I should have edited this and I would have saved a lot of space. After I was finished condensing the key elements of this article it would read.

I have an irrational belief in a imaginary being. The book written by people in the stone age that also believed in this imaginary being say it's bad to be homosexual. Therefore I feel empowered to tell everyone else, even those that don't believe in my imaginary sugar Daddy how to live their lives.

A fact and empathy free article as you expect from a purely religious pov.

Love will win.

The evidence that homosexuals are "born that way" is becoming less likely in time.

When tested, homosexuality can be related to ethnic background, education and earnings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220120/White-people-likely-gay-Huge-study-reveals-highest-proportion-homosexual-people-African-American-community.html

There seems to be no genetic cause for homosexuality.

Medical factors that can cause homosexuality (such as an imbalance in prenatal hormones) should be treated as a medical condition.

Of concern is the number of "gender-bender" drugs and chemicals in the environment, mostly from chemicals that have been added to plastics.

The use of so much plastic material in the home and at work should be decreased to reduce the chances of homosexuality spreading within society.

If articles like this serve any useful purpose, it is to clearly demonstrate that there is no viable secular case for prohibiting same sex marriage.

Take away the argument from religious authority, and the Rabbi and his colleagues in the other religions have nothing further to offer to this debate.

What hypocrisy to state that homosexuality comes from the physical body, but heterosexuality comes from above...

ANY sexuality comes from the body, not from the soul, so those who wish to elevate their soul and rise above human/animal instincts should abstain from it all - especially now when unlike in the days of Abram where procreation could be excused, the world is already flooded with humans and we are all forced to live unnaturally as a result.

the 'safe 'schools program will continue to push propaganda encouraging young confused kids to experiment with every perversion. They will then convince kids they were born that way. What a sick society.

From any perspective, homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural. But, what people do in private is their own business and no real concern of mine. The thing that I object to is the attempt involve the rest of society in trying to make it normal and natural through institulising it via the imposition of 'gay marriage'. I have no objection to tolerating homosexuality, but trying to pretend that it is a normal and appropriate part of civilised society is totally objectionable and totally insulting.

Morality and choice are two very different animals!

Church going hetrosexual Nazis, perpertrated some of the greatest evils on other humans the world has witnessed, only exceeded in living memory by the excesses of ISIL; another tyrannically ruled group of hetrosexual fanantics who persecute gay folk for being born that way!

And yes our moral conduct is a matter of choice as indeed it was for the Nazis, ISIL, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, and countless others, including warrior popes at the head of armies and priests presiding over the spanish inquisition; the conversion via the sword of most of South America, and later as moralizing pious kiddy fidlers.

Most of us understand that our gay friends and family, were born that way, and if you believe in God, as he made them!

If J.C. walked among us today with his gentle kind nature and a preference for the company of men, he would likely be branded gay and ostracized for just being who he is!

Which is the case here and with this seriously flawed advocate?

Look, nobody is advocating that homosexuality is going to become compulsory or that officiating at a same sex marriage would ever be, you can't catch it via association nor is it learned or inculcated behavior!

Some of the most moral, decent. concerned and kind folk I know, are also gay, whose incorruptible (real) morality puts many bible bashing religious pulpit pounders to shame, in any fair comparison?

At the end of the day we will all be judged by a higher Authority, The one person we cannot fool or lie to; the person in the mirror!

And judgement, where this pseudo gay bashing and endless mindless persecution, will be found both wanting and seriously immoral!

Unfounded belief or conventional wisdom just doesn't make highly flawed erroneous assumptions true, any more that it turns a round world flat!

Bring on the plebiscite! Preferably before fools like this can perpetrate any more injustice or harm!
Alan B.
P.S. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do?

That homosexuals were 'born that way' is a moot point. Some studies reveal that it could be true in about 10% of cases only. The other 90% - well who knows their motives and inadequacies?

Alan B

Responsible adults should be directing their children away from homosexuality, and not directing their children towards homosexuality.

New research shows that no matter how liberal the society, homosexuals often have poor levels of mental and physical health, and this is mostly associated with the life-style of the homosexual.

Heterosexuals do not, and should not have to change their life-styles to accommodate the life-style of a homosexual.

And young children should not be exposed to sexuality, and in particular, they should not be exposed to homosexuality.

There appears to be minimal biological causes for homosexuality, or what biological causes there are can be treated or avoided.

A possible antidote has been developed for "gender-bender" chemicals that have been absorbed into the body, and more research is necessary to remove these gender-bender chemicals from the environment.

In fact, more research should be carried out to reduce the rate of homosexuality in society to as low a level as possible.

Interative,

That doesn’t mean there’s no genetic factor.

<<When tested, homosexuality can be related to ethnic background, education and earnings.>>

The article you linked to just gives us statistics. Has it ever occurred to you that discrimination and mental health issues resulting from attitudes like yours could play a role in those findings?

Furthermore, the article notes that:

"The survey noted that it could not account for those not admitting their sexual preference."

Which may be more likely in those demographics that the occurrence of homosexuality was lower.

