I can remember a well publicized story of a Sydney footballer, who having received a serious cervical injury, proceeded to "change" his autonomous sexual bias; given some shards of broken bone had pierced the Ganglia obligarta at the base of the skull; and destroyed those sex drive centres that had till then; made him a women loving alpha male hetrosexual.

It took around a year we're told, for the transformation to become complete?

Today he is a Sydney hairdresser

Then there's the case of a scottish paedophile, [reported in my copy of a seventies english publication called science fact,] up before the beak for the third time for the same offense!

This buggerer of boys was given just two choices; attend a medical research clinic and volunteer for a trial, where tiny electrodes were inserted into the Ganglia obligarta, to burn out the inappropriately firing sex control centres, [ he was firing on all four,] and the probable reason for his autonomous sexual behavior?

Or remain incarcerated for the term of his natural life!

Naturally, he volunteered to take part in the trial.

The Scottish Professors inserted tiny electrodes right into the Ganglia and burnt out those normally appropriate for normal females, and just waited for the results.

Inside a year his abnormal behavior completely changed, and at last report he was a happily married man with a wife and kids, and never happier in his life.

Even so, these sex drive centres cannot be switched on and off as espoused by those who rigidly believe that there is an element of choice here; and given that is so, should cease persecuting folks who just didn't get a say in their completely autonomous sexual bias; preference implying another actual option/choice.

Just not true for the damaged Sydney footballer or those born with his affliction!

But nonetheless equal before the law in every sense but one, and something people of genuine goodwill to man, would change, given none of us get to choose who we fall in love with, or who we are!
Rhrosty.

Great article, thanks!

Dear Rhrosty,

Are you claiming that there is a circuit in the human Ganglia obligarta which causes us to become desperate for a piece of paper from the government? Would it be possible to cheat that centre, with or without electrodes, if you printed your own marriage certificate?

Yuyustu; Yes all our entirely autonomic behavior, sexual, fight or flight responses are located in that centre. Just as I'm claiming we have a cerebral cortex with somewhere around fifty billion circuits; that from time to time are actually engaged by some folk, as they take in new information?

Always providing they can tolerate the burning smell emanating from previously unused cerebral circuits? Yes I did study human anatomy and physiology. Even managed a 98% averaged, pass.

However as alleged in your, [ You claim stuff;] I didn't write even so much as a single chapter or invent the content! It was known and recorded for prosperity, long before I was so much as a tilt in my Daddy's kilt

However to be fair I haven't studied your barely functioning brain. I mean there is at least one example of a former soldier functioning with just half a brain!

Who knows he might just have company? Suggest you start with the flat earth society, and try the smoking brain dept, given it applies to a time period more appropriate to your current belief system?

Y'all have a nice day now y'hear.
Rhrosty

Bigotry by any other name. It's not hard, what logical reason do we stop same sex couples the right to marry? it was a small change to make it only between a man and a women. It's a small change to change it back.

If only I could/knew how to post a meme, this would be the ideal circumstance to post the well-known "Picard double facepalm" meme - for when a single-handed facepalm is not enough.

As a general point, it is by turns ludicrous, exasperating and amusing to see people on forums like this, on TV, in their blogs and on newssites complaining about how they are being silenced and they are unable to speak.

What is this "disgraceful barrage"? What is "disgraceful" is people, particularly that minority of Christians who interpret their Bible as being against SSM (and if you are one of those, don't argue with me, argue with your fellow Christians who think otherwise) who try and enforce their views against others, including by way of non-arguments such as this one.

It is popular, among those who want to enforce intolerant views to complain about being called "bigots", and similar. I see an undertone of that here.

Well, if the shoe fits, etc.

A bigot just is a person who has a negative view about a group of people, or wants members of that group to be treated less favourably, with no grounds to do so.

There are no sound grounds to have negative views about sexuality and gender diverse people. None of "I think so", "god said", "think of the children", or any of those arguments are sound grounds to restrict marriage to heterosexual, cissexual couples.

So, we can even do it by modus ponens

Premise: all people who have unfounded negative views about a group are bigots.

Premise: you have unfounded negative views about a group.

Conclusion: you are a bigot.

Sorry 'bout that, but, it's also untrue that I have respect alternative views: I respect that individuals have views, but I am calling out the views for what they are.

"in public discourse and where millions of dollars and countless hours of time are being wasted, there is no room for emotional manipulation."

If it's such a trivial and unimportant issue, why is it being fought so hard against? I would like to see the evidence for "millions of dollars". I note that it's the anti-lobby that brought Katy "since I became a Christian I realised my upbringing hurt me because Bible" Faust out here.

What is this "emotional manipulation". I think arguing against SSM on the basis of interests of the child, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of the child, counts as emotional manipulation, but I am not sure what is emotionally manipulative about some people asking for recognition of their relationships in the same manner as existing heterosexual relationships.

all the rights stuff: I think there is a bunch of non-sequiturs in there, but the key point is that there is a difference to be denied having a right, and whether or not one exercises it. I have the right to play golf. I don't, the very thought bores me to tears. But would it be OK to prohibit my class of humans (overweight white bald straight cis-males) from playing golf, because I don't want to play? Of course it wouldn't.

