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.