"John. I think we've ruled out bestiality, polygamy, incest and underage sex.

"So pack up the straw man 'arguments' ..."

They're 'red-herrings'(fallacies) (or may be red-herring straw-men)

Sometimes also used as slipper-slope 'arguments' - also a fallacy.

Yes, "all anyone is asking for is marriage equality before the law" for something society is recognising as part of continuity of the human dimension - ie. same-sex couples
.

McReal, "Besides your appeal to tradition fallacy, do you want to do something about 'unnatural sexual acts' in heterosexual marriages eg. oral sex; anal sex?"

Yes! Women, young women and girls need to be supported in refusing anal sex, 'rimming' [mouth-anus] and any other actions that are stupidly risky and damned offensive to them.

Women and girls need to understand that the sexual acts being implied by creative authors, in film and in talk shows for dumbed-down welfare-dependent fools as usual, OK and and expectation of men are NOT any of those things at all.

If girls and young women imagine that practices such as anal sex and 'rimming' are foul and dangerous to their health and wellbeing they are likely right and should go by their intuition and by the advice of medical practitioners.

Parents are just going to have to insist that sex education in schools respects the health, wellbeing and preferences of girls over the 'hurt' feelings of a few Gay activists and that girls and boys receive the due and proper warnings. It is NOT good enough to pretend that condom use is 100% effective, they easily become damaged and dislodged where used for the back passage, where mechanical damage will likely occur anyhow due to the inappropriateness of shoving objects into an area that is not made for it.
tbc..

contd..

The only way to treat the very serious risks to women of anal sex and the risky partners who demand it and have likely done the same with others including men, is to say "NO!" and mean it. Forget him and move on. However educationalists, health authorities and parents must get in first and early to advise and support girls and young women who are being assaulted with images and (wrong) opinion from the hidden and sometimes not-so-hidden persuaders who are only trying to legitimise risky 'Gay' sex and 'Gay' lifestyle anyhow.

It should be a legal requirement for any man who has experimented with anal sex or any sexual contact with another man, to advise any intended female partner of that as a prerequisite to engaging in any sexual contact. At present women are being denied information that is privy to men and concealed by them, but is vital to the woman's choices affecting her own health and that of any future children.

General Comments

Another excellent article from this author. Thank you.

There is a middle course as he says. However 'Gay' advocates and the leftist 'Progressives' supported by feminists are at pains to deny that fact. Why?

McReal,

It's not natural as the orificia have different uses, as intended by nature, therefore any practice, in this regard, that is not intended by nature is therefore not natural. The fact that some heterosexual couples engage in unnatural practices doesn't make such practices intended by nature.

Some motorists drive the wrong way up 'One Way' streets but that doesn't make it right and a billy goat has the ability to suck his own penis, so if one is supple enough then this practice is natural; humans however usually need to have their two lower ribs surgically removed to be able to do this, therefore it's an unnatural practice for most males.

Yes, well Kennett has done a Fraser and gone loopy Left. He has no qualifications in depressive disorders or marriage counselling; he is entitled to personal opinions, as we all are, but he has no business making public recommendations. He has only ever been a politician, and that does not entitle him to tell others what they should do - far, far from it!

With due respect to the author and his legal knowledge, the subject has nothing to do with the law: it has to with science/anatomy.

Science and anatomy because it is quite clear that human sexual gear is not designed for fun between people of the same sex, and the fun bit is included to encourage intercourse for reasons of procreation - the object of the entire business. That's nature: it's natural. Anything else is unnatural. Discussing the sordid business in legal terms merely indicates how low society has sunk.

"intended", "designed"... By whom?