Indeed there are gender and sexuality-diverse people who oppose marriage full-stop, and/or don't intend to get married, who fight for marriage equality on precisely the basis that having a right, and exercising it, are different things. It would be nice if white straight cis-males could stop lecturing other people about what they want.

and continuing

"Dramatising the pain ...It also trivialises the plight of many around the world who live under severe hardship and have real issues to confront."

Saying that the pain of not being able to be married is like the pain of slavery is a straw man.

That said, if homosexual love is not as valued as heterosexual love, then why is it being fought so hard against? Why this desperate combination of non-sequiturs and insults required to prosecute the issue form the 'anti-' side.

And yes it does mean that a group of people are second-class citizens if they are treated less favourably than others, for no good reason.

The 'there are more important things to think about' is, of course, a fallacy, and an absurd one. As a community we are able to think of more than thing at a time, and for pretty much any issue one cares to name, one could probably think of something more urgent or pressing.

And, again, if it's so trivial and unimportant, why so much effort to stop SSM?

you know, either marriage is special, or it's not. If it's special, then one can't argue that it is no harm not to have access to it. If it's not special, then why fight against extending it to every couple that loves each other. One can't argue both ways.

The evils Michael ascribes to SSM supporters are at least as applicable to its opponents, including him. “… disgraceful barrage of emotional manipulation” and “making your situation sound worse than it really is “ is a much more apt description of, for example, David van Gend’s histrionic reaction to the Irish referendum …

“Ireland abandons its children … Ireland has written a social suicide note and we grieve for her. But we will not follow her. More than half the Irish have voted for homosexual marriage, seduced by celebrities to violate something they once held sacred: the life between mother, father and child.”

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17371

… than, for example, Luke Beck’s clinical demolition of Frank Brennan concerns about SSM on today’s olo:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17606

Michael says, “the same-sex lobby would have us believe that it is a fundamental human right to be able to have a certificate from the government saying they are married”. But this misrepresents the position. If is not the paper that matters in itself, but the social status and recognition that paper represents, and how government decides who qualifies for one and who doesn’t.

The argument that marriage rights don’t matter because many couples don’t marry is likewise absurd. If the millions of people happily in relationships without being married constitute an argument against gay marriage, they equally constitute an argument against straight marriage. Let’s just abolish marriage entirely. But that just illustrates the argument’s absurdity. When universal franchise was introduced some women chose not to vote, but that doesn’t mean that voting should have been restricted only to men.

Equally fatuous is the argument that “many around the world … live under severe hardship and have real issues to confront.” That’s undoubtedly true, but every problem or injustice we try to solve is probably eclipsed by some atrocity or tragedy elsewhere. That’s no reason to dismiss them.

Michael should open his eyes to what’s happening around him. SSM may be of “little import” to him, but to a majority of Australians, straight and gay, its illegality is an injustice that should have been rectified long ago

Dear Cobber,

<<what logical reason do we stop same sex couples the right to marry?>>

Nobody stops same sex couples from marrying - they can marry whenever and wherever they like.

What needs to be stopped is that "rights" culture, thus I would not stand for its further expansion as proposed - I stand for its abolition.

Our individual freedom is natural and/or God-given (whichever you choose to believe) - but in any case, not man-given. Now there comes a group of people, calling themselves "the state", "united-nations", "the Sicilian syndicate" or whatever, first they rob away our freedoms, then they hand back the small change as "rights" and tell us that we should be thankful to them. No! We demand our freedom back so then we need not ask for their favours as "rights".

---

Dear WeAreStartDust,

<<if homosexual love is not as valued as heterosexual love, then why is it being fought so hard against?>>

Homosexual love is currently valued MORE than heterosexual love, so it is strange indeed why some people who claim to represent homosexuals want it to be valued less.

Do you know why homosexual love is currently valued more?

- Because the government doesn't give it its blessings!

Hi Yuyutsu

I respect the consistency and merits of your argument that government should have no role in deciding who is married and who is not, be they gay or straight. But the reality is that we live in a society where Government decides which relationships can be officially recognised as marriage and which cannot, and that official recognition has material consequences for the people concerned. For as long as this is the case, would you agree that gay relationships should be treated the same as straight ones?

Dear Rhian,

First, I have nothing against homosexuals and though equality is not my cup of tea, I am all in favour that homosexuals be treated respectfully and well.

Second, I ALREADY treat homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual ones.

(if anything, then it is you who may be sub-consciously biased because you accept the label of heterosexual relationships as "straight", which could suggest that homosexual relationships are what? "crooked" perhaps?)

Third, I do not support the "gay" movement - it harms homosexual people because it over-emphasises their sexuality and turns it into an identity and something to be proud of, rather than yet another natural trait among many, like the shape of their nose. That is why I do not support "gay relationships" as opposed to "homosexual relationships" which I do support.

