If you think you have good arguments against gay marriage, then make them. Nobody will stop you. If they turn out to be bad arguments, then that will be pointed out, and if you persist in them you will be asked to explain your motivations in putting them forward. If your motivations are personal and emotional rather than rational -- if you are fanatical rather than misguided -- and you persist in them, you will be revealed as an irrational and possibly dangerous person, and forfeit the respect to which rational people are entitled.

If Tony Abbott announced tomorrow that he was getting policy advice from angels, he would cease to be Prime Minister very rapidly, and quite rightly so. We expect people in positions of responsibility to provide rational backing for their decisions, and if they are unable or unwilling to do so then we form our opinions of their competence accordingly.

JJ. I think you have just perfectly demonstrated the authors point. Well done.

((

"It is contrary to etiquette to yawn in the presence of a king," the monarch said to him. "I forbid you to do so."

"I can't help it. I can't stop myself," replied the little prince, thoroughly embarrassed. "I have come on a long journey, and I have had no sleep . . ."

"Ah, then," the king said. "I order you to yawn. It is years since I have seen anyone yawning. Yawns, to me, are objects of curiosity. Come, now! Yawn again! It is an order."

"That frightens me . . . I cannot, any more . . ." murmured the little prince, now completely abashed.

"Hum! Hum!" replied the king. "Then I--I order you sometimes to yawn and sometimes to--"

He sputtered a little, and seemed vexed.

))

- From http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/framechapter10.html

Is it not time already to recognise that marriage, like yawning, is one's private affair? Why should the state administer and register marriages in the first place? Do we need a "ministry of yawning"?

The threats to both religion and the traditional family, which the author complains about, are real and scary, though so far they all happen in other countries. The state is there to protect people and their chosen way of life, but who will defend us from the state if it has a double role and is also the villain which wants to attack our way of life?

It was very proper to separate state and religion, but so should there be a separation of state and marriage, state and yawning, state and education and much more. The only function of the state should be to protect our freedom.

This author ruins his argument through hyperbole, paranoia and exaggerated claims. However, he does point to some unfortunate aspects of the gamut of political action about social issues. This is of course present on both sides of any debate. For instance, the author accuses the pro-gay marriage movement for its attempts ‘to ostracise, punish, criminalise and censor’. Did he object to these very same actions when they were perpetrated on gay people, which has been the norm for centuries?

Agree almost exactly with Jon J. and can only add, Bah Humbug!
Rhrosty.

Godo, well said.

R0bert

The article at http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/ puts the ‘Eich’ issue into perspective:

“[Eich] was selected to be the CEO of Mozilla, Inc. The core of his job was going to be building the value of Mozilla. Although the donation had been known about by some for quite some time, it didn’t garner much attention until now. Once word of it became widely circulated, the knowledge led to employees threatening their own resignations, users choosing a different web browser (which would mean less revenue from Google and other add-on downloads), volunteers saying that they would no longer invest time in Mozilla projects, and donors announcing that they wouldn’t give money to the Mozilla Foundation. That created a serious risk of Mozilla losing earnings and resources. Mozilla was going to become less valuable — and that’s the precise opposite result that Eich was charged with generating.”

…and…

“Indeed [Eich] does [have a right to free speech], and he is exercising it [by choosing to resign instead of recanting or remaining in his position and watching the value of Mozilla suffer for it]. You know who else has a right to free speech? The people objecting to his donation and saying, “I will not work for or with Brendan Eich.” … Should our rights of free speech and free choice be abridged instead?”

While I don’t condone acts of vandalism, I find the rest of the article reassuring. There are many views that were once mainstream but are now considered abhorrent to the extent that expressing them will cause one to be shunned or censured (e.g. Donald Sterling’s remarks).

Social conservatives, once again, will be shown to be on the wrong side of history fifty years from now. Their problem is that they'll pick arbitrary points in time and assume that that’s when we had/have it right, with no objective or scientifically sound reasoning to back it. About the best they can do is appeal to the slippery slope fallacy or scientific ignorance.

But if you want to fight for traditional marriage then fine: my daughter’s worth at least four goats and a camel anyway.

Yuyutsu I detect an impending problem for you.

AS a supporter of our Muslims & now homosexuals, what are you going to do when the Muslims get control.

Will you be in the stone throwing mob, putting the poofters to death, or will you stand in front of them, trying to protect? As I have no interest in either that is only mildly interesting. I do however look forward to the end of this homosexual mirage garbage.

I do really look forward to feminists, dresses in burkas, walking 2 paces behind their ruling men. That would be funny, & quite fitting of course.

Your commentator Jon J has demanded an argument against gay marriage.
Here is one from a 78 year old atheist.
Marriage, as traditionally understood, is an institution established for the nurture and education of children. For most of my life it was stated as such at the commencement of every marriage celebration, even one in the 60s at the Registrar General's Office Queens Square Sydney.

Its modern adaption amounts to a contract between a man an a woman to merge their financial affairs so that on party ( usually the woman) will not be disadvantaged by making his or her career a second priority to the raising of children for the vital 20 years in which raising children corresponds and can conflict with career building.

Marriage as so understood, i.e. as institutionalised monogamy, provides the nuclear family which has provided the basic building block of our society. It is that building block which has provided the only effective way to bring children to the maximum of their potential.

It is that maximum of potential which provided the inventions and innovations which have lifted the first world to huge heights of productivity which has created such wealth for the first world.

The huge population of the world today would not be possible without such innovations for lack of the means to produce, transport and distribute food, shelter, medicines etc.

The innovations of steam power, steel hulled ships, internal combustion engines, harnessing electricity, heavier than air flight, radio, television, skyscrapers, computers internet have all come from societies based on the nuclear family basic building block-- and no other.

Other societies with are lifting or have lifted their countries into the first world have first adopted the same building block.

Marriage as traditionally understood is absolutely vital to the welfare of the world.

A moral test : Should a soldier's boyfriend receive a widow's pension on the death in action of the soldier because they went through a farcical rite which some people want to call a marriage?

Dear Hasbeen,

I can't see how you deduce that I support either Muslims or homosexuals: all I said is that government should get right out of our lives.

Let those who want to fast on Ramdan and pray 5 times a day towards Mecca do so.
Let those who want to have sexual-intercourse with others of their own gender do so.
Let those who want to maintain a traditional family do so.

Let parents who want their children to learn that homosexuality is wonderful, send them to schools which teach that.
Let parents who want their children to learn that Muhammad was the greatest prophet of all times, send them to schools which teach that.
Let parents who want their children to learn Christian family values, send them to schools which teach that.

Let those who want to wear a burka do so.
Let those who want to wear European clothes do so.
Let those who want to wear nothing do so.

Let the government support none of the above.
Let the government suppress none of the above.

All I ask for myself, is the freedom to ride a bicycle without wearing a pot on my head.

@Old Man. you ask "A moral test : Should a soldier's boyfriend receive a widow's pension on the death in action of the soldier because they went through a farcical rite which some people want to call a marriage?"

My answer is a most definite yes. It seems the government, and the Department of Veteran's Affairs hold the same view:

http://www.dva.gov.au/eligibilityandclaims/whoiseligible/family/Pages/index.aspx

Superficial answer Yuyutsu, you won't have the choice of letting everyone do their own thing, once we are controlled by Muslim stupidity.

But even more importantly, we have a more serious conflict.

You want the freedom to ride around without a pot on your head.

I want the freedom to drive my car, without some fool, head potted or otherwise, wobbling around on my road on a bike.

I guess it is going to have to be cream puffs at dawn at 10 paces for us.

Serves Eich and Mozilla right for caving in to, of all things a Twitter campaign, don't complain about being bullied if you don't have the guts to stand up for your principles.Those who protest the loudest over trivial crap like the Eich affair seem to be White middle class heterosexual women of a "certain age" and their equally addled but equally man loving 25 year old daughters.
The really funny thing is that I've never met a Gay person who holds Left Wing views, no doubt Gay Leftists represent a minority of a minority but in a broader sense conservatism is more typical of anyone who is married with kids and is not mentally ill. A person with a family to think of as their main priority inevitably holds conservative views, you can't care about the future of your children and still be a Leftist, the two are mutually exclusive.

If you think you have good arguments against carnivorous vegetarianism, then make them. Nobody will stop you. If they turn out to be bad arguments, then that will be pointed out, and if you persist in them you will be asked to explain your motivations in putting them forward. If your motivations are personal and emotional rather than rational -- if you are fanatical rather than misguided -- and you persist in them, you will be revealed as an irrational and possibly dangerous person, and forfeit the respect to which rational people are entitled.

Yuyutsu: “Why should the state administer and register marriages in the first place?”

You are absolutely right. There is not one good reason but there may be bad ones. It could be that the push for same-sex marriage is not about marriage at all and is really about abusing the authority of government to endorse homosexuality as equal in all respects to heterosexuality. It is not about marriage equality but about getting someone with authority and power to endorse homosexual relationships. You could have marriage equality simply by eradicating the Marriage Act altogether where every couple who claimed to be married by their own definition should be considered married to anyone else who really cares. Having someone else affirm your relationship only matters to those who are insecure about their relationship since there are no practical advantages to having it authorised by the government. So called ‘next of kin rights’ should be awarded on grounds that are not dependent on possession of a marriage certificate which guarantees nothing in relation to the quality of that relationship.

Old man: “Marriage as traditionally understood is absolutely vital to the welfare of the world.”

Marriage does not need to be excused or justified. It is something people do because they see it as a way of showing their love for each other. That is all it is and that is enough. Society existed ok long before marriage was invented and will continue on long without it. Talking of marriage as the haven for children and thus the building block of society is a slight on all those marriages where no children exist and on all those perfectly loving relationships where there is no certificate attached. Are these people parasites on the rest in terms of welfare of the world? Should laws be enacted to force people to pull their weight by marrying and procreating? There is only one good reason to be married and that is because you love the person you are marrying – anything else is an excuse to push some ideology

Every point made in this article could apply to multiculturalism/panculturalism/panracialism.

Dare to doubt or reject the Utopian Leftist agenda, and out come the torches and pitchforks.

This is standard operating procedure now for anyone challenging *any* part of that agenda.

Those who chant the loudest about "freedom and tolerance" support tyranny in practice.

The irony is that many of these imported ethnic groups are more sexist, racist and homophobic than Westerners ever were.
But we must tolerate the intolerant!

Jon J, what is so damn special about "rational" decisions?

What is "rational" about gay marriage?
What is "rational" about love or sexual attraction?

They're "personal and emotional".
Nothing to do with reason.

So are the fanatical reactions of the protesters.

Reason lives in the science lab.
It rarely ventures into the bedroom (or Leftist politics).

AJ Philips, and would all those posturing loudmouths really have made a dint in Mozilla's bank balance?

As usual with these types, they're all bark and no bite.
They have no real power.

Mozilla may have gained as many users as they lost, as some people would appreciate a stance for free speech.

Dear JBSH,

<<My answer is a most definite yes. It seems the government, and the Department of Veteran's Affairs hold the same view:>>

So had the Department of Veteran's Affairs held a different view, could your answer then be a 'No'?

Since when is there any correlation between government and morality?

Dear Hasbeen,

The old and proven technique to expose anti-Semites (http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/62800/of-jews-and-bicycle-riders) is to state the following:

"Every trouble on earth is due to the Jews and the bicycle riders!"

To which your typical anti-Semite responds: "Why, what's wrong with bicycle riders?", allowing you to reply: "and what's wrong with the Jews?"!

<<you won't have the choice of letting everyone do their own thing, once we are controlled by Muslim stupidity.>>

Nor do we have such freedom now, under the control of Western stupidity.

The keyword, Sir, is "stupidity", not "Muslim": none deserves to be under its control.

<<I want the freedom to drive my car, without some fool, head potted or otherwise, wobbling around on my road on a bike.>>

You are the boss, Sir - you should have every freedom to enjoy your road. No one should wobble on your road, fool or otherwise, without your explicit permission: that would constitute a criminal trespass!

Ah Shockadelic. As per usually you have missed the point.

<<...and would all those posturing loudmouths really have made a dint [sic] in Mozilla's bank balance?>>

I can't say for sure. Eich seemed to think they would and did what he thought was best for the company.

<<Mozilla may have gained as many users as they lost, as some people would appreciate a stance for free speech.>>

Eich's freedom of speech was not stifled. That was the whole point of what I quoted. And what about the freedom of speech and choice of those who disagreed? One person's freedom of speech does not override another's right to protest against what is said.

So, we go from tolerance to a form of institutionalized intolerance.

In my view, Eich's freedom of speech was in fact stifled - because he was hounded from office for expressing it.

Now, if his espoused opinion (or donation in support of an opinion), had been something to the effect that "all black (or brown, yellow or brindled) are demonstrably inferior", then an horrendous opposing clamour would have been a totally legitimate response.

How can one's espousal of uncertainties about, or moral opposition to the concept of gay-marriage, be held to be one of virtual heresy?

It is my strong (and irreversible) conviction that traditional marriage has a rightly deserved and honoured place in human societal structure.

I am quite willing to be tolerant of alternative partnering arrangements in the interest of societal harmony, and to be tolerant of (or agreeable to) some family arrangements which do not accord to my concept of the traditional family.
However, there are limits to what I, as a responsible member of society, would willingly accept as being in the constructive best interests of society as a whole.

