously everyone knows that?

Are you trying to argue that people should only have sex to make babies?