Fourth, I am not aware of any remaining material consequences of official (i.e. by the state) recognition in Australia. I think they were all repealed already, otherwise they should.

Fifth, as I already commented to "WeAreStarDust" (sorry for misspelling his/her name), I wouldn't do this dis-favour to homosexuals of making their relationships be treated the same as heterosexuals' under the pressure of the gay movement: I rather keep them treated BETTER for the time-being, until such time when heterosexuals also no longer suffer from the contempt arising from government-approval.

In conclusion, I do not support the proposed legislative changes, but I do hope that this pressure will instead be used to repeal the Marriage Act (and all other legislative references to the word "marriage" and its derivatives), which would benefit everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

For those asking for a referendum/plebiscite on the matter, it will only be fair to include this third option.

Errant behaviour: homosexuality.
Protest movement: gay rights lobby.
Auspice: social discrimination.
Specifics: gay marriage
Intent: legitimise homosexuality.

The government should not change the Marriage Act to include homosexuals until it can be shown that homosexual behaviour makes sense. Unless homosexual behaviour can be shown to make sense and is reasonable then homosexual relationships are unreasonable and there is no point in changing legislation on the basis that they are reasonable.

It seems to be just taken for granted that such behaviour is reasonable but no one has yet provided a coherent argument to show how it can be so. Why does heterosexual behaviour have such a coherent argument and homosexual behaviour does not? It is clear that heterosexual behaviour has a purpose – to continue the species. What is the purpose of homosexual behaviour?

"Errant behaviour: homosexuality.
Protest movement: gay rights lobby.
Auspice: social discrimination.
Specifics: gay marriage
Intent: legitimise homosexuality."

And that's one of the key reasons why a plebiscite is a bad idea. Australians who love each other will be barraged with this sort of hate-filled nonsense.

Also a neat demonstration of how empty is the claim that pro-SSM people unreasonably use words like "bigot".

If you don't want to be gay, don't be gay. Otherwise, feel free to mind your own business.

star dust....

Unbeknown to yourself stardust, you fit the emotional profile the author describes in his article above.
Most people are not against the homosexual, but against the act of homosexuality. There is no hate at all in my post re:

"Errant behaviour: homosexuality.
Protest movement: gay rights lobby.
Auspice: social discrimination.
Specifics: gay marriage
Intent: legitimise homosexuality."

The homosexual act is "errant behaviour" since it deviates from the norm. And, homosexuals are deviants, since they act-out deviant behaviour; different from normal.
Sanctioning deviant behaviour by offering marriage as a way to legitimise abnormal behaviour, is an unreasonable expectation of society.
There may be certain members of that society who will not object, on the other hand, there will be members of that same society who will object!
Therefore, a plebiscite is a legitimate and justified means to test opinion on this critical issue!

Diver Dan

You say “Most people are not against the homosexual, but against the act of homosexuality”. Actually the polls suggest that “most people” are against neither. Different pollsters with different questions consistently show majority support for gay marriage. Unless people are supporting celibate gay marriage, which I think unlikely, then you’re wrong.

I think you are confusing definitions of “normal” – one being the usual or typical, the other being acceptable or conforming to certain standards.

Homosexuality could be considered “abnormal” in the first sense because most people are heterosexual, just as most people are right-handed and, worldwide, most people have black hair. That doesn’t mean that gays are “errant”, any more than left-handers or redheads. And in a more meaningful sense of the word, it is “normal” for any human population to include a minority of left-handers, people with exceptional IQs, short people, and homosexuals.

The second meaning, implying deviation from what one *should* be, is a matter of moral judgement. But to argue that people should not engage in homosexual behaviour because it is “abnormal” begs the question of why it should be considered “abnormal”, and resort to definition 1 wont suffice – unless you would argue that my left-handeness is equally “errant”.

Being left handed is natural, having a high IQ is natural, being short is natural but being homosexual is not natural. Just because some human beings indulge in homosexual behaviour does not make it natural.

If something is natural then it follows that it makes sense to act in accord with that nature. It would make no sense for a left-handed person to force themselves to write with their right hand. If it is natural to be short then it is logical to not pursue a career in professional basketball

It is natural to have heterosexual sex if you want to create a child – it is in accord with natures designs. That is the whole point of sex. What argument is there for the existence of homosexual behaviour which can never be in accord with nature?

Phanto
How does it make “sense” to be a redhead or left-handed?

Homosexual activity exists in the animal kingdom, and every human society and culture we know of has included homosexuals. So homosexuality is “natural”.

Nature has no designs or plans, still less a moralistic agenda. But if you’re relying on some kind of ethical naturalism, in which the sole purpose of sexual activity is to produce children, then the millions of Australian couples that use contraception are no less unnatural than homosexuals.

Rhian:
I never said it makes sense to be left handed. I said it makes sense to act in accord with your human nature.

That is what we do most of the time and when we do not then we are not acting in our own best interests. Why would homosexuality exist in the animal kingdom – what would be the point of that? Sex exists to continue the species.

“Nature has no designs or plans, still less a moralistic agenda.”