Where I can agree that the recognition of same-sex unions is arguably in the interest of societal harmony, I can absolutely not agree that such unions should, for all purposes, be considered to be the same as, and in all respects equal to, traditional marriage of one man to one woman.

Moves to erode and diminish the value and place of traditional marriage in our society, by irrationally and unnecessarily expanding the concept of marriage to include a variety of non-traditional arrangements, can in my view only be detrimental to societal structure as a whole, and a potential threat to our general concepts of societal responsibility and morality.

Tolerance has its limits, and undue expansion of libertarian attitudes to social responsibility can only serve to alienate a portion of humanity, both at home and abroad, and I fail to see any upside.
Libertarian Western society is looking evermore like the 'court jester', but I don't see traditional societies clapping.

Yuyutso, correct, but you left the most important one out of your post,

If you want to have Voluntary euthanasia through severe pain and loss of dignity and death is imminent,, then you should be able to do just that without Government interference

Saltpetre,

Eich's freedom of speech was not effected. I would acknowledge, however, that his sense of ability to express his views openly (at least after this event) would have been effected. But the same goes for any view that society deems distasteful. Someone opposed to interracial marriage would likely feel uncomfortable in expressing their views, too, because of the potential backlash. That's progress.

<<Now, if his espoused opinion (or donation in support of an opinion), had been something to the effect that "all black (or brown, yellow or brindled) are demonstrably inferior", then an horrendous opposing clamour would have been a totally legitimate response.>>

You make it sound as if there is something intrinsically different between the two forms of discrimination (yet the only difference that I can see between racism and the opposition to gay marriage is the severity - both discriminate against a group for who they are, and cannot help being). Part of how you do this is by appealing to tradition, yet I somewhat discredited this earlier. Tradition is a fluid concept as is the identity of any given society.

You also speak of the moral standards of some, yet these all either appeal to the supernatural (a concept that may be dismissed as easily as it is asserted), or assert spurious associations like the demonstrably false ones that Old Man proffered. It may go against the moral sensibilities of some to allow interracial marriage too (as it once did for Christians), but until someone can present a rational reason as to why either form of marriage is immoral and should not be allowed, these opinions will continue to be dismissed as bigoted.

Just look at your friends butt does it really come to mind how cute it is ? Nope
Poofs have a mental problem one day will be a pill to fix it and as for letting homo's raise children forget there sick, And don't anyone tell me Im homophobic I'm not the one with a problem , They make me sick I see them on TV and change the channel. Keep it to your own homes don't force it on everyone else.
These where my thought's on this subject until a friend pointed out it is only Natures way of controlling population. So as long as they are discreet I don't care anymore but don't force me to watch it.Gay marriage noway.

'It may go against the moral sensibilities of some to allow interracial marriage too (as it once did for Christians), but until someone can present a rational reason as to why either form of marriage is immoral and should not be allowed, these opinions will continue to be dismissed as bigoted. '

unless of course its among indigeneous tribes today where it is still frowned upon and punished severely in some areas in Australia. The evolutionist of course would of taught that you were marrying a monkey. Something that AJ would be happy to ignore.

Yeah well, on that subject this video may be of some use,nobody wants their child to grow up to be Gay and nobody wants their kids to marry out, as Tommy Sotomayor points out it's a perfectly reasonble position to take. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtwCPXC_Pj0
There's a reason so few people marry out just like there's a reason so few people choose same sex marriage even when it's available.
Gay relationships like interracial pairings are far less stable than mainstream relationships, something like 80% of White woman/Black man marriages in the U.S end in failure, in both cases it's a rough life, nobody wants their kids to struggle every day and know little but stress and unhappiness.

Ausieboy there is one thing you are forgetting with your post, when you see two gay guys holcing hands or kissing etc on the TV, at least they are being honest about their sexuality, but Mr presumed straight guy on TV which you do not question is married with three children, looks good in your eyes, but look closer, he may be having an affair with another married man or gay guy or many, never ever take what you see and believe is the gospel truth, men in prison, the armed forces do have sex with other men, not forgetting married men also, we are all including yourself open to temptation with other men if the need arises, the Mardis Gras in Sydney is not and I repeat not your stereotype of gay men take a closer look at the suited business man, you may be surprised.

Well AJ, you appear to have missed the point completely.

>.. until someone can present a rational reason as to why either form of marriage is immoral and should not be allowed, these opinions will continue to be dismissed as bigoted.<

For some, the question of gay-marriage is most certainly one of morality, but that is not my point, or my position, as I thought I had made clear.

My point is that I see a clear need to differentiate between gay and traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage is natural, it conforms with the natural order for the survival of any species; has been, is, and probably ever will be.
You can fudge nature, with in-vitro, embryo transplant, surrogacy and 'donations', but all such interventions are to emulate the natural order.

Gay relationships may be fulfilling, may emulate natural pair-bonding, and should not be criminalized or outlawed out of hand, but they cannot be held to be the natural order for the future beneficial survival of the species.
If there were no gay human relationships, life would go on.
If there were only gay relationships?

I repeat: Where I can agree that the recognition of same-sex unions is arguably in the interest of societal harmony, I can absolutely not agree that such unions should, for all purposes, be considered to be the same as, and in all respects equal to, traditional marriage of one man to one woman.

>Tradition is a fluid concept as is the identity of any given society.<

Societal stability, and the effective nurturing of the young, relies on certain structures being maintained and even enforced - such as the responsibility of spouses for the well-being of each other, and for the well-being of children.
In the world at large, maintenance of stable traditional marriage is at the very foundation of societal stability.

Some traditions need to be maintained.

To equate racial vilification with reservations about the efficacy of or need for gay-marriage, exhibits a bias of extraordinary dimension.

AJ Philips "But the same goes for any view that society deems distasteful."

"until someone can present a rational reason as to why either form of marriage is immoral"

Immoral or distasteful?
Make your your mind.

Neither have much to do the Reason either.

A society doesn't have opinions, only people do.

If people think eating peanut butter with chocolate sprinkles is "immoral", "distasteful" or in any other way objectionable, they should be able to SAY SO.

It doesn't matter whether 99% of the population disagrees with them or not.

And even if others protest, they shouldn't feel the need to resign (undefended by their employer), *implying* that they have no right to express such an opinion (which has nothing to do with their job).

There is actually a quite *rational* justification for opposing interracial marriage: outbreeding depression.
Google it.

You claim gays are being "discriminated" against.

If fact, government departments and most private companies make no distinction between straight married couples, straight unmarried couples or gay couples.

If they're not actually being treated any differently in practice, where's the "discrimination"?

In principle - I am not against same sex marriage - however at the same time I don't like marriage at all.

I feel if your relationship needs a over materialistic $1000+ wedding ring, luxury cake, luxury vehicle, expensive wedding venue and honeymoon..... I could go on - then why are you getting married in the first place?

Furthermore, I was appalled when I was told by a person involved with a church, you can have to pay at least $1000 for a church priest to conduct a ceremony. I always thought this was a free service. Clearly not and I was shocked.

I have always believed (as a single person), that your relationship should be and come naturally. Like with your parents for example. You don't need a wedding for that.

The only issue I have with discrimination on this topic, is I do not support same sex couples going overseas (spending like $20,000) using IVF programs to have children. It is like picking a product off the shelf - when same sex couples cannot naturally have children. I am disgusted by that - with so many people suffering in poor and war torn countries - $20,000 for one child?

If any couple wants to get married, have your day of fun, (a wedding) - fine, but make sure your relationship has a strong foundation to it.

NathanJ
Oh for sure, I personally know people who've gotten married just to experience the wedding day and the honeymoon despite having an unstable, on again-off again relationship, only to divorce a few years later.
That's my position, if Gays want to have weddings and honeymoons who am I to object? I like weddings, the emotion, the ceremony...the free feed mostly LOL..so the more the merrier.
Furthermore everyone deserves the comfort and security of a stable, long term intimate relationship, but as you rightly point out, marriage is not essential to a harmonious personal life.

runner,

Evolution actually disproves such a ridiculous suggestion. But thanks for demonstrating your ignorance once again. It's always entertaining.

Saltpetre,

The survival of our species isn't much of a point because the majority will always be heterosexual. Accepting gay marriage will not change that. And even if we all turned gay generations from now, it would not be because of gay marriage.

<<I repeat: Where I can agree that the recognition of same-sex unions is arguably in the interest of societal harmony, I can absolutely not agree that such unions should, for all purposes, be considered to be the same as, and in all respects equal to, traditional marriage of one man to one woman.>>

Well that's fine. No-one can expect you to feel differently if that's just how you feel. If you at least respect their relationship equally, then that's all that matters.

<<Societal stability, and the effective nurturing of the young, relies on certain structures being maintained and even enforced - such as the responsibility of spouses for the well-being of each other, and for the well-being of children.
In the world at large, maintenance of stable traditional marriage is at the very foundation of societal stability.>>

This assumes that gay marriage (or even parenting) threatens societal stability. Yet there is no evidence to suggest this. As a side note, the nuclear family was only the dominant model of family between the late '40s and the '70s (which explains why older generations feel society is now suddenly caving in). At every other point in time there have been all sorts of different models of family structures from extended families and tribes to single parent families. In fact, most of the innovations that Old Man mentioned occurred when the nuclear family wasn't the dominant family structure, as he had implied.

And Shockadelic, my irrelevant friend...

<<Immoral or distasteful?
Make your your mind.>>

Erm... The terms 'immoral' and 'distasteful' were in reference to two different things. 'Distasteful' was in reference to the way many view opposition to gay marriage and 'immoral' was in reference to the way those who object to gay marriage view it. Either way it would make no difference.

What an utterly stupid response.

<<Neither have much to do the Reason either.>>

No, by themselves they don't, and nor did I ever imply that they did. What's with the capital 'R', by the way? Is this a special type of reason you're referring to?

<<A society doesn't have opinions, only people do.>>

Correct.

<<If people think eating peanut butter with chocolate sprinkles is "immoral", "distasteful" or in any other way objectionable, they should be able to SAY SO.>>

Absolutely!

<<It doesn't matter whether 99% of the population disagrees with them or not.>>

Sing it, sister!

<<And even if others protest, they shouldn't feel the need to resign...>>

Whether or not they do is a personal matter.

<<There is actually a quite *rational* justification for opposing interracial marriage: outbreeding depression.
Google it.>>

Done and done: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

And I fail to see how it is a problem in our modern times. Especially in humans, given that our gene pool is one of the smallest on Earth due the a volcanic eruption 70,000 years ago that reduced our population to about 30,000.

If you could point me to some scholarly, peer-reviewed articles supporting the idea that outbreeding depression is severe enough to condemn the love that two people of different races may feel for each other - or has any detrimental effect in humans at all - then please link me to it. I had a look and couldn't find anything.

<<You claim gays are being "discriminated" against.>>

Yes, and not being able to have their relationships recognised in the same way that a committed heterosexual couple can is a form of discrimination. So the rest of your post has been answered and duly ignored.

Nobody can convince me that a man sticking his penis up another man's anus is a natural act. An anus is a one way valve. it was never designed for sexual intercourse. It may be possible to do it, but all you are doing is providing a work for proctologists who have to repair the damage.

My attitude to homosexuality is liberal. If you want to do it, go right ahead. What you do in your own bedrooms is your business. But please, don't say that you want social respectability with normal people.

My attitude to homosexuality is the same as my attitude drinking your own urine. If you want to do it, go right ahead. What you do in your own kitchen is your business. But please, don't try to tell me that drinking your own urine is natural, or that people who drink their own urine should have social equality with people who drink wine. Before you claim that nobody wiould be stupid enough to drink their own urine, think again. The fact that Mahatma Ghandi drank his own pisss was enough to get the western fashionable set doing the same thing to show their solidarity to the struggling third worlders. Actress Sarah Miles used to proudly admit to drinking her own urine.

Here's to the Mahatama. Cheers.

And don' give me any guff on love either. There have been cases where men have had regular sex with their daughters full consent and active participation. If fathers and daughters both wish to commit incest, go right ahead. What you do in your own bedrooms is your business. But don't try to tell me that it is natural, or that fathers and daughters who commit incest should have social respectability. I don't think they should be allowed to call any cohabitation "marriage", either.

The state has no place in personal relationships. Marriage should not be recognised by the state or controlled by that state to give it real status.

We are seeing the state slowly replace the functions of mother and father. There are proposals for the state here to over ride medical decisions of the parents in regards to immunisation and psychiatric treatments such as electro-shock therapy.

It is time we the people asserted our rights and put the state in its place.

Lego you appear to be obessed with sexual acts, Sodomy, Cunnigilus and fellatio are normal sexual acts by the majority of people, irrespective of ones sexuality.
You really must get out more.

Jay Of Melbourne "if Gays want to have weddings and honeymoons who am I to object?"

A lot of people seem to be confusing "weddings" and "marriage", saying "gay marriage" will help the economy.

Formal dress, rings, honeymoon vacations, limousines, reception catering, cakes.

That's not "marriage", that's "weddings".

AJ Philips "This assumes that gay marriage threatens societal stability. Yet there is no evidence to suggest this."

Gay marriage has existed in so few places for so little time, there would hardly be any "evidence" yet of anything at all!

"The terms 'immoral' and 'distasteful' were in reference to two different things."

Both gay marriage *and* opposition to it could be described as such.
Which is the point *I* was making.

"What's with the capital 'R', by the way?"

This "Reason" is the formal *concept* of human thought.
I gave it a capital, which I'm quite entitled to do, to distinguish it from the "reason" people might oppose or support gay marriage.

