I disagree. People should have the right to express themselves freely.
For example. A goat in heat will "stand" for sex. If a farmer wants sex with that goat and the feeling is mutual, do we have to remain silent if we see it or can we express our disgust freely?
To go on, what if this farmer feels he loves his goat as he would a woman. Should he not have the right to marry the goat he loves? If not, why not?
The argument would be that animals and people are unnatural, but so is man with man. The argument may be it's bad because it interferes with procreation, but homosexuals can't procreate either.
So, can we express ourselves freely if we witness something we see as disgusting and unnatural, or do we all agree we must remain silent when the farmer has sex with the goat and demands the Constitutional right to marry that the goat? After all, who are we to decide who people can love, right?
>>The argument would be that animals and people are unnatural, but so is man with man.
That’s a self-evident Natural truth whose pursuit would be better service in the domain of Science, instead of under dominion of humanly concocted religious dogma.
If folks insist on using religious dogmatic “logic” to decide the issue of homosexual morality, the progressives will simply, and ARE simply, create a religious dogma of their own in which Christ PERMITS perversion instead of just FORGIVING it.
Nature selected HETEROsexual procreation for humans; and that is the secular, natural, self-evident Truth.