You would not jump out of a plane without a parachute because you know you are not designed to fly. Nature has thousands of designs. What has morality got to do with anything? It is about behaving reasonably and logically and making sense which only happens when we act in accord with nature.

“the millions of Australian couples that use contraception are no less unnatural than homosexuals.”

There is nothing unnatural about contraception it is built into nature. Every sex act does not produce a child but it remains an act in accord with nature. They are still doing what nature intended them to do. Having the capacity to control your own reproduction is also a naturally occurring phenomenon. We were built with the ability to create more reliable contraception.

What is the natural function of homosexual behaviour?

Phanto, heterosexual sex is a natural behavior for straight people, while homosexual sex is a natural behavior for gay people.
It isn't rocket science...

Suseonline, the forum's Number One expert on 'Gays' and tireless spruiker for anal sex, has SPOKEN!

Huh! Onthebeach, OLO's tireless campaigner and expert on heterosexual middle aged male's sexual activities has just shown how naive he is if he thinks only gay men have anal sex.

Suseonline,

My concern as you very well know because I have challenged your promotion of anal sex so many times before, is that girls and young women are being encouraged to the impression that anal sex is OK, common and expected of them.

Being vulnerable and willing to please their men (who are likely risk takers engaging in anal sex with other men as well) they are ill-advisedly giving in to demands for anal sex.

The normalisation of anal sex is the aim of gay advocates such as yourself, but it is downright irresponsible where there are known to be such severe, even life-threatening health effects for young heterosexual women, especially impressionable and trusting school students

Oh of course OTB, you are just concerned about the women and girls are you?
What a load of croc!
You are against homosexuality, plain and simple.

You must surely know that some heterosexual couples engage in all different sorts of sex, purely for pleasure apparently. One doesn't need to be gay to have anal sex.

You are correct in saying some men do force their women (and other men) to accept all manner of sex acts that they don't want to do. It is a form of domestic violence.
That is the nature of some disgusting men....

Suseonline,

The point I am making is quite easily understood. That other stuff is quite unnecessary.

No OTB, with someone like you I really do need to spell it out....

Suzeonline:

“Phanto, heterosexual sex is a natural behavior for straight people, while homosexual sex is a natural behavior for gay people.
It isn't rocket science...”

Well if it not rocket science should be able to answer my question. What is the natural purpose of homosexual behaviour? Who said there are ‘gay people’? They may be just heterosexual people doing homosexual things. Why would nature want gay people what would be the point of that?

“You must surely know that some heterosexual couples engage in all different sorts of sex, purely for pleasure apparently. One doesn't need to be gay to have anal sex.”

What is nature’s purpose for anal sex? We can work out what the purpose is for vaginal sex. It is the only way to continue the species in the numbers required. What does anal sex do? Just because people have anal sex it does not mean that it is natural. People also inject themselves with harmful drugs.

In order to maintain such huge and unprecedented numbers, mankind had to resort to tons of the most unnatural technologies, which gradually quells all meaning and purpose out of our lives.

The last thing we need is further procreation - and the extra technology that would be needed to compensate for it.

Already living so unnaturally, having anal sex is relatively more natural than typing on our computer keyboard as I do this very moment, thus for now should be the least of our worries.

Suseonline, "..I really do need to spell it out"

What you need to spell out is how a person who claims to be a registered nurse working with the WA State community health in some way (to a private provider?) is so crass and irresponsible as to promote anal sex for hereosexual women, especially young women.

Your previous assertions for instance that, 'if the hole allows it, it must be ok and normal' is plain dumb and demonstrates a casualness and disregard for the health and welfare of women (men too) and would NOT be in accord with the advice of the WA health service, as I have explained on the previous occasions you have prosletysed for anal sex.

It is unconscionable behaviour for anyone who is delivering health services and advice to the public to be doing so (promoting anal, or any other risky sex) and carelessly diminishing the risks while doing so.

Quite apart from that, there would be very few young women who would choose to be 'bum girls'. You are doing them a very great disservice encouraging men themselves to falsely believe that anal sex is normal, or common, for hereosexuals. It is NOT medically advised because of many serious risks, just one serious risk being the man who proposes it in the first place, given the likelihood he experiments in other risky sex and probably with other men.

It should be law for any man who has ever had sex with another man to declare it plainly and clearly to a woman before obtaining consent to any sex whatsoever.

Phanto,

You are committing the Appeal to Nature fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature), so your argument is invalid.

That aside, homosexuality has been known to occur in hundreds of different species, so to that extent, yes, homosexuality is natural.

There are many credible hypotheses with regards to the function/role that homosexuality plays from an evolutionary perspective too (http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+homosexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp), if that’s how you want to define what is and is not natural.

Not that it matters though. There are acts that are not natural that we would consider to be good/right (e.g. flying in planes), just as there are acts that are natural that we would consider to be bad/wrong (e.g. ephebophilia, rape).

Hence why the Appeal to Nature is an invalid argument.