Resorting to nitpicking over grammar only exposes how shallow you are.

You don't need "scholarly, peer-reviewed articles" to know what applies to animals and plants, applies to humans.

The more distant the genetic relationship, the greater *probability* of outbreeding depression.

Until very recently, East Asian Mongoloids would never have much chance to breed with African Negroids, nor either with Europeans.

When you breed dissimilar people, it's a gamble.

With similar/related people, those lineages have had thousands of years to weed out the possible glitches.

"not being able to have their relationships recognised in the same way"

There's nothing in any discrimination act about access to *symbolism*.

If I cannot buy "chocolate" at a store, but can buy "cocoasolids", an identical product, I'm not being "discriminated" against because the LABELLING is different.

LEGO "Nobody can convince me that a man sticking his penis up another man's anus is a natural act."

Heterosexuals do anal too. Even married ones! Even women on men (with help from modern plastics).

But nobody asks at the alter/registry office what they do in bed (or the kitchen, or the car, or with other kinky swingers...)

This Old Man reads this interchange with despair.
There is no doubt that the productivity which has produced the wealth the First World enjoys has been the result of the creativity of societies which have adopted institutionalised monogamy in its traditional form as its basic building block of society.
I was aware that a High Court Judge had arranged for his pension, on his death, to pass to his boyfriend. If the boyfriend of a soldier killed in action receives the same treatment at least the Government is consistent-- consistently wrong.
A woman severely limits her career prospects by bearing a child.
Certainly the special position of marriage in our society should be limited to situations which do or may give rise to birth.
The special position of traditional marriage DOES "need to be excused or justified" by that phenomenon.
"Society existed ok long before marriage was invented" -but not the society that created the wealth we now enjoy.-
"and will continue on long without it?
Time will tell. The troubles we are facing with substance abuse indicate that, perhaps , it will not.

The myths of romantic love, the Jane Austen "boy meets, girl boy loses girl, boy finds girl" tradition are helpful props to a productive society, when added to the concept of marriage as an institution established for the nurture of children.

If we lose that special status if traditional marriage we are putting in jeopardy the cohesion and progress of our society

...It has become painfully evident, the marriage demands made by the homosexual element, has positioned them in a strata of society which has divorced itself from the common cause of mankind!

Back again, are you, AJ Phillips? Are you prepared to debate racism like a grown up? Or are you still running and hiding by demanding that I prove everything while you just criticise everything I say, and submit nothing?

Racism must be right if those who advocate it are prepared to argue it out, while those who oppose it are too frightened of fair debate and want to shut us up through the use of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

To Kip.

I know that they are normal sexual acts between the sexes and I don't wish to ban them. But homosexuality is an same sex act which I also do not wish to ban, but I do not consider same sex as normal behaviour, any more than I consider paedophilia, incest, or bestiality to be normal behaviour.

But with homosexuality and even incest I am liberal. What you do in your bedrooms is your business. But don't tell me that it is normal and that you want social respectability and equality with normal people. Do you consider that a sister and brother cohabiting and having sex together should be called "marriage"? Even if the sister took contraceptives, the "marriage" would be considered socially unacceptable, most people would not recognise it, and the pair of them would be ostracised because it violated societal norms.

There would be nothing wrong with people laughing and sneering at a "married" brother and sister, and discriminating against them. And I don't see anything wrong with laughing at homosexuals or discriminating against them either. Nor do I consider homosexuals living together a "marriage."

Just because something occurs does not make it 'normal' and nor does it recommend the behaviour. Even apart from anal sex, which is fraught with medical problems including damage and contraction of STDs, there are apparently many other risk-taking practices of male homosexuals in particular that to most people are and always will be objectionable, unsafe and not to be recommended.

Returning to anal sex, while some women might submit to it, what woman would say it is pleasurable to her or worth the risks? That is a question for the women on the forum, 'Would you yourself request anal sex and if so what about the risks?'.

It has never been and should not be the practice of governments to legitimise and even approve of acts that have known risks to health.

It is enough that homosexuality is not illegal and that there are laws forbidding discrimination. Not being referred to by the Marriage Act is not discrimination and there nor is there any loss of 'rights'.

There is no way the public will ever learn to 'love' homosexuality. Tolerance is enough. That applies to many things in life. Choose another word for homosexual partnerships because marriage is already taken. Marriage already has a meaning and use.

That's stretching it just a little, onthebeach.

>>It has never been and should not be the practice of governments to legitimise and even approve of acts that have known risks to health.<<

Smoking. Drinking. Filling the air with pollutants. Eating fatty foods. The list is endless.

Would you support a ban on drinking alcohol? Wouldn't you regard that as unnecessary and unwarranted interference in your life?

Onthebeach, it has never been and should not be the practise of Governments to legiti mise and even approve of acts that hav known risks to health, c'mon Governments not only risk health but are good at killing people in war, besides there is a new condom coming out in 2015 especially for anal sex, not only for the homosexual community but for the heterosexual community as well, for those who enjoy that type of sex.

To Pericles.

I would object to smokers renaming "smoking" as "healthy breathing." I would object to alcohol drinkers renaming alcohol consumption as "partaking essential fluids." And I would object to those who love fatty foods renaming the consumption of fat "nutrition."

Entire libraries of law books exist regulating every facet of human behaviour. Democratic governments have the right to enact any law which they see fit within their own constitutions that reflect the will of the people, and which they consider will produce a peaceful society.

If you think that the people support you, then bring on the referendum. Stuff the damned republic. Let's have a referendum on what people really want. I am prepared to go to the polls and if people are stupid enough to call sodomy "marriage" then I will live with it.

But you don't want that, do you? You know that you will lose.

People are tolerant of homosexuals. But they have no intention if granting social respectability to homosexuals any more than they will give social respectability to paedophiles, incestuous couples, people who indulge in bestiality, people who like eating whales, or women who go to funerals in bikinis.

Lego you have now admitted that you do not like homosexuals, as comparing homosexuals to the list you have posted; reveals the vitriol you have towards others.

Shockadelic,

<<Gay marriage has existed in so few places for so little time, there would hardly be any "evidence" yet of anything at all!>>

But not only is there no evidence, we know from past examples that different family structures have no measurable effect of societal stability (please see my last paragraph to Saltpetre). Correlations could be about the best you can draw. If you can point me to anything that suggests that a model of family consisting of two parents of the same sex will have a flow-on effect that is detrimental to society, then I'd be fascinated to see it. Equal rights are not something we hold back until it can be shown that they won’t be detrimental. The only ethical way of going about them is to grant them unless/until a detrimental effect can be demonstrated.

<<Both gay marriage *and* opposition to it could be described as such.
Which is the point *I* was making.>>

Well, you did a pretty poor job of doing that. Why then would you ask me to make up my mind? You take me for a fool if you actually think I didn't consider this either. Refer back to my last paragraph.

<<You don't need "scholarly, peer-reviewed articles" to know what applies to animals and plants, applies to humans.>>

But to what extent in humans, and with such a narrow gene pool too? The only scholarly articles I could find regarding the dangers of outbreeding were in relation to re-populating endangered species. Normally I wouldn’t request such a high standard of support for one’s argument but my search results were so filled with far-right websites that I figured it would be appropriate in this case.

<<There's nothing in any discrimination act about access to *symbolism*.>>

There doesn’t have to be.

<<If I cannot buy "chocolate" at a store, but can buy "cocoasolids", an identical product, I'm not being "discriminated" against because the LABELLING is different.>>

You would need to ask the chocolate that. How you feel in that scenario is irrelevant. You’re also not being treated differently.

Your analogies are absurd.

LEGO,

If you’re up for another round, then fine. Your last attempt (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#276021) resulted in such a crushing defeat that I wouldn’t mind another go. It was fun. I would request, however, that this time you actually read my posts instead of skimming them. It wastes my time and you made a right fool of yourself doing that.

But you have some nerve implying that I couldn’t debate like an adult. It was you who didn’t have the courtesy to read my posts properly and resorted to ad hominems when you had exhausted all your arguments. Your arguments were so vacuous that you needed me to fit your stereotype of an anti-racist so that you could divert attention from them by attacking my supposed position instead. Despite my continual clarification of my position, you continued to try to second-guess a different position, and when you didn’t get your way, you stomped your feet like a petulant child and resorted to conspiracy, slander and bullying tactics.

It was a pathetic sight to behold and an utter embarrassment to watch.

A simple solution to the issue of gay marriage would be to de-legalise marriage. A form of civil union would still be recognised by the state between people, but with a minimum of ceremony. Those who in addition wanted their union recognised within the customs of a particular cultural group, or religion, could have a ceremony, with customs and restrictions of that group. Government registrars would only conduct a civil ceremony and would not be permitted to use the word "marriage". Civil celebrants and clerics could still be licensed by the state to perform the legal process, as well as conduct a "marriage" ceremony. Government registrars would not be permitted to refuse to conduct a ceremony on the basis of the gender of the couple, but civil celebrants, and clerics, would.

AJ Philips "such a narrow gene pool"

If that were true, it'd be difficult to tell a Tibetan from a Zulu.
Is it difficult?

The major "races" (populations) were unable to breed together to any significant degree for tens of thousands of years.
There are alleles that only exist in certain ancestries, and are therefore untried with other mixtures.
As I said, it's a gamble.
And with any gamble, you can lose.

If you can see difference with the naked eye, you're not looking at *close* genetic relationships.

I can't be bother looking for your precious articles because I don't need an egghead with heaps of letters after their name to tell me that if outbreeding depression occurs in animals, it occurs in humans.

If you need one, look yourself (maybe those "far-right" sites actually have the references you're looking for!).

If there's no research on humans, it's because of PC ideology, making any inquiry into "racial" genetic differences taboo and therefore no funding available.

"How you feel in that scenario is irrelevant"

And how gays (or rather, militant gay activists) feel is irrelevant, if they can't get "married" (symbolism, labelling), but can have their relationship *recognised* by virtually everyone that needs to.

Governments and many private companies have changed their policies, without any need for legal prodding.

If there were a situation (e.g. a particular company's policies) where it weren't recognised, you can lobby/picket/protest the *company*, not expect the *law* to be changed.

Shockadelic,

<<If that were true, it'd be difficult to tell a Tibetan from a Zulu.>>

Deary me. How embarrassing. Such a simplistic understanding of genetics.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/33.full
http://web.udl.es/usuaris/e4650869/docencia/GenClin/content/recursos_classe_(pdf)/revisionsPDF/geneticvariation.pdf

<<The major "races" (populations) were unable to breed together to any significant degree for tens of thousands of years.>>

Correct.

<<There are alleles that only exist in certain ancestries, and are therefore untried with other mixtures.>>

The question is, “How much of a problem is this?” According the articles I’ve read, the biggest problem is the physical differences, such as a short, fat, pale white person breeding with a tall skinny black African with the offsping not being perfectly suited to the cold climate of the former or the hot climate of latter. Again, not very relevant to modern times.

<<I can't be bother looking for your precious articles because I don't need an egghead with heaps of letters after their name to tell me that if outbreeding depression occurs in animals, it occurs in humans.>>

Revealing. In other words, you’re only interested in that which supports your preconceived ideas.

<<If you need one, look yourself (maybe those "far-right" sites actually have the references you're looking for!).>>

I had a good search of the Griffith University online library (which provides access to just about every journal article ever written, and many textbooks) and as I said before, I couldn’t find much. Those right-wing websites I mentioned didn’t have any references (surprise, surprise). That’s why I’m asking you.

<<If there's no research on humans, it's because of PC ideology, making any inquiry into "racial" genetic differences taboo and therefore no funding available.>>

Ah, conspiracy theories. There’s a ton of information about genetic racial differences. That’s why LEGO suffered so badly last time.

<<And how gays (or rather, militant gay activists) feel is irrelevant, if they can't get "married" (symbolism, labelling), but can have their relationship *recognised* by virtually everyone that needs to.>>

How you may feel in the false analogy you supplied was irrelevant because the *chocolate* was the subject of the labelling; not you or even your relationship to it.

On re-reading my response, Shockadelic, I think I owe you an apology for misrepresenting something you had said (Sorry, cold and flu tablets):

<<I can't be bother looking for your precious articles because I don't need an egghead with heaps of letters after their name to tell me that if outbreeding depression occurs in animals, it occurs in humans.>>

It’s not that you are not interested in what experts have to say (as I had claimed), it’s that you made the issue out to be a question of whether or not outbreeding depression occurs in humans too. Yet I had never denied that it did and nor was I asking for evidence that it did. I was simply trying to find evidence that it is, to any extent, detrimental in humans; particularly given our relatively small gene pool.

This sort of misreprentation seems to be a common theme in your posts. Take your quoting of me out-of-context by simply responding to the:

"How you feel in that scenario is irrelevant"

...in my comment…

“You would need to ask the chocolate [whether or not it feels discriminated against]. How you feel in that scenario is irrelevant.”

You selectively quoted me to justify introducing your unrelated (to what I had said) claim that the opinions of homosexuals who feel discriminated against are somehow unimportant, misplaced and irrelevant. You used my words to divert attention from your bungled analogy and in a way that caused them to lose all meaning.

Going back to gene pools for a minute, you’re obviously not aware that 85% of genetic variation can be seen within a single community; only 10-15% comes from the differences between continents; and the visible differences between different populations make up less than 1% of the human genome. That leaves over 99% of the human genome to lack variation and yet you make out as though the visible differences are enough to come to the conclusion that humans don’t have a small gene pool!