A J Philips:

Who said anything about homosexual behaviour being either good or bad? I simply asked the question what is its natural purpose? The appeal to nature fallacy is about making judgements – I am not making judgements.

Don’t you agree that the natural purpose of heterosexual sex is the procreation of the species? What is the natural purpose then of homosexual behaviour? It is a simple enough question. Why does it occur in the ‘hundreds of different species’? If it has evolved then to what purpose has it evolved?

Surely if it is so natural then it must have a clearly defined purpose in the same way as heterosexual behaviour does.

Yuyutsu:

Homosexual behaviour is not the ’least of our worries’ if we are spending millions of taxpayer dollars and countless hours of politicians time debating whether to change laws predicated on the reasonableness of that behaviour.

If homosexual behaviour is unreasonable then so too are homosexual relationships and thus homosexual marriage.

Phanto,

<<Who said anything about homosexual behaviour being either good or bad?>>

No-one. That’s why I also noted that it’s fallacious to say that something is right or wrong according to whether or not it is natural.

<<I simply asked the question what is its natural purpose?>>

Yes, and with the assertion that one must be found before same-sex marriage can be legitimate or should be legislated. You are basing what should or should not be on whether or not it has a natural purpose.

“The government should not change the Marriage Act to include homosexuals until it can be shown that homosexual behaviour makes sense.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311328)

“Makes sense” is a pretty broad and ambiguous standard. Luckily you clarify what you mean in a later post…

“If something is natural then it follows that it makes sense to act in accord with that nature.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311359)

So you are at least committing the Naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).

<<Don’t you agree that the natural purpose of heterosexual sex is the procreation of the species?>>

Ultimately, yes. Pleasure and mateship could be other purposes.

<<Why does [homosexual behaviour] occur in the ‘hundreds of different species’? If it has evolved then to what purpose has it evolved?>>

I linked you to many articles that attempt to answer this question (maybe not with regards to the actual sexual acts, but not every behaviour has to have an evolutionary purpose - the orientation, however, likely does). Some of them are free for you to view if you’re genuinely interested in this topic.

<<Surely if it is so natural then it must have a clearly defined purpose in the same way as heterosexual behaviour does.>>

Why? Why can’t it just be a symptom of another evolutionary function? Domestic violence doesn’t have a purpose as clearly defined as heterosexual sex, yet it still has evolutionary roots believed to stem from the alpha male’s desire to ensure the paternity of the offspring that he invests his energies into the rearing of.

You are framing your questions to draw a particular answer that supports your already-held view on same-sex marriage.

Dear Phanto,

I do not believe that politicians, or anyone else for that matter, have a right to legislate reasonable behaviour, thus preventing others from behaving unreasonably. We have free choice to act reasonably or otherwise: the only time government may interfere is when our actions hurt or endanger others.

If you were consistent in believing that the state should regulate on the grounds of reasonableness, then even if you truly believed that procreation is reasonable (which is not), you would have to prohibit sex in infertile/old heterosexual couples as well.

Taking it a step further, ANY sexual behaviour is unreasonable, even if it results in procreation, because coming to think of it, sooner or later one's progeny will die out (even in the unlikely case humans escape the solar system before the sun turns into a red giant, in time all protons and neutrons which build our bodies will decay and disperse).

In fact, I cannot find a single behaviour that is reasonable, as whatever we do will eventually come to naught!

Such is the nature of reason. Had you been arguing on the grounds of goodness instead, then yes, it would lead to a fertile discussion because indeed some deeds are good, others bad - but even then I do not recognise the state as an authority worthy to determine which is which.

You may be critical, as you appear to be AJPhillips, of the anti homosexual argument, but why not, with some equality, be equally critical of the valence effect used by the pro homosexual arguments flourishing.

The valence effect, so rigoursly used by the gay lobbyists, argues a diminished responsibility for negative effects of homosexuality...EG: the spread of AIDS preceded by HIV.

The valence effect postures the argument thus: AIDS is not spread by homosexual acts anymore than HIV/AIDS is currently spread by intravenous injections among drug users! (Vacuous argument)!

But that argument, (containing some current-day relevance), was not always true though was it? And also washes over the fact that HIV/AIDS is not a dead issue, but has the propensity to spread freely, as a consequence of anal sex!

Do we ignore the facts of the past, and allow a captured young generation to consider homosexuality, to have had no dark past, and promote a risky and very unnatural lifestyle, by introducing gay marriage as a legitimiser to an unnatural act?

A J Philips:

“That’s why I also noted that it’s fallacious to say that something is right or wrong according to whether or not it is natural.”

I never said it was right or wrong either so why point me in the direction of that fallacy?

“Yes, and with the assertion that one must be found before same-sex marriage can be legitimate or should be legislated. You are basing what should or should not be on whether or not it has a natural purpose.”

I am basing what should or should not be on reasonableness. Governments should make changes to legislation because it is reasonable to do so. This is a principle which should undermine all decisions otherwise government would be utter chaos. Changing legislation to include same-sex couples in the marriage act presumes that such relationships are reasonable and that also presumes that homosexuality or orientation is reasonable which presumes that homosexual behaviour is reasonable. What makes homosexual behaviour reasonable? Heterosexual behaviour is reasonable at least some of the time whereas there is nothing to indicate homosexual behaviour is reasonable any of the time.