This is what happens when we rely on commonsense and are not interested in what “eggheads” have to say.

"How embarrassing. Such a simplistic understanding of genetics."

You're embarrassing.
Why do you think a Tibetan doesn't look like a Zulu?
Environment? Custom? Free will? The influence of mass media?

"that it is, to any extent, detrimental in humans"

Outbreeding depression is, by definition, detrimental.

"That leaves over 99% of the human genome to lack variation"

But it's the variation, and its untested recombinations, that can cause outbreeding depression!
Sheesh!

“How much of a problem is this?”

That's just it.
You don't know.
You are throwing dice.

If you breed a Zulu with a Zulu, you already know of any potential risks from past examples.

But breed a Zulu with a Tibetan, who knows?
They've never interbred before.

A genetic component that's no problem for Zulus and another that's no problem for Tibetans, when *combined* may be a big problem.

My real concern is that if you bring in millions of people from other ancestries, how are "Australians" (as the people *we* are recognised to be) going to survive?

We cannot do that if this open-to-anything (80% non-White) policy continues forever.

"In other words, you’re only interested in that which supports your preconceived ideas."

My ideas are based on research I've done.
The research came first, then the opinion.

"There’s a ton of information about genetic racial differences."

Apparently not in relation to outbreeding depression, or you'd have found some!

"the *chocolate* was the subject of the labelling; not you or even your relationship to it."

And your point is?
"Marriage" is just a label too.

It is not a description of those involved.
There are married people who love each other, hate each other, feel nothing for each other, are monogamous, are unfaithful, are kinky wife-swapping swingers, are abstinent.

The gay activists want "marriage" just as I want "chocolate".

They aren't content with "defacto", "partnership", "union" or any other *label*.

Yet for all intents and purposes, their relationships *currently* (with no legal reform) are recognised anyway by governments and many private companies.

They are petulantly clamouring for "chocolate" when they already have "cocoasolids".
The analogy holds.

Tome, Kipp and others who write short opinions I do appreciate, unfortunately with many others I tend to go to sleep with long lengthy letters, perhaps writing has changed of late, short & to the point with letter writing was my learning some years ago, I must admit I skip paragraphs when one shouldn't be doing that, do others have this problem or am I alone with OLO letters?. A short time ago we had two people writing only, no one else was writing although many had opinions in the beginning, perhaps like me they began to think what is the use of writing, leave it to the experts.

Shockadelic,

I think I'm starting to understand why you appear to quote people out-of-context, as you did with me earlier with your "irrelevant" comment earlier. You're just borrowing words from the quote. You must be. How else could such an unrelated response as this be explained..?

<<You're embarrassing.
Why do you think a Tibetan doesn't look like a Zulu?>>

But this is an improper use of quotes. It's the debating equivalent of, "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?" Very childish.

More importantly, though, why do YOU think that I think a Tibetan doesn't look like a Zulu? Apparently I've alluded to something other than environment, at some point.

<<Outbreeding depression is, by definition, detrimental.>>

I've already provided you with an example of outbreeding depression that is not detrimental. Can you point to a specific example of where it has shown itself to be detrimental in humans? Surely there must be millions of examples.

<<...it's the variation, and its untested recombinations, that can cause outbreeding depression!>>

In today's small world, it's being tested all the time. It has been tested since the invention of the wheel (and then later ships) made distant travel easier. So again, you must have no shortage of examples to point to.

For your argument to be taken seriously, you would also need to provide some reason to suspect that the less-than-1% would be such a concerning gamble, despite us having over 99 other percents that are very rarely ever a problem. What is it about this less-than-1% that is of such a concern that it makes a "rational" argument against interracial marriage? There are many untested combinations within any given community.

<<My ideas are based on research I've done.>>

Then why can't you provide reliable sources?

<<Apparently [there isn't a ton of information about genetic racial differences] in relation to outbreeding depression, or you'd have found some!>>

Or maybe it's just not a concern. My humouring of your ideas aside, we do actually know enough about genetics and the human genome to know that your concerns are unfounded.

Continued…

…Continued

<<And your point is?>>

That your analogy was invalid. You would have understood that had you not omitted the first half of that sentence of mine.

<<"Marriage" is just a label too.>>

I know, and pointing this out doesn't negate my point, because...

<<The gay activists want "marriage" just as I want "chocolate".>>

The difference is that the label "chocolate" has no symbolic significance to the person who prefers, or does not prefer, another label; and nor is it an indication of, or nor does it effect the way, society perceives/accepts them. Anyone who gets upset over the labeling of chocolate, on the other hand, is in need of psychological help. Symbology is important to humans. The fact that most of those, who want a different word for homosexual unions, just don't like "poofs" is a good example of this too.

So your analogy is still invalid, and your comparison is offensive to anyone who respects the feelings of others.

Shocker,

All this harping on about 'outbreeding depression' is just an excuse for your hatred of mixed marriages, and your generally racist attitude towards all non-whites.
'In-breeding' in humans is a far more dangerous practice - which is why it is highly inadvisable for first-cousins to marry.

Have you not heard of 'hybrid vigour'?
Even the cross-breeding with Neanderthals you mentioned previously, and with some positive delight, was a case of inter-racial marriage.

There has been some study identifying that sexual attraction is partly based on being attracted to pheromones which indicate 'differences' in genetic makeup which are 'complimentary' to one's own genetic makeup.
In this case, likes repel, and un-likes attract - and apparently for good reason, as diversity makes for strength.

AJ,

Some men delight in getting many women pregnant, and in purposely avoiding all parenting and child support responsibility.
Such does not make for a reliable or preferable social structure.

Some women get pregnant to many men, but choose to raise their offspring mostly as single mothers.
Such does not make for a reliable or preferable social structure.

There are or have been patriarchal societies, matriarchal societies, polygamous societies, polyandrous societies and societies where child rearing is an extended-family or communal affair.
There is one common denominator however, and that is that child rearing involves direct input from both male and female members of said society. Both take, and share, this responsibility.

In the majority of modern societies, one other common denominator has also been adopted as a matter of social evolution for the well-being of both the constituents (the society at large) and the children of that society, and that has been monogamous marriage of one man to one woman - preferably as a life-long partnership.

Same-sex 'marriage' proposes to unravel both of these key common denominators of effective social structure.
For what beneficial purpose?
To make some constituents feel better about themselves?

We have seen cases of same-sex couples adopting for the purpose of child-exploitation.
How do you prevent this? By enabling 'gay marriage'? Or by viewing it with some hesitation?

Gay union, ok. Gay adoption, I have significant reservations.
Gay 'marriage' serves to undermine the very significant underlying objectives of traditional marriage - for better, for worse, etc, until death - as key aims for societal stability.
Whether there has been some deterioration in overall marital commitment in more recent times does not diminish the underlying objectives.
Some traditions have a genuine purpose, and need to be retained for the betterment of society as a whole. Traditional marriage is such.

Ojnab, just skip this one.

AJ Philips, I've explained myself sufficiently.
I won't bother with you any further.

Saltpetre (shakes head in dismay) "All this harping on about 'outbreeding depression' is just an excuse for your hatred of mixed marriages""

I don't "hate" anything.

I was simply pointing out to the person who falsely claimed there was no "rational" reason to oppose it, that there was indeed at least *one* valid reason.

A tiny percentage of mixing is not a prime concern to me.
It's the MILLIONS of unrelated/dissimilar people entering our country.

"'In-breeding' in humans is a far more dangerous practice"

No, too-distant strains are just as dangerous as too-close.

"Have you not heard of 'hybrid vigour'?"

Sigh.
Yes, and you don't get it from the most-distant strains.
You get it from not-too-close, not-too-distant mixing.

Dutch man + Dutch sister, too close.
Dutch man + any non-familial Germanic woman, groovy!
Dutch man + any non-Germanic European woman, promising.
Dutch man + non-European Caucasoid, uh-oh.
Dutch man + non-Caucasoid woman, Danger Will Robinson!

"Even the cross-breeding with Neanderthals you mentioned previously, and with some positive delight, was a case of inter-racial marriage."

And where are they now?
Didn't turn out too well for them, eh?

Does it occur to you that only the beneficial mixes survived, while all the hideous defective freaks died without offspring?

That's what I was saying before.
Each distinct race ("population") has had millennia to weed out the potential problems within their genetics.

But the mixing of populations, separate for millennia, is novel and untested.
You don't know what you'll get.

If you mix Zulus and Tibetans, you'll get "humans", but you won't get "Zulus" or "Tibetans", and if the survival of those peoples is important to you, you may not want to encourage that.

The survival of Australians (the White ethnic group) is important to me.

Saltpetre,

<<There is one common denominator however, and that is that child rearing involves direct input from both male and female members of said society. Both take, and share, this responsibility.>>

There’s a growing consensus among experts that children raised by same-sex couples are not disadvantaged in any way. None of the studies support such a suggestion. Do you rally against single women choosing IVF too? Sure, they may have members of the opposite sex in their lives (e.g. fathers, brothers), but so do same-sex couples.

Remember, too, that only a small percentage of people are gay. The vast majority will always be heterosexual, so an argument from society as a whole is largely irrelevant. Gay couples have already started adopting, or having kids of their own, for a while now and yet, despite this, society continues to get better all the time. The world has never been less violent than it is now (Pinker, 2011), and the overall crime rate in western societies has continued to decline since the ‘70s. The only crime bucking that trend in Australia is assault, yet even that is down from where it was 80 years ago (you can check these stats at http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics.html).

<<Same-sex 'marriage' proposes to unravel both of these key common denominators of effective social structure.>>

How will it do this, and how will it be detrimental to the structure of society? Your argument seems to amount to, “Because it’s different”. But that’s just an assumption and not very scientific. There have been many beliefs throughout history that seemed obvious, or like they were just commonsense, that turned out to be wrong, and there is probably no other field like sociology in which this is more obvious.

<<We have seen cases of same-sex couples adopting for the purpose of child-exploitation.>>

We saw one particular case of that (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3794616.htm). Do you know of any others, or whether or not this happens more frequently with same-sex couples? Given that some think homosexuality is synonymous with paedophilia (e.g. runner), reporting on a same-sex couple doing this is obviously going to make better headlines.

Shocakdelic,

This is true if your objective was simply to present your point of view…

<<I've explained myself sufficiently.>>

But you are asserting that what you say is also the truth, so you haven’t explained yourself sufficiently. Let’s recap, and forget explaining yourself “sufficiently”, here’s a list of glaring omissions that you haven’t even answered:

1. I asked you what the relevance was of why Tibetans look different to Zulus, and you haven’t answered;

2. You haven’t explained why my example of outbreeding depression is detrimental;

3. You haven’t given an example of a case of outbreeding depression showing itself to be detrimental in humans, yet there are many for inbreeding;

4. You haven’t provided any evidence of why the less-than-1% is of greater concern than all the other untested combinations found within a community (of which there are many more);

5. You still haven’t provided any of this alleged research that you’ve done.

6. You haven’t explained why your analogy is still relevant even in light of the problems I recently pointed out.

I think your response to Saltpetre very much reveals where you're going wrong. First, you seem to think that because inbreeding is detrimental, then it’s opposite (outbreeding) must necessarily be just as bad. Second, you are confusing your personal belief (i.e. that a race being bred out is a detrimental thing) with the extent to which outbreeding depression is *biologically* detrimental.

<<I won't bother with you any further.>>

The reason you won’t bother with me anymore is because you have nothing left. You have resorted to repeating yourself and are now declaring how important this issue is to you, which, as Carl Sagan would point out, is your problem. Speaking of which…

LEGO,

If you’re still reading, did you notice that Shockadelic didn’t require that I state my position in order to “pin me into a corner”? He had enough confidence in his beliefs to not need to divert attention to any potential flaws in my specific beliefs. He probably understands that any problems with my beliefs do not necessarily make his right.

One of my relatives is homosexual - but he never considered himself as 'gay': he never took interest in the gay movement, never went to a demonstration or a gay-parade and never pleaded or showed any interest in gay-marriage or adoption rights.

Instead, he leads a respectable, professional and monogamous life and when the time was right he contacted a lesbian in a similar situation and together they brought two children to the world, in the exact same manner as heterosexual couples do, except that they had their respective partners by their side to arouse them.

So now my relative and his boy-friend of many years raise together two beautiful children, their mothers also visit often, so they practically have two loving and adoring fathers and two loving and adoring mothers.

Such cases are rarely reported by sensational media, but what more can you ask?

Shocker,

It was you who pointed out that the Neanderthal 'cross' provided something extra and beneficial to those European communities (and thence to their subsequent descendants) who were fortunate enough to have been able to undertake this 'cross' successfully.
Maybe some sterile hybrids were produced (as could reasonably be expected), who then died childless.
But others would have attained the hybrid vigour represented by the persistence of those parts of Neanderthal DNA now evident in current successful European communities.
The 'crosses' got stronger; the baseline Neanderthals became extinct - as well, it would seem, as the 'non-crossed' baseline Europeans.
'Cross-breeding' produces a stronger 'line', given time, per 'survival of the fittest'. That's how evolution works.
And, that's why zoo breeding-programs work to establish the widest possible gene 'pool'.
It's not rocket-science.