Heterosexual behaviour has a purpose that can be observed in nature. It produces a result which is what is intended. If we cannot interpret the intent of nature in this fundamental area then what is the point of interpreting it at all? Any decisions we make based on nature become ludicrous. We should build our houses facing the west so we can watch the sunrise?

No government decisions should be made on the basis of homosexual behaviour being reasonable until such time as it is shown that it is reasonable. All you are telling me is that it exists, it is evolutionary, widespread in other species but you cannot tell me why it is reasonable to indulge in homosexual behaviour.

diver dan,

When arguing against same-sex marriage, the hygiene/disease argument doesn’t work because, by that token, you’re fine with lesbian marriage and gay male marriage for those who do not practice anal sex. Similarly, you would be against the marriages of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex. Whether or not some acts, practiced by some homosexuals, are more capable of spreading disease than others, is not the result of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and nor is it indicative of it.

Phanto,

It makes no difference whether you are asking if homosexuality “makes sense” or is “reasonable” (whatever that would mean). The fact that the criteria by which you think these should be determined is to what extent they are natural or have a natural purpose renders your argument fallacious.

<<What makes homosexual behaviour reasonable?>>

The fact that it would be unreasonable to ignore, and expect others to ignore, a sexual and emotional attraction to the same sex and spend a life alone or with someone whom one is not interested in.

Same-sex marriage is reasonable because it is discriminatory to treat some relationships and family types as not deserving of the value so many place on marriage, and marginalisation has never had a positive effect on any society.

Same-sex marriage is reasonable because equal treatment should be granted until it proves to be a problem, not withheld in case it becomes a problem or can be proven to not be a problem.

<<Heterosexual behaviour has a purpose that can be observed in nature.>>

So does/did rape, wife beating, ephebophilia and even hebephilia. Your criteria is flawed.

<<[Heterosexual behaviour] produces a result which is what is intended.>>

So does homosexuality, apparently. Or at least it’s not detrimental (why is that not your criteria?).

<<If we cannot interpret the intent of nature…>>

You’re welcome to ponder nature’s intent here. According to the Google Scholar link I provided earlier, you’re not the only one trying to do this. Your thinking becomes fallacious, however, when you confuse sex with sexuality as if the former is the total sum of the latter.

Oh for goodness sake! All you guys (except for AJ Phillips) are just blowing this whole gay marriage thing way out of proportion. They just want to be able to marry each other, not 'cause' all else on the planet to 'become' homosexual.
This whole idea is just too ridiculous.

Phanto. " What is the natural purpose of homosexual behaviour? Who said there are ‘gay people’? They may be just heterosexual people doing homosexual things. Why would nature want gay people what would be the point of that?"

Really? I don't know about you Phanto, but as a heterosexual woman there is no way in hell that I have ever considered becoming lesbian! I was born heterosexual, and lesbians are born lesbian.
Does all sexual activity have to lead to creating babies? Well men had better stop masturbating then, because what is the natural purpose of that behaviour then?
Could it be because it is pleasurable maybe? Exactly.

Onthebeach, I have never 'promoted anal sex' as you well know.
Many people pursue dangerous activities, but as long as they take precautions, then they can lower their chances of injury.

One thing I do know is that people with such aggression and/ or hatred for others are at a much higher chance of higher stress levels, leading to stress-related illnesses, so you and Phanto watch out for yourselves now won't you ?

Ajphillips....you cannot be taken seriously on this subject. You counter every argument against homosexuality per se, with a free floating rationale which actually has you painted into a corner.

You miss the point of my argument against the "tool" of gay marriage. I presented a soliloquy of rationale above, which argues dot-point, that gay marriage is not the end game. The end game of the gay liberation movement, is to normalise homosexuality in our community.

It is for this reason it must be opposed. Thus my argument is actually against normalising homosexuality, and the myriad of reasons it should never be normalised.

Dear Foxy,

<<They just want to be able to marry each other>>

They are able already, so why so few actually do it?

It is not illegal!

Already, nobody (in Australia) would ever convict, jail or even fine homosexuals for getting married!

Yes, there appears to be a group of people who are very keen for homosexuals to marry each other, but it is not the homosexuals themselves, nor their well-wishers.

One more point: Have you considered the feelings of real flesh-and-blood homosexual people? If I were homosexual, then I would feel quite offended if others called me "gay".

---

Dear Dan,

The end game of the "gay liberation movement" is to burn all religious people at the stake. They have no interest in homosexuality, which by-the-way, is already normalised.

I'm very serious about the subject, diver dan.

<<you cannot be taken seriously on this subject.>>

And my numerous pays on the topic in the last wave of articles on this topic attest to that. I'm sorry you missed them.

<<You counter every argument against homosexuality per se, with a free floating rationale which actually has you painted into a corner.>>

How so?