AJ,

You are right that child exploitation, abuse and neglect are much more prevalent in heterosexual partnerships, partly due to sheer numbers, but also because the human animal at large is subject to many imperfections.
Hence, human communities have had to strive for 'ideals' in an effort to minimize 'transgressions', and the impact of these on the society at large.
The pursuit of an 'ideal' has led to traditional marriage, in the interests of societal cohesion and beneficial functioning.
(This pursuit has also arguably produced 'religion', with similar underlying aims - though imperfectly in some 'constructs'.)
Traditional marriage is such an 'ideal', and ideals are not to be trifled with - at least not spuriously or inadvisedly.

Someone on this thread suggested abandoning 'marriage' altogether - thereby reducing all to the very lowest common denominator.
Is this what is best for society as a whole, to abandon ideals altogether? I certainly think not.

Marriage is a worthwhile ideal, as traditionally understood.
Gay Union is a reasonable counterpart for the tiny minority concerned, but cannot be considered as the equivalent of the 'ideal' which directly affects the much larger broader community.
That's what I'm saying. Similar, but not equivalent.

AJ Philips "any problems with my beliefs do not necessarily make his right."

And any problems you see in mine don't make *yours* right.

Yes, I have repeated myself and don't intend to do so again.
Goodbye.

Saltpetre "the hybrid vigour represented by the persistence of those parts of Neanderthal DNA now evident in current successful European communities."

So why mess with a good thing?

If we benefited from Neanderthal DNA, those who didn't breed with them (Negroids) are a step back for us.

There wouldn't have just been "sterile" hybrids.
There would have also been defective freaks, who were fertile.

For many generations, perhaps over thousands of years, we would have had to live with these freaks, until "time" weeded them out.

How many generations of multi-freaks must we endure?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The Human Development Index, GDP-per-capita and many other measures say Whites ain't broke.

We are already #1. Gold medal.

Why risk any detrimental effect for some utopian fairytale with no scientific basis?

"widest possible gene 'pool'"
In a zoo?
Well, duh, there's only five elephants!

How many White people are there in the world? A billion?

Are we in any danger of mass-scale inbreeding? No.
Are we in danger of extinction? Yes, our numbers (proportionately) have been declining for decades.

There's dozens of different strains, just within our "race" (common ancestral population).
They would add "hybrid vigour" without making us unrecognisable.

Yuyutsu, well said, I wonder if other writers have moved among the gay community, I get annoyed with writers who presume they know the Gay community only from what they have read in books, nice short opinion Yuyutsu, thanks

Saltpetre,

I never mentioned any frequency with which abuse occurs in either situation.

<<You are right that child exploitation, abuse and neglect are much more prevalent in heterosexual partnerships, partly due to sheer numbers…>>

If I did, then I’d prefer to talk in percentages for this exact reason. I actually don’t know in what situations abuse occurs more (percentage-wise). That’s why I was asking you if you knew. Your mentioning of it implied that you did.

<<Hence, human communities have had to strive for 'ideals' in an effort to minimize 'transgressions', and the impact of these on the society at large.>>

Yes, but with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that many of those perceived transgressions were based on ignorance and/or an irrational fear (e.g. apartheid). So this brings me back to my main question. How can you determine that same-sex marriage (or society considering it equivalent to heterosexual marriage, as you later clarify) will be detrimental to society? How do you know that this won’t turn out to be yet another situation that we look back and view as an irrational injustice? There may have been some who argued that altering the tradition of marriage from a financial transaction, or a polygamous arrangement, to a union of love would be detrimental.

I’m not necessarily saying for certain that same-sex marriage isn’t a bad thing. As a heterosexual, I feel I have no barrow to push here and I’m willing to accept that I might be wrong. But we don’t hold back equal rights out of a fear that bad things might happen when we can't demonstrate that they will. That’s not how rights work.

<<The pursuit of an 'ideal' has led to traditional marriage, in the interests of societal cohesion and beneficial functioning.>>

I don’t doubt that the intentions were good. But the ideal of excluding same-sex couple from marrying seems to have been derived at through bigotry and fear rather than reason and evidence. Polygamy, on the other hand, was demonstrably bad.

Shockadelic,

I have never suggested for a second that they would.

What an inane comment.

To Kipp

No, I don't like homosexuals as a group. They tend to be radically left wing, and great partakers of illegal substances. The electorate with the greatest support for a republic is in the Darlinghurst area, which also happens to have the highest incidence of cocaine abuse according to NSW Police statistics.

Disliking groups of people based upon their declared cultural values and observed behaviour is a cultural universal. Everybody does it. I am sure that you don't like Ku Klux Klansmen, Nazis or One Nation supporters.

To AJ. It was fun to begin with, until I realised that you had no intention of debating at all. If you wish to debate racism again, could you please choose the normal anti racist position and stick to the principle that all races are equal? Because either racism is wrong because all races are equal (or don't even exist), or they are not equal, which is the position of us racists.

Your position in our last "debate" was that you had no position. You just sat back and pooh poohed everything I said. Your replies were just heckling. I had to try and figure out what your position was from the vague and sometimes contradictory comments you made. My mistake,was to think that you were genuinely trying to debate and were just a bit vague in your logic. It was only when I figured out that you were being deliberately evasive that I realised that you were up to no good.

Which is OK in a way. If you are smart enough to know that you can't win a fair
debate against an honest opponent and have to resort to heckling, and prevarication, it means that you know yourself that the logic of anti racism is indefensible. You gave the game away when you finally blurted out that if I was right "what good would it do?" That is the position of an ideological zealot, not a scientist that you claimed to be.

The position of the intelligent, inquiring mind, is "Let the truth be told, though the heavens may fall."

Now, if you want to debate me again, then state your position first. Either all races are equal, or they are not. If you already know that all races are not equal, and that taking the opposite position is untenable, then you are just as big a racist as I am.

LEGO,

There's no point in talking about races being equal or unequal.
In what respect? Cultural or religious beliefs or traditions, affluence, athleticism, height, food preferences, lifestyle, literature?
Differences, certainly, some of which you may admire, and others you may dislike or even abhor (like FGM, child marriage or jihad).
People are individuals. I may not be equal to you, you may not be equal to someone else. So what?

To declare that one 'race' or 'type' is 'unequal' is just bigotry.
It's like the guy who says "all blacks are sub-human" or "all Muslims are terrorists", or "all whites are God's gift to the planet" or "we are better than them".
It's just pointless self-gratification or self-justification (for unrealistic and unfounded discrimination).

Gays are who they are, white, black, brown or brindled. Same for Americans, Chinese, Arabs, Africans or even Australians.
Under the skin we are all Homo Sapiens (at least until the next natural evolution), with the same or similar aspirations, basic needs, loves and fears.
Everyone deserves a fair go, no-one deserves to be discriminated against or hated or dominated or dispossessed or enslaved.

Sure we will disagree with some people's attitudes, practices or beliefs, but as long as these don't hurt us or threaten our, or our society's well-being, we can do our best to understand, to make reasonable allowance, or to dissuade them from some differences - or persuade them by demonstration of some better attitudes, beliefs, etc.

No-one and no 'race' is perfect, and no 'race' is incorrigible.
Please, let's at least try to 'do unto others' - else, who really is 'the big bad wolf'?

AJ,

I guess culture is a 'moving feast', evolving with technology, science, knowledge and situation or predicament.
Mass immigration may be a 'predicament', but I don't quite see marriage equality in the same light.

However, given the hurdles any couple has to go through to adopt (at least in Oz), perhaps those restrictions and scrutiny provisions do act to allay some of my reservations about gay 'marriage' - but I retain some (perhaps illogical) concerns about 'universal' maintenance of appropriate relevant scrutiny (of adoptee hetero- or gay- couples, married or otherwise).

Perhaps I have only one final obstacle, and that is how large parts of the 'traditional world' may ultimately view the continued movement of the 'West' towards libertarian and laissez-faire attitudes towards human societal 'relations'.
Might we be risking derision, lack of trust, or even enmity?

In the end result I still retain some reservations about the essentiality and even the efficacy or prudence of this proposed further step into the 'brave new world'.
Timidity or caution, or some of both.
I am yet to be convinced, but 'evolution' will perhaps roll on regardless.

What utter rubbish, LEGO.

<<...I realised that you had no intention of debating at all.>>

I addressed everything you said with evidence and reasoning. That's a debate.

<<If you wish to debate racism again, could you please choose the normal anti racist position and stick to the principle that all races are equal?>>

Why? My arguments wouldn't change. You're effectively admitting that you need me to adopt a certain line so that you can divert attention from the weaknesses in yours. What part of "any problems with my beliefs do not necessarily make his right" did you not understand?

<<Because either racism is wrong because all races are equal (or don't even exist), or they are not equal, which is the position of us racists.>>

Racism isn't just the belief that races are not equal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism. That would make someone who acknowledged that Jamaicans, on average, tend to be better runners than, say, Asians.

<<Your position in our last "debate" was that you had no position.>>

Show me where I said that.

I made my position abundantly clear multiple times. I did, however, say that I didn't need a position other than that you were wrong.

<<You just sat back and pooh poohed everything I said.>>

No, I discredited it with evidence and reason. There's a difference.

<<Your replies were just heckling.>>

Try finding one example: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0

<<I had to try and figure out what your position was from the vague and sometimes contradictory comments you made.>>

I clarified the alleged contradiction three times! (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276108)

<<My mistake,was to think that you were genuinely trying to debate and were just a bit vague in your logic. It was only when I figured out that you were being deliberately evasive that I realised that you were up to no good.>>

And yet you couldn't (and still can’t) substantiate any of these claims.

<<If you are smart enough to know that you can't win a fair debate against an honest opponent...>>

Oh, spare me. You were only honest up until you started running out of arguments.

Continued…

…Continued

You twisted my words to fit a certain worldview you needed from me; misquoted me on two occasions (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275300, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275532); falsely accused me of refusing to state my position because it wasn't the one you were needing for your rehearsed script (as you have now effectively admitted); you accused me of insincere intentions and could not back the accusation; and you continued to accuse me of contradicting myself despite the fact that I demonstrated otherwise three times (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276108).

<<You gave the game away when you finally blurted out that if I was right "what good would it do?" That is the position of an ideological zealot, not a scientist that you claimed to be.>>

I never once said that was my position. I simply pointed out that it was a valid research question from an ethics point-of-view. Nor did I ever claim to be a scientist. Links and/or quotes please.

<<The position of the intelligent, inquiring mind, is "Let the truth be told...">>

Yes, and a rational mind weighs up the risks and benefits of making potentially dangerous discoveries. Which is why I was asking what benefits you thought would come from discovering that certain races were genetically prone to criminality or less intelligent. A question you couldn't answer.

But this is a non-issue anyway because - given all the biological, psychological, sociological and environmental factors at work - we already have enough information to know that research into a genetic link between race and intelligence and/or criminality would be futile. With all the above mentioned factors at work, it would be like trying to unbake a cake. Not to mention that we know enough about genetics to understand that such discovery would be exceptionally unlikely to be made.

It is for these reasons why no-one bothers to do such research; while I'm sure there are some far-right neo-nazi groups willing and able to fund such research, those who are qualified to conduct it are educated enough to understand that these kinds of views are based on ignorance.

Which is why you need to resort to all these lies.

Hi Saltpetre.

That is a really nice philosophy that you have. But I am not concerned with philosophy, I am concerned with cold, hard scientific facts, observable reality, and how they affect my society.

I am a racist, in that I think it self evident that races and ethnicities in general are different to one another in physical appearances, physical capabilities, and mental attributes. But we have philosophers like yourself who think that these qualities either do not exist, or are so unimportant that they are irrelevant to creating a peaceful and prosperous society. Your philosophy, that everyone is equal, has been around for a long time. Socialists once proclaimed that "class" was an illusion, and that everyone in every society had the same levels of intelligence, and that the very real differences in economic outcomes and criminal behaviour between these illusory "classes" was caused entirely by privilege and a lack of educational opportunities This particular version of socialism has now gone out of favour, by virtue of the fact that the social climbing socialists who used to extol it were the biggest snobs in society.

Socialist ideology has now been updated to the concept that "races" are an illusion and that everybody is equal. Both "class" and "race" may be social constructs, but they are names for abstract concepts which do exist.

Generally speaking, those black races which have not benefitted by millennia of civilisation are not intelligent, have poor emotional maturity, and have generally superior physical attributes (superb athletes). The Asians are the most intelligent, but are not well endowed with physical attributes and make generally poor athletes, while the whites are in between.

Such a position adequately explains the differences in athletic success, economic success, and prevalence of criminal behaviour

My position is, that I am fed up of my white race being constantly blamed for the dysfunctions of black people (which is racism) by socialist "anti racists" who are always prepared to massage the facts to conform to their peculiar worldview. So I looked for credible reasons for black dysfunction, and I found them.

To AJ.

A "debate" is a civilised discussion between two or more people where one side takes a position and the other takes an opposing view. Both sides submit reasoned arguments supporting their positions, and both sides analyse and critique their opponents arguments.

What we were debating was racism. Either racism is valid, or it is not. I take the view that racism is valid, and that races have generally different physical and mental attributes. If your view is that racism is invalid, then your position must be the opposite of mine, and you are therefore proposing the premise that all races are equal in every way. If your position is not exactly that, and you wish to qualify that premise, then what is your position? Don't repeat that "I have already told you" crap. State your position right now, so that everybody on this topic knows what it is (including me) or crawl away in defeat before we even begin. Because if you will not clearly and plainly state your position, it is because you are too frightened too. It is therefore self evident that you are doing so because you know that you are supporting a position which you already know is invalid. And you do not wish to be in the position of defending the indefensible. All you want to do is attack my position while avoiding any responsibility to defend your own.

Because of my trusting nature, you can catch me once, but you are never going to fool me twice. State your position now, or crawl away.

The ball is in your side of the court.

That seems an unnecessarily negative peculiar worldview, LEGO...

"My position is, that I am fed up of my white race being constantly blamed ..."

On the bright side, and using your descriptions, given more intermixing whites could evolve to have both 'superior physical attributes' and be 'most intelligent'.

That would put those '"anti racists"' in their place!

Still as evasive as ever, LEGO.

<<A "debate" is a civilised discussion between two or more people where one side takes a position and the other takes an opposing view.>>

Wrong. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate)

No-one has to "take" (have imposed upon them) any particular set view as you're trying to imply.

<<Both sides submit reasoned arguments supporting their positions, and both sides analyse and critique their opponents arguments.>>

Correct.

You took the position that some races were genetically predisposed to criminal behaviour and that some races were more intelligent than others, while my position was that "race" is mostly a cultural construct and that there is no evidence for your claims, and many other explanations for your observations.

<<What we were debating was racism. Either racism is valid, or it is not.>>

Only implicitly, not explicitly.

<<If your view is that racism is invalid, then your position must be the opposite of mine, and you are therefore proposing the premise that all races are equal in every way.>>

This is a false dichotomy and oversimplifies the definition of racism, despite me having clarified it earlier (how can you claim to be serious about debating?). And where does the ideal that all "races" should be respected as "equals" (i.e. fellow human beings) come into this too?

<<If your position is not exactly that, and you wish to qualify that premise, then what is your position?>>

Just stated it above. And in the last thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276047

<<All you want to do is attack my position while avoiding any responsibility to defend your own.>>

You still haven't explained how me having to defend my position affects the veracity of yours.

<<The ball is in your side of the court.>>

Actually, it's still in yours. You still have a lot of concessions and retractions to make. Fat chance, eh?

I will leave it to the judgement of our readers as to who is prevaricating, and who is not.

You have submitted in your last post that "race is a social construct."

If race is only a "social construct", then you are IMPLYING that the concept of "races" does not exist in reality. Therefore, all of the people in every "race" must be equal, because "races" don't really exist anyway..

But when I suggested that this is your position, you called it a "false dichotomy" and an "oversimplification". OK then, qualify your position. Because as it appears, it is a clear contradiction.

I think you are trying the old "Always imply, but when challenged, deny" school of dishonest debating. But here is your chance to prove me wrong. Explain the contradiction. Either races exist, or they do not. If they are only a "social construct", then you are IMPLYING that they do not exist in reality. If they do not exist in reality, then everybody must be equal in every way.

Now, unlike you, I am not afraid to say what I think. I don't have to be evasive. I don't have to talk in implications. My logic is not a contradiction. I can speak plainly because I don't have to skirt around the truth and watch what I say.

And you know what, AJ? It shows in my delivery. I come across as someone who is not scared to speak his mind, while you come across as a sneaky little devil who is very careful about what he says. And the only explanation to that, is that you know that races exist in reality, and that the different races have different characteristics which can be compared and assessed.

But you can never concede it. Because your socialist ideology insists that everybody is equal. And so, just like every other ideological zealot who puts more importance on ideological conformism to holy orthodoxy, than any obligation to examine issues objectively, you perform the most amazing mental gymnastics to avoid what you fear to contemplate.

Online Opinion or Online Debate I thought this site was about opinions ( Belief based on grounds short of proof, view held as probable, what one thinks about something) Debate ( Fight for victory, territory, take part in a similar discussion being deliberate in one's mind )
I much prefer to read someone's opinion, rather than the I am right you are wrong attitude, A J Phillips versus Lego, lets keep it as opinions.

Forget evasiveness, LEGO. You can't even be honest even when you do try to address what I say...

<<You have submitted in your last post that "race is a social construct.">>

No, I said it was "MOSTLY a cultural construct" [emphasis added] (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283774). I acknowledged certain differences before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283755) as well as in the last thread. However, this is generalising and thus fraught with problems.

Once again, no contradictions.

With that being said, the rest of your post may be disregarded since it relies on your twisting of my words to fit your narrative and black-and-white view of the world.

Still waiting for the evidence of, and/or your retractions for, all your slanderous claims. And you have the audacity to claim that you're not being evasive.

I know that opinions are more your style, Onjab. Debating is for adults.

To AJ

Then you are saying that the concept of race "is MOSTLY a cultural construct. If the concept of race is MOSTLY a cultural construct, then it must be PARTIALLY something else. I am fascinated to know what else this unknown factor could be. Could you please clarify what this is? This is very important because if we are debating whether racism is valid or not, then it is essential that we both have the same concept of what "a race" is.

I predict that you will not answer me, because I think that you are deliberately qualifying the concept of race, because you can see the contradiction in your own logic, and you need to toss a red herring to keep me from pursuing it.

As to my "slanderous claims", my premise (see how it does not bother me to plainly state my position? You don't have to use The Rack to get it out of me) is that races are a social construct (or "cultural construct") of the very real recognisable differences in human sub species. These sub species, just like animal sub species, have recognisably different temperaments, physical appearances, physical attributes, and intelligence levels.

The differences in human sub species in regards physical appearances is self evident. The differences in physical attributes such as solar resistance of skin, exceptional running abilities of blacks, and the exceptional swimming abilities of whites, is self evident. And if races differ in physical appearances and physical attributes, then it is reasonable to presume that they differ in mental attributes as well.

These last two premises conform to observable reality. Asians are over represented in higher learning facilities, and blacks very much under represented. Black communities are universally dysfunctional. Black people from are very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour in every society they inhabit. It is therefore a reasonable assumption to conclude that certain black ethnicities have a much higher proportion of people who are genetically prone to serious criminal behaviour than for whites and Asians.

AJ Philips "Racism isn't just the belief that races are not equal"

Wiki's page on Racism mentions many opinions and actions under that heading.
*All* of these elements are not necessarily present in every individual who professes a "racist" perspective.

For some people it may only constitute a belief in inequality and nothing more.

And that belief does not automatically produce any particular action or preferred policy.

This is what's wrong with the perpetual association of Nazis and KKK with any White Australian who rejects panculturalism.

Yes, the Nazis and KKK were "racist".
That doesn't mean all "racists" believe or want the same things or will act in the same ways as the Nazis and KKK.

Most "racists" are not "Romper Stomper".
Historically, they're more the "gentleman with a pipe and large book by the fireplace" type.

WmTrevor, "given more intermixing whites could evolve to have both 'superior physical attributes' [Negroid] and be 'most intelligent' [Mongoloid]."

In a reality where only the *best* genetic traits were inherited, yes.
But allele expression is *random*.

We could end up with the weakest, stupidest people imaginable.

We could end up impulsively violent [Negroid] with tiny penises [Mongoloid].

Whites already have a pretty good brawn/brain balance.
That's why we've been so successful at so many things and perform poorly at virtually nothing.

Why mess with a good thing?

The Human Development Index, GDP-per-capita and a very long list of scientific and artistic achievements say Whites are doing fine just the way they are.

LEGO,

You can continue to ask me the same questions using different wording for the rest of the year if you like, but you’re not going to find a contraction.

<<If the concept of race is MOSTLY a cultural construct, then it must be PARTIALLY something else. I am fascinated to know what else this unknown factor could be.>>

Fascinated? You weren't very interested when I mentioned it six times on the other thread, and in my discussion with Shockadelic on this thread. How about the less-than-1% genetic difference I was mentioned?

<<This is very important because if we are debating whether racism is valid or not, then it is essential that we both have the same concept of what "a race" is.>>

The concept of race is very blurred. I cannot help being more educated than you in acknowledging that. Genetically (which is where you want to go), I have already pointed out the difference (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724).

<<I predict that you will not answer me, because I think that you are deliberately qualifying the concept of race, because you can see the contradiction in your own logic, and you need to toss a red herring to keep me from pursuing it.>>

Well, you predicted wrong, didn’t you. Now please point to me the contradiction.

<<As to my "slanderous claims", my premise … is that races are a social construct (or "cultural construct") of the very real recognisable differences in human sub species.>>

Agreed. Though that didn't nullify the slanderous claims of insincerity in any way.

<<These sub species, just like animal sub species, have recognisably different temperaments, physical appearances, physical attributes, and intelligence levels.>>

Evidence for the 'temperaments' claim please.

I have provided you with plenty of sociological and criminological explanations before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0). Now do me the courtesy of providing me with evidence that nullifies all of that.

<<The differences in human sub species in regards physical appearances is self evident>>

Which is why I didn’t claim that all races were equal in every way, as you wanted me to.

Continued…

…Continued

<<…if races differ in physical appearances and physical attributes, then it is reasonable to presume that they differ in mental attributes as well.>>

We’ve I’ve already covered this in great detail, so please astonish me with this new found information you apparently have. How do you unbake the cake (so to speak) in a way that no scientist has yet been able to? How do you discredit marginalisation, poverty and the lack of social bonds that immigrants experience? Your following paragraph doesn’t do it. They’re what researchers call “spurious observations”.

Evidence please.

Shockadelic,

<<Yes, the Nazis and KKK were "racist".
That doesn't mean all "racists" believe or want the same things or will act in the same ways as the Nazis and KKK.>>

I never suggested that they did.

Another inane comment.

But you still have too many unanswered points from our discussion before. You don’t get to say “good bye” when it suits you and then re-enter the conversation where you think it’s going to be convenient for your point-of-view. Answer my previous points and then we’ll take it from there, or admit you were wrong and we’ll continue from this point.

AJ Philips "How about the less-than-1% genetic difference I was mentioned?"

Aren't chimpanzees only 2% different to us?
Aren't dog and cat breeds the results of minute genetic difference?

Nobody denies the result of these minor differences within other species and between species.

Nobody denies a Rottweiler is significantly different (including temperament and appearance) to an Old English Sheepdog.

Only when it comes to humans is genetic difference ignored.
This is a political decision and has nothing to do with nature or science.

"Another inane comment."

Your entire argument is inane.
Goodbye.

OK AJ. You managed to derail me when you objected to my claim that you were acknowledging that races were a social construct. You stood on your dignity and claimed I was misquoting you. You sniffed that what you had said was that the concept of race was "mostly a cultural construct." Social construct or cultural construct, we are clearly talking about the same thing.

Lets get back to first principles, because you have claimed that I have misrepresented your position, and you have partially misrepresented mine.

I take the view that all races have members who are genetically prone to violence and criminal behaviour. But most of the black races appear to have a much higher incidence of people prone to this genetic condition. I also propose that two noted scientists have published the results of 80 years of research into human intelligence and have concluded that intelligence levels differ between the three primary races. The head of the Human Genome Project, Nobel Prize winner, and co founder of the double helix structure of DNA, agreed with them, and got sacked from his job for being a heretic to the faith of human equality.

Since there is clear causal link between low intelligence and violent criminal behaviour, the two concepts cross connect.

Now, your view, is that the concept of race is "mostly a cultural construct." My interpretation of your premise is, that you are saying that "race" only exists in people's minds, and not in reality. Could you please acknowledge this? Or, if my conclusion is wrong, could you please explain what you mean when you say that race is "mostly a cultural construct'?

Be careful, because if you say that different races only exist in people's imaginations, (and not in reality) then you are clearly proposing that the concept of race is completely invalid, except as a physical descriptor. And since the concept of "race" is invalid, all people of every "mostly culturally constructed" "races" must be equal in every way (other than physical appearance.)

John J, Tony Abbot is getting messages from angels, that's why he resurrected Sir & Dame, the angels live in la la land like he does.

Shockadelic,

<<Aren't chimpanzees only 2% different to us?>>

The gene expression in humans and chimps is very different so your comparison is invalid. LEGO tried this one on the other thread.

<<Aren't dog and cat breeds the results of minute genetic difference?>>

Gene expression.

<<Only when it comes to humans is genetic difference ignored.
This is a political decision and has nothing to do with nature or science.>>

Don't we feel silly now.

So according to your understanding of genes, different races are halfway to being an entirely different species; this is just not spoken about for political reasons.

It's no wonder you think outbreeding depression is so detrimental.

LEGO,

Now, I know you're not this stupid...

<<You stood on your dignity and claimed I was misquoting you. You sniffed that what you had said was that the concept of race was "mostly a cultural construct." Social construct or cultural construct, we are clearly talking about the same thing.>>

Your mistake was omitting the "mostly"; which is why I capitalized it for emphasis. So my charge of dishonesty on your behalf not only still stands, but is now more pertinent than ever before.

<<Lets get back to first principles, because you have claimed that I have misrepresented your position...>>

A claim that still stands.

<<...and you have partially misrepresented mine.>>

Well it doesn't look like it anymore now, does it.

<<...most of the black races appear to have a much higher incidence of people prone to this genetic condition.>>

Fine. So how have you ruled out sociological, psychological, criminological, and other biological explanations for this?

<<I also propose that two noted scientists have published the results of 80 years of research into human intelligence and have concluded that intelligence levels differ between the three primary races.>>

You mean The Bell Curve? There are multiple problems with the research in that book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/the-bell-curve/
http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1997/01/the_bell_curve_flattened.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm

Continued...