<<You miss the point of my argument against the "tool" of gay marriage ... The end game of the gay liberation movement, is to normalise homosexuality in our community.>>

Rhian has already dealt with your comments with regards the normal and abnormal.

As for same-sex marriage being a tool, I'll just note that I've heard all sorts of paranoid theories regarding the alleged motives and goals of the gay rights movement. Why, Yuyutsu has just graced us with his/her unsubstantiated claim about a conspiracy to destroy religion. But unless you can actually provide evidence for your claim, then i will simply disregard it like I do any other paranoid delusion.

<<Thus my argument is actually against ... the myriad of reasons it should never be normalised.>>

Please do share.

AJ Phillips, I would also ask what or who is 'normal'?
Everyone has their own personal opinion of what is normal behaviour.
Unless any of these behaviour said break any laws, then who has the right to say what is normal?

As for the religious aspect of this subject, I would have to say that if there was actually a 'creator', then he or she must have created the homosexual person too.
Am I correct? Or did the God get it wrong?

I was in two minds as to whether to respond, or just unlink myself from the Opinion website. To accuse those in support of same sex marriage as all emotion and no notion - as this author does - smacks of the pot calling the kettle.

I am supposed to say I might not agree with you but I respect your right to say it. Sorry, but this reminds me of Mark Latham. Some people forfeit their right to be listened to

SHORT&SHARP:

The article obviously got under your skin or you would not feel the need to comment. You think he is not worth listening to so why do you need to tell us that? If he is not worth listening to then he must be even less worthy of comment.

AJ Philips:

You say you are very serious about these issues and have obviously thought about them a great deal. Those references you supplied also show that a great deal of scholarly effort has been made by others in this field. My question is why has this all been so necessary? The purpose of heterosexual behaviour can be explained in one sentence by a primary school student and yet so much effort needs to be harnessed in order to try and explain the purpose of homosexual behaviour and still there is no answer.

<<What makes homosexual behaviour reasonable?>>

“The fact that it would be unreasonable to ignore, and expect others to ignore, a sexual and emotional attraction to the same sex and spend a life alone or with someone whom one is not interested in.”

I asked the question what makes homosexual behaviour reasonable and you have told me why you think it would be unreasonable not to see it as reasonable. You have not answered the question I have posed.

“Same-sex marriage is reasonable because it is discriminatory to treat some relationships and family types as not deserving of the value so many place on marriage, and marginalisation has never had a positive effect on any society.”

Your presumption is that homosexual relationships are reasonable. What makes them reasonable?

“Same-sex marriage is reasonable because equal treatment should be granted until it proves to be a problem, not withheld in case it becomes a problem or can be proven to not be a problem.”

In order for there to be equal treatment there has to exist at least two reasonable situations. So far only one situation or type of relationship of the two in question can be shown to be reasonable i.e. to have a reason for its existence.

SHORT&SHARP
Like you I disagree with this article and find its position hypocritical, but that's hardly a reason to close down debate.

This website is committed to supporting free speech and airing all sides of controversial topics in current affairs. That means that statistically you’re quite likely to find yourself disagreeing with a fair proportion of material you find here – I know I do. But that is the merit and purpose of the website: it airs controversial views and allows posters to criticise them. It is particularly valuable in a world where soft censorship is increasingly shutting down “unacceptable” voices.

Phanto,

You may have to explain precisely what you mean by “reasonable”. Accoding to the definition of “reason”, I’m not even sure how heterosexuality could be classed as such (http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=define:reasonable).

But if, by “reasonable”, you simply mean “has a reason for its existence” (as suggested in your last response), then not only are you committing a fallacy somewhere in between the Appeal to Nature and the Naturalistic fallacy, but you haven’t even justified why this should be a requirement. Gambling is a legal activity in certain situations and it doesn’t appear to be a very reasonable behaviour. Furthermore, there is no requirement in law that a behaviour be “reasonable”. This is an arbitrary standard that you have invented yourself.

<<My question is why has this [scholarly effort] all been so necessary? The purpose of heterosexual behaviour can be explained in one sentence by a primary school student and yet so much effort needs to be harnessed in order to try and explain the purpose of homosexual behaviour and still there is no answer.>>

This is a non sequitur.

How difficult or not it is to find the purpose behind a sexual orientation says nothing about the extent to which it has a reason for existing (or its “reasonableness”), only the obviousness of its purpose, and obviousness and reasonableness are not inextricably linked.

<<In order for there to be equal treatment there has to exist at least two reasonable situations.>>

Well, I would argue that there simply has to be human beings that are not harming anyone else. More to the point though, I don’t think the question should be, “Is a behaviour reasonable?”, but, “Is a piece of legislation reasonable?”. This is what I was getting at in my last response to you.

I agree with you that the issue is whether or not this piece of legislation (to change the marriage act) is reasonable. If it is reasonable to change it then it must be shown why. A logical argument must be presented before there is change to any legislation.