...Continued

<<The head of the Human Genome Project, Nobel Prize winner, and co founder of the double helix structure of DNA, agreed with them, and got sacked from his job for being a heretic to the faith of human equality.>>

Already answered this here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275122, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275168, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275301.

I'm not going to repeat myself just because you skim posts and cannot retain information that does not agree with your worldview.

<<Since there is clear causal link between low intelligence and violent criminal behaviour...>>

Another spurious relationship.

If that were the case, then most people of low intelligence would be committing violent crimes. It's not that low intellect causes violent crime; more that those who commit violent crimes tend to have a lower IQ. But even that isn't as clear-cut as it seems because current IQ tests measure academic attainment more than intelligence and violent crimes are committed predominantly by youth (who are less likely to be interested in academic attainment) thus potentially skewing the results further.

I can keep going if you'd like?

<<Now, your view, is that the concept of race is "mostly a cultural construct.">>

Yes. A fluid concept too.

<<My interpretation of your premise is, that you are saying that "race" only exists in people's minds, and not in reality.>>

Here we going again.

How could I point to differences between races while simultaneously implying that they're an illusion?

While we're on the topic of my premises... You still haven't explained their relevance. Why is everyone else on OLO good enough to debate without requiring that others state their premises? That one's opponent is wrong is the only premise required.

Now please stop being evasive and explain this.

<<...if my conclusion is wrong, could you please explain what you mean when you say that race is "mostly a cultural construct'?>>

It means what it says. That the genetic difference is tiny in comparison to the cultural differences that we observe.

But if you can conjure such an obscure interpretation as the one above, the what good is elaborating going to do?

Hi AJ.

I went to bed last night predicting that you would reverting to heckling instead of debating. I know that you are in trouble, and that you would become even more prone to cutting up my posts into tiny snippits, replying with sneery one liners and Dorothy Dixer questions. I love it when my opponents do exactly what I think they will do.

The only "formula" or "rehearsed script" that I use to corner ideologues like yourself is a technique called "logic." I force my opponents to face what they most definitely do not want to face. Now, we are discussing racism, whether it is right or wrong. My position is that races do exist, and that they have different characteristics which can be examined and compared. You have an ideological position that comparing the characteristics of races is evil, so you will do anything to prevent any examination at all.

In our first debate, you managed to keep dodging the issues by maintaining a position that you had no position, other than that you opposed everything I said. That won't work this time. Because I won't accept a debate unless you state your position. So, you are trying to be as vague as possible in stating your position, and to heckle instead of debating.

To stop that, I have to stay on first principles. The only deliberately blurry position that you have IMPLIED so far, is that "race is mostly a cultural construct." Now, I know where you are heading with this, and I can demolish it. I asked you to clarify this position, so that there will be no attempt by you to claim that I am misrepresenting your position. Naturally, you completely dodged clarifying your position. You really know that your position is indefensible, don't you? But your problem is, that I am going to keep hammering you on this point and either you answer it, in which case you will lose the debate through logic, or you keep on prevaricating, in which case you will lose the debate by being clearly evasive to our readers.

So once again, LEGO, have resorted to the "sneers one-liner" defence, with claims of heckling because you cannot address the substance of my response. And once again, with no examples to back your claims.

Convenient that.

<<Now, we are discussing racism, whether it is right or wrong.>>

Only implicitly, not explicitly.

<<My position is that races do exist, and that they have different characteristics which can be examined and compared.>>

Your claims have progressed well beyond this, but yes.

<<You have an ideological position that comparing the characteristics of races is evil...>>

Once again you misrepresent me because you need me to stick to your rehearsed script. Where have I said or even implied this? I even made a generalised comparison myself before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283755).

<<...so you will do anything to prevent any examination at all.>>

You are the one evading my rebuttals.

<<In our first debate, you managed to keep dodging the issues by maintaining a position that you had no position, other than that you opposed everything I said.>>

Wrong, I stated my position multiple times (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276108).

<<That won't work this time. Because I won't accept a debate unless you state your position.>>

I stated it here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283774, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276047.

I even clarified it for you in my last post when you put words in my mouth and asked if you were right.

<<I asked you to clarify this position, so that there will be no attempt by you to claim that I am misrepresenting your position. Naturally, you completely dodged clarifying your position.>>

You see? This is what happens when you skim others' posts. You run the risk of making a fool of yourself:

"It means what it says. That the genetic difference is tiny in comparison to the cultural differences that we observe." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283859)

You claim that I am the one being evasive and yet you have not answered any of my rebuttals. Suddenly they're no longer important, probably because you don't have any answers, and so you resort to claims of heckling that you cannot provide any examples of

There are races, and there is racism.

But racism is universally bad - just look around the world to see all the problems caused by ethnic, religious, cultural and 'colour' discrimination, rivalry, 'cleansing', and general conflict over perceived (and real) inequality, 'favour', lack of opportunity, repression, dominance, and irrational hatreds and feuds.

There are differences - real and superficial - and there will always be inequality; but it is time that the degree of inequality was reduced to acceptable levels, and that discrimination against any group (or in favour of any group) on the basis of race or 'class' was outlawed in all societies.

Blacks less intelligent or more prone to crime - merely by virtue of colour or genetic makeup? Absolute hogwash. Try disadvantage!
(Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, Martin Luther King, ...)

Exceptions to the 'rule'? There are less and more intelligent people in all societies, less and more aggressive, less and more crime-bent, less and more selfish and spiteful, less and more altruistic, less and more virtuous, less and more 'religious', and less and more disabled.

Nature plus Nurture (not irrespective of Nurture), plus life experience, is what makes an individual; not some genetic 'quirk'.

Genetic makeup only affords potential to achieve, but does almost nothing to determine attitudes or overt behavioural 'trends'.
Look to nurture and 'culture' for all the attitudinal failings and discrepancies behind racism, discrimination and aggressive bigotry.

We definitely need better education, globally.

Whites superior? Rubbish. We've just had greater opportunity, and have proportionately just as many dimwits as any other 'race' or 'culture' - except perhaps for those poisoned by industrial pollution.

(This only seems to relate to 'marriage equality' in respect of inter-racial partnering, and thus obliquely to multiculturalism - in respect of which I still favour limiting immigration, but based on individual merit only, and without any concern for 'ethnicity' or 'race' (except for a ban on any radical elements).
Mixed-marriage? No problem - it has been going on successfully for eons.

Thank you for conforming exactly to what I predicted you would do.

Now, let's get this straight. I am too smart to allow you to debate me unless you state your position. I will not allow a debate where you can attack my freely stated position, but I can't do the same thing to you. You might say that you believe that racism is wrong, because races don't really exist. Or you can say that races are equal in every way except physical appearance. You can state whatever argument convinced you that the principle of racism is invalid. But if you will not state your debating position, then you are wasting my time.

And if you will not state your position, the reason why is because you already know that your arguments are indefensible. Your position is not based upon logic or reason, it is based upon some World Saving ideology where every race MUST be considered equal, regardless of whether they are or not.

Before I go, who do you think your are kidding with your theatrics and grandstanding? You are studying Criminology, which is a science. If you are unable to look at a topic objectively, and critically examine it without over ruling it completely in your own mind with some Alice in Wonderland philosophy, then could I respectively suggest that you do not have what it takes to be a scientist? Perhaps you should change to become a climate scientist, where rigorous objectivity does not seem to be the most prominent virtue they possess, and where suppression of facts which opposes their view is considered fair play?

I hope you don't think I was insulting you with that last statement. It was a genuine desire to help you fit in within a career where people think like you do.

Anyhoo. State your position on racism or crawl away. And know that by doing it, you know that you are beaten. Because you can never state your position on racism and debate fairly with an opponent on this topic, because you know you will lose.

Saltpetre.

Racism is not universally bad. Racism can be defined as "loyalty to ones own people". There is nothing wrong with loyalty. It is considered to be a virtue. Next, "affirmative action" is an act of racism. You could say that "affirmative action" is meant to help the poor and disadvantaged, and I may even agree with you. But once you accept that racism is OK provided that the reason for it is justifiable, then you have just crossed the Rubicon, and you can never say that racism is universally bad again.

If you wish to outlaw discrimination towards any race in Australia, then you had better look at all of the laws giving "aborigines" legal, social and financial advantages over everybody else.

Now, you have trouble accepting that in general, black people are not real bright. OK, I could start off with the AIDS epidemic and remind you that one reason for it's spread in Africa is because black men won't wear condoms. Smart huh? Another is that there is a belief in South Africa that raping a virgin will cure AIDS and female babies are being raped to get this "cure". Smart huh? Then there are the "Injectionists" who roam around Africa with dirty needles injecting people with snake oil remedies to cure everything. Smart huh?

I lived through I time, Saltpetre, when Africa and Asia were both as equally poor as one another. South Korea and Ghana had the same GDP in 1955. Both were former colonies. Both had severe poverty. Despite billions in UN aid, Ghana has gone backwards, while South Korea is the 14th largest economy on Earth. What caused the difference, was the difference in intelligence between the two races.

Your premise that there are smart and dumb people in all races, and violent people in all races, is correct. But what we are looking at is proportions. The proportion of smart to dumb people differs between races. And the proportion of people with a genetic predisposition to extreme violence appears to be different between the races as well, going by published crime statistics.

Dear LEGO,

I am not particularly interested in the topic of racism, nor is it the original topic of this discussion, but I happen to be here checking whether there are replies to my earlier posts and I saw your comment about Negroes having higher rates of AIDS because they are not smart.

The following article refutes that, showing that the reason is in fact genetic:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/genetics/articles/2008/07/16/genetic-trait-boosts-aids-risks-in-blacks

BTW, I find your discussion with AJ Philips and Saltpetre futile: how is one ever to scientifically prove that X (racism in this case) is right or wrong? Right and wrong are a matter of values rather than of facts - and science, having no recourse to values, is necessarily mum on this issue.

AJ Philips, gene expression is different?
Duh, that's the whole point of racial recognition.

If human genetic expression didn't *vary*, there'd be no "races"!
Just as they vary (ever so slightly) in dog "breeds".

"That the genetic difference is tiny in comparison to the cultural differences that we observe."

Chicken-egg.

Does it occur to you that cultural differences *derive* from genetic ones?

Why did Negroids never establish as advanced a civilisation as Caucasoids or Mongoloids?

Perhaps their more primitive culture is a direct consequence of their genes/alleles?

They *couldn't* build an advanced civilisation, but now they must live in one, and have difficulty doing so.
That is not the fault of our civilisation.

"Already answered this here, here and here".

Anyone who keeps a record of every comment they and their opponents make can only be an "agent".
Goodnight, Agent Philips.

Saltpetre "Whites superior? Rubbish. We've just had greater opportunity"

Rubbish right back at ya.

Whites were the *last* "race" to appear, and the most successful of us (Northeastern Europeans) were the *last* to be "civilised".

We therefore had *less* opportunity than other "races".

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the link, and nicely put. However, by "right", I think LEGO means that racist assumptions about genetic links between intelligence and criminality are more scientifically valid than other explanations.

LEGO,

You're not even reading my posts, are you? Oh well, I hope some onlookers are at least getting a kick out of watching this.

Thank you for, once again, confirming my claims that you require the position of others in order to divert attention from yours...

<<I will not allow a debate where you can attack my freely stated position, but I can't do the same thing to you.>>

I'll let you in on a little trick the rest of the world uses:

1. If someone disagrees with your position, then it's safe to assume that their position on that particular point is that you are wrong, and that's all you need to know.

2. If they sound sceptical and request evidence for your claim, then it's safe to assume that they're either not sure of where they stand on the issue and are curious as to whether your claims stack up, or they disagree with you and they're exposing the fact that your claim is baseless, and that's all you need to know.

Their opinion on whether racism is "right" or "wrong", is irrelevant at best (because each individual point should be able to stand (or fall) on its own merit); or it contradicts their fundamental position on the "rightness", or not, of racism at worst (in which case it is still irrelevant for the reason mentioned above).

But you're only interested in using the above two assumptions until you get the premise you want. If you don't, then you bully and intimidate with your aggressive talk; accusing your opponent of foul play.

Your need to have your opponent be some sort of a caricature of anti-racism suggests that you don't have any confidence in your own beliefs, and need the beliefs of your opponents to be aligned in a way such that you do at least feel some confidence by rebutting them.

Continued...

...Continued

And all to divert attention from the fact that your entire position rests on flimsy circumstantial evidence and spurious relationships.

<<State your position on racism or crawl away.>>

Intimidating talk. I hope you feel big now.

I'm not sure what else to say. On the "rightness", or not, of racism? That would depend on your precise definition of it. You've provided one definition above that would render everyone a racist:

"...either racism is wrong because all races are equal (or don't even exist), or they are not equal, which is the position of us racists."
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283702)

Depending on what you mean by "equal", of course. Equal value? Equal ability? Equal appearance? Some of the above? All of the above? You never clarify this for me because, as with your definition of "racism", you like to keep these things vague to give yourself some wriggle room. Do please define what you mean by "racism" first.

Shockadelic,

I can't be bothered trying to explain it to you anymore.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long

<<Does it occur to you that cultural differences *derive* from genetic ones?>>

Do they? What is your evidence for this?

Environmental and social factors have been demonstrated to be far more influential. We have 150 years of research demonstrating the influence of environmental and social factors on cultures and societies, and nothing to suggest any genetic role, despite having even mapped out the human genome.

But as someone who has allegedly done their research, you should already know this.

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to address my other post too.

Dear AJ

1. If somebody claims that they wish to debate any subject but they refuse to state their own position on that subject, it is because he/she does not want his/her own position examined.

2. If he/she consistently refuses to state their position despite endless requests for he/she to do so, in order to conduct a fair debate, it is because he knows his/her position is indefensible but he/she does not care about that. He/she is not interested in debating, they are only interested in heckling. Their intent is not to examine issues through debate, their intent is to stifle debate.

3. The reason they do not care if their position is indefensible and they wish to stifle any debate, is because they either have another agenda, or they know that their position is based entirely upon faith and their own moral beliefs, which they do not want questioned.

I would put you in the second category.

Dear Yuyutsu

Thank you for providing information that Africans may be different to everybody else in AIDs susceptibility. It is just another scientific theory based upon the fact that science knows that races are not equal.

AIDS infections are now approaching 50% in some areas of Africa, New Guinie and the Caribbean. Genetic susceptibility to AIDS nay be a part of the problem. Although it seems strange that since AIDS is an African disease, one would think that exposure to AIDS for millennia would make Africans more immune to the disease, than those who have never been exposed. Every serious pandemic of human pathogens that I know of has resulted in high mortalities among unexposed populations which are immune deficient.

Sounds like crap to me.

Amazing, LEGO. I go to the effort of asking you to define "racism" (you would also need to explain what you mean when you say "equality", too, come to think of it) so that I can answer your question (that I have demonstrated to be irrelevant) regarding the "rightness" of racism, and not only do you refuse to answer, but you then claim that I am the one trying to avoid giving an answer!

I didn't think you would answer my request for clarification. As with the creationists' use of the word "kind", you need to keep your definition of "racism" and your use of the term "equality" (and probably "right" - as in "racism is right" - too, now that I think about it) vague and open-ended to leave yourself with as much room as possible to duck and weave. If you never come to an agreement on these terms, then it becomes easier to make it appear as though your opponent has contradicted themselves.

Worse still was that (as I pointed out before) you didn't realise that a contradiction between one's finer point, and their view on racism's "rightness" or "wrongness", bears no relation to the accuracy of their finer point. Or perhaps you do realise this and just want to use the contradiction to divert attention from your arguments and make the debate about them instead. Given this recent ad hominem attack of yours, I'd say it's the latter. It's a rehearsed technique that you have down pat and when someone disrupts that, you stamp your feet and cry foul.

Yet despite all this, and despite the fact that I meticulously address every little detail of your posts, you have the audacity to claim that I am the one who is being evasive and is not interested genuine discussion. Why? Because you yourself are not interested in genuine discussion. You're only interested in 'winning' and making yourself appear smart and 'right' in front of the "readers" that you are so focused on and so often refer to.

I will be happy to define racism for you AJ, after you tell me what your position on whether the concept of races is invalid, or whether you think that races differ in appearance only.

Cheers.

Oh, I don't think you would be, LEGO...

<<<I will be happy to define racism for you AJ...>>

Otherwise you would have done it the first time I asked. Or at least said something like this...

<<...after you tell me what your position on whether the concept of races is invalid, or whether you think that races differ in appearance only.>>

No, you are merely temporising.

I’ll tell you what… I’ll answer you, whether or not I think race is a valid concept, and whether or not races differ in appearance only, if you can tell me the precise point at which you consider one population to have become two distinct races.

Now you can’t accuse me of temporising, because my answer to your initial question (on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of racism) is dependent on how you define racism; and my answer to your second question (above) is dependent on the exact point at which you consider one population to have become two distinct races.

I, however, CAN accuse you of temporising since the answer to your conditional question above bears no relevance to how you would define racism for me. It is constructed purely for the sake of extracting a careless response from me on a complex topic.

You are playing games. You are not interesting in genuine discussion. You are merely trying to trip me up so that you can shield your logic and arguments from criticism by distracting from them with a perceived problem in/with mine.

Don’t take me for a fool, LEGO. I’m not an idiot. I’m not stupid enough to presume to know precisely what constitutes a race. That’s why I need definitions from someone who is, so that I can provide them with an answer in the context of what they believe.

Unlike yourself, AJ, I am not frightened to debate fairly. I don't have to hide my position. I don't need to be evasive. I don't need to be careful about what I write because I know that my own reasoning is bankrupt. I don't have to prevaricate. I don't have to stonewall. My logic is not full of contradictions and double standards. I don't have to stand on my dignity and pretend to be outraged with my opponents replies, instead of submitting reasoned arguments which back a position I am prepared to defend. These are your vices, not mine.

You asked me a simple question, and had you ever responded to the many requests from me for you to state your position in a clear and concise way, then I would have had no problem with quickly responding. But I am totally fed up with your dishonest debating style and I do not trust you. If I have to trade answering questions for answering questions with you in order to get you to respond to what I consider to be crucial a question, I am prepared to do it.

Your question was for me to define racism and I don't see any problem with that. I am sure you are trying to trap me but I don't care. I can handle it. But since you have consistently refused to state your position, except ion the most general and deliberately vague implications (which you can then claim is not your position) then if you want my definition, you are going to have to trade for it.

You could have simply answered my never ending question in your last post and our debate could have gotten started. But no, true to form, youi continue to beat around the bush.

The ball is in your court.

Ah, LEGO. You are swerving all over the place like a madman.

Up until recently, you were asking me to simply state my position, and I did. You then refined your question to whether or not I considered all races to be equal, and I said no (with the implication that the inequality has nothing to do with superiority and inferiority). Then you change tack again by requesting my position on racism's "rightness". Given the fact that your idea of racism has varied in its broadness over time, I rightly asked you to clarify what you meant by "racism". After an attempt to dodge the question, you finally offer to answer my request for clarification on the condition that I answer another totally unrelated question. I then ask you to clarify what you consider a race to be exactly and, unsurprisingly, you have now dodged it again with your unfounded and hypocritical claims.

<<But since you have consistently refused to state your position, except ion the most general and deliberately vague implications...>>

So you at least acknowledge now that I have answered? That's a start I suppose. Though, if I sound "general and vague" at times, it's because the concept of race is "general and vague".

<<...if you want my definition, you are going to have to trade for it.>>

Your language is well-suited to your racial beliefs. You use terms like "en guarde" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275058) and speak of the throwing of gauntlets and the crossing of swords (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274522) now we have to "trade"?

This is comical. What is it with racists and medieval themes anyway? I've always wondered.

I have already explained why I require your understanding of racism. I have demonstrated, too, that you are merely temporising and poking around for a way to trip me up (or find a chink in my armour, as you would probably say), and even now, you continue to do it.

Sorry, but the ball is still in your court as my thoughts on racism's "rightness" depend entirely on what you mean by "racism". It's a simple question, but you won't answer it.

Oh AJ. You have no idea how pleased I am that you still will not state a position. I knew you would keep stalling. I always get a kick out of being able to divine my opponents intentions. The only thing I am sorry for, is that I did not state in my last post that I know you are going to keep prevaricating. If anybody is reading our exchanges, that would have shown our readers how much I have you figured out.

I am asking you again to state your position on this debate. I know you are against racism, the question is why? Do you think that races do not exist, except in people's imaginations? Or, do you think that it is because races are equal in every way except physical appearances? Or is it something else? Whatever, what is your position? Answer the question.

No more vague implications. No more grandstanding where you act outraged and claim that you have already answered it adequately. No more posting links to some vague quote from you in our last "debate". Show our readers that you can take a position that you are prepared to defend. Because I am too experienced a debater to fall for the "always imply, but when challenged deny" school of dishonest debating. Or the "Unless you can prove me wrong, then it proves I am right" school of dishonest debating. Or the "I can attack your logic, but you can't attack mine because I won't tell you what it is" school of dishonest debating. I am sure your sneaky tactics have worked a treat on less experienced debaters in the past, and you are so disappointed that you have met somebody who knows what you are doing, but I have seen these tactics before and they won't work on me.

However, this time I will predict for our readers that you will play games and prevaricate. You have to. The last thing you want to is to have your own anti racist position examined and the holy orthodoxy tested by an informed opponent.

And you have no idea how pleased I am that will still not explain what you mean by "racism", LEGO.

<<You have no idea how pleased I am that you still will not state a position.>>

You see, this doesn't add up because, if you really wanted to prove a point to your readers, then you would simply explain your understanding of what constitutes "racism" and remove any doubt about what you allege I am doing, and all while disproving my accusations about what I think you are doing.

It would be killing two birds with one stone.

However, I have provided a legitimate reason for holding off on giving you an answer. You, on the other hand, have not. All you've done is lie about me being evasive; completely unable to point to a single instance of this alleged evasiveness.

You only continue to prove my point. You have no set idea of what you mean by "racism". You keep it flexible in order to broaden your options for red herrings. The same goes for your refusal to clarify what you mean by "equal".

But I've proven my point now.

<<I knew you would keep stalling.>>

So now it's time to move onto the next step and further expose the lie that is your claim regarding my alleged evasiveness, by showing how bogus the apparent ease with which you were apparently able to predict a stalling on my behalf was, and use a dictionary definition to answer your question. Yes, yes, I could have done it before, but I had a point to prove.

<<If anybody is reading our exchanges, that would have shown our readers how much I have you figured out.>>

You? Not so much.

According to the Oxford dictionary, racism is:

1. The belief that each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities that distinguish it as inferior or superior to another such group;
2. Discrimination against or antagonism towards other races or ethnic groups based on such beliefs.

Continued…

…Continued

<<I know you are against racism, the question is why?>>

Because it is based on ignorance. You demonstrate this with your ignorance of the numerous sociological, psychological, criminological and other biological explanations for your observations; and your willingness to assume that genes explain it all, without any evidence. Furthermore, the first Oxford definition of racism describes an idea that is invalid until one can objectively, demonstrably and reliably measure characteristics, abilities or qualities to the extent that claims regarding the inferiority or superiority of any given races are demonstrable. Good luck in justifying the second definition even if you could demonstrate the first.

<<Do you think that races do not exist, except in people's imaginations?>>

For the second time now… How could I think this while simultaneously regarding race as a mostly-cultural construct?

<<…this time I will predict for our readers that you will play games and prevaricate. You have to.>>

Bzzzzt!

Now here are MY predictions (and I want your readers to pay very close attention here):

1. You will assume genetic links for your observations, while not addressing other explanations that are more grounded in evidence;

2. When you exhaust all your arguments for any given point, your next response will contain the words, “Your premise is…”, in an attempt to divert attention from your failed point;

3. The alleged premise of mine will not only be wrong, but totally unrelated to anything I’ve ever said;

4. When I demonstrate that your assumption regarding my premise is wrong, you will accuse me of implications on my behalf that you cannot and will not support;

5. You will eventually fall back to grand conspiracies of socialists blocking research on your pet theory, despite there being decades worth of it http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=race+and+intelligence&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1;

6. When I ask what benefits you foresee in a discovery proving your assumed links between race and intelligence or race and criminality, you will refuse to answer and attempt to divert attention from the fact by claiming that I just want to stifle debate.

Over to you, my predictable friend.

I read the first few lines of your last post and was not in the least surprised to see that you were procrastinating again. Didn't bother with the rest. State your position or pick up your ball and go home.

Cheers.

Oh, but I already did, LEGO.

<<State your position or pick up your ball and go home.>>

You're going have to be polite enough to read what I wrote to find it.

Or perhaps you just want me to state it again briefly so that your readers wake up this morning and don't bother to scroll up and see my continued exposing of your flawed logic that further reveals your insincerity and lies; or maybe you don't want them to see my predictions of where you'll go next so that you can feel more comfortable in going there.

Perhaps it's just that you don't realise that computers have a 'copy and paste' function (hey, you didn't know about the CTRL+F function) and are hoping that I'll re-type my answer to your question using a slightly different wording that allows you to extract an alleged premise of mine that you need from me in order to continue?

Or maybe my suspicions on the previous thread, regarding why you refuse to link back to past posts or quote anyone, were right: you're an out-of-sight-out-of-mind kinda guy. You feel that if you can distract with a post that ignores the uncomfortable revelations in your opponents' (while making more unfounded slanderous claims), then it never happened. You must think your readers have the memories of goldfish. This would also explain why you stop shortly after the "One quarter back" option needs to be selected to view the thread and skim others' posts.

Which leads me to my next prediction:

7. Shortly after the "One quarter back" option needs to be selected to view this thread, you'll stop posting based on the assumption that your readers will stop reading or not realise that the "One quarter back" option needs to be selected to view the thread.

Boy have I seen that backfire on people! (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#163620)

You do realise there are email alert that your readers can set up, don't you?

You’ve gone mighty quite there, LEGO.

Was the position that I stated not the one you were banking on? That never seemed to stop you conjuring a totally unrelated interpretation of my position in the past. What’s different this time? Was it my predictions of where you would turn next? It was the predictions, wasn’t it? That had to be very confronting to have what you subconsciously do laid right out in front of you like that.

Oh well, perhaps the next time I speak disparagingly of racist ideas you’ll think twice before popping your head in to slag off at me. You have to be seriously deluded to have convinced yourself of the accusations you made on the last thread; to the point where you could so arrogantly and foolishly hand me another opportunity to reveal the dishonesty of your claims and the vacuousness of your arguments in general.

There was only one person here willing to debate race “like a grown up” [sic], and it certainly wasn’t you.