The argument about equality or discrimination presumes that such a phenomenon of homosexuality exists and that sexual orientation exists but both those things presume that homosexual behaviour is reasonable. There is a logical progression that you make which says homosexual behaviour exists therefore it is reasonable. If it is reasonable then homosexual relationships are reasonable and thus same-sex marriage is reasonable. The problem I have with that argument is the first step. I have seen no evidence that homosexual behaviour is reasonable or that it is in accord with nature.

People can behave however they like so long as it does not impinge on others’ rights but this legislation does impinge on the rights of taxpayers to have their taxes used to good purpose and to have their politicians occupied in purposeful ways.

You seem to suggest that every argument presented that appeals to nature is fallacious and yet hundreds of times every day we make decisions based upon the laws of nature. For example if we are hungry we put food in our mouth because that is the way we are designed by nature – we do not put it in our ear. You cannot really have it both ways. Similarly if reasonableness is not a criterion for anything then why argue about any issue? Why do you try to present reasoned arguments in favour of same-sex marriage if it is a fallacy to appeal to reasoned argument? The other alternative is just chaos.

Phanto,

So now homosexuality may not be “reasonable” because we don’t know if it even exists?

<<The argument about equality or discrimination presumes that such a phenomenon of homosexuality exists and that sexual orientation exists but both those things presume that homosexual behaviour is reasonable.>>

I don’t even know what to say to that. How could anyone in their right mind suggest that it doesn’t exist? Even if you were to use the "It's a chioce" claim that presumably-bisexual homophobes use, how would you explain the behaviour in animals with less sentience?

<<There is a logical progression that you make which says homosexual behaviour exists therefore it is reasonable.>>

Well you still haven’t explained what you mean by “reason” (I’m starting to suspect it’s a way of trying to avoid the Appeal to Nature or the Naturalistic fallacy), and I contend that describing a sexuality as “reasonable” or not is absurd and merely an arbitrary invention of your own.

But going with it for now: no, I don’t assume that it’s “reasonable”. As I said earlier, it could be that it is merely not-detrimental (although that’s unlikely). And if homosexuality is merely not-detrimental, then it is still natural and thus (presumably) qualifies as “reasonable” in your books. Unless you want to define “natural” as specifically “having an evolutionary purpose as obvious as it’s heterosexual counterpart”, in which your definition and criterion for determining the reasonableness as completely arbitrary and thus meaningless.

<<I have seen no evidence that homosexual behaviour is reasonable or that it is in accord with nature.>>

The question isn’t, and has never been, whether or not sexual intimacy between members of the same-sex plays a role in nature, but whether or not a small percentage of a population not being interested in the opposite sex is advantageous to the species in which it has been observed.

Continued...

Continued...

<<People can behave however they like so long as it does not impinge on others’ rights but this legislation does impinge on the rights of taxpayers to have their taxes used to good purpose and to have their politicians occupied in purposeful ways.>>

This argument is disingenuous because if that were the problem, then you wouldn’t care if same-sex marriage was legislated for, so long as it was the quickest, cheapest and least disruptive route. Indeed it would be given that this has about as much chance of going away as the civil rights movement of the ‘60s, yet you still don’t want it.

<<You seem to suggest that every argument presented that appeals to nature is fallacious and yet hundreds of times every day we make decisions based upon the laws of nature.>>

No, every argument that assumes the rightness/goodness/reasonableness/sense-making-ness of something, based on whether or not it is natural, is fallacious. A classic example of this is the alternative medicine movement…

"People got in their head, well, if it's man-made somehow it's potentially dangerous, but if it's natural, it isn't. That doesn't really fit with anything we know about toxicology. When we understand how animals are resistant to chemicals, the mechanisms are all independent of whether it's natural or synthetic. And in fact, when you look at natural chemicals, half of those tested came out positive [for toxicity in humans]." - Bruce Ames

<<Similarly if reasonableness is not a criterion for anything then why argue about any issue?>>

Reasonableness if a fine criterion for many things. But when your criterion for reasonableness is whether or not it is natural, then you are committing a fallacy.

<<Why do you try to present reasoned arguments in favour of same-sex marriage if it is a fallacy to appeal to reasoned argument?>>

I never said that it was.

AJ Philips:

“Indeed it would be given that this has about as much chance of going away as the civil rights movement of the ‘60s...”

If you truly believe this to be the case then why are you bothering to argue with me or with anyone else? We can only conclude that you are trying to convince yourself. I am not here to pander to your insecurities.

*Sigh*

Phanto,

It’s a pity so many discussions have to come to this...

<<If you truly believe this to be the case then why are you bothering to argue with me or with anyone else? We can only conclude that you are trying to convince yourself.>>

Or that I enjoy debating, or that I want to discredit bad arguments so that others don’t use them and understand why they are bad, or that I like challenging my own views, or that I’d like to change the minds of others. Or maybe I just want to slap down views that I perceive as destructive?

There are many reasons. Why do so many have to jump to a conclusion that makes it about the other person?

Well there is no need to justify your behaviour if you are doing nothing wrong. There is also no need to try and patronise me with your "sigh".