<<Responsible adults should be directing their children away from homosexuality, and not directing their children towards homosexuality.>>

Why? And who are these parents who are directing their children towards homosexuality?

<<New research shows that no matter how liberal the society, homosexuals often have poor levels of mental and physical health…>>

Again, hardly surprising with attitudes like yours.

<<…and this is mostly associated with the life-style of the homosexual.>>

What is the evidence for this? It sounds made up to me.

<<Heterosexuals do not, and should not have to change their life-styles to accommodate the life-style of a homosexual.>>

Since when has anyone ever suggested that they should?

<<In fact, more research should be carried out to reduce the rate of homosexuality in society to as low a level as possible.>>

Why?

ttbn,

<<From any perspective, homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural.>>

What about the perspective of evolution?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.595.7163&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=econ_wp
http://tinyurl.com/grtladv

Or the perspective that it is observed in other species too?

<<Some studies reveal that it could be true in about 10% of cases only. The other 90% - well who knows their motives and inadequacies?>>

Could you please provide a reference to one of these studies?

All this talk of sex is rude.

Like we army men say:

"Never leave your mate's behind".

AJ Philips

Results:

"Homosexually active persons and persons with same-sex attraction reported a higher prevalence of disorders than heterosexual persons."

Conclusion:

"Sexual orientation continues to be a risk factor for psychiatric disorders, stressing the need for understanding the origins of these disparities."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655175/

This survey was undertaken in the Netherlands, where there is a high acceptance of homosexuality, and at this point, no amount of acceptance of homosexuality will reduce the higher incidence of psychiatric disorders among homosexuals.

They should change their life-style instead.

For example:

No "all male" parties, and then homosexuals complain they are being discriminated against.

No homosexual Mardi Gras events, where they wear their studded leather g-strings and Roman gladiator helmets, and then go of to a debauched drug-riddled party afterwards.

No homosexual beaches where they sneak up to the bushes behind the beach to indulge in some promiscuous activity with complete strangers etc.

It is known what homosexuals do, and very little of it can be recommended to children, or anyone else.

Yes, Interactive, sexual orientation certainly is a risk factor for psychiatric disorders, but that doesn’t mean it’s a cause. You’re making the classic mistake of attributing causation to correlation.

<<This survey was undertaken in the Netherlands, where there is a high acceptance of homosexuality…>>

Homophobia still exists in the Netherlands. There are other factors too, however:

“In addition, the gay commercial world in which some men and women may participate to find partners and friends may make misuse of alcohol and cigarettes more likely. The former in particular can have adverse effects on mental well-being.”

http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932

Your attempts to instrinsically link homosexuality to mental health issues are not supported by the evidence.

<<…and at this point, no amount of acceptance of homosexuality will reduce the higher incidence of psychiatric disorders among homosexuals.>>

This is your assumption. There is no evidence for this.

<<They should change their life-style instead.>>

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, nor does it have any one kind of lifestyle. They can’t become heterosexual any more than you can turn gay.

Not all gay people behave in the way that you mention either. Probably less so too now that they don’t have to keep so quite about it. I know of places where straight people can do similar things and act in similar ways. It’s just not as much of a big deal when we do it.

<<It is known what homosexuals do...>>

Really? All of them?

<<...and very little of it can be recommended to children, or anyone else.>>

Again, who are these people recommending it to children, and (because I know what you’re going to say) what are some specific examples of this?

AJ Philips

There is very little intolerance of homosexuality in the Netherlands, with 93% of the Dutch population ‘not negative’ about homosexuality

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/05/dutch-tolerance-of-homosexuality-increases-new-survey-shows/

And yet, the level of psychiatric disorders among homosexuals in the Netherlands remains disproportionately high.

And with the proliferation of "male only" parties around Sydney (where women are not allowed), I don't think homosexuals can be complaining about discrimination.

The largest "male only" party in Sydney is being called "BLOW".

If homosexuals were to clean up their act, maybe then they might be more accepted.

But then, they might want their "male only" parties in every town.

You can't be born a homosexual since there is no such thing. There are just heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual type behaviour. Such behaviour is a neurosis in which individuals try and meet certain emotional needs by simulating sex with people of their own gender.

People often use sexual behaviour to 'act out' in a symbolic way what they really want. It is not sex but intimacy. Sex can be a way of trying to get 'inside' the other person in the hope that you can make an emotional connection with someone in the past or present.

This is what people are always doing when they indulge in simulated sex with people of their own sex. Why else would you prefer a simulation to the real thing? Why would you deliberately choose a lesser pleasure when you have the option of a better one?

Heterosexual people may also 'act out' when they have sex but they have not chosen a lesser pleasure so you cannot necessarily tell whether or not they are acting out or pursuing more reasonable ends such as the best pleasure or procreation.

Heterosexual behaviour can be reasonable but homosexual behaviour is never reasonable.

Interactive,

That may be so.

<<There is very little intolerance of homosexuality in the Netherlands, with 93% of the Dutch population ‘not negative’ about homosexuality>>

But as I noted earlier, and as was mentioned in the articles I linked to (scholarly articles too, mind you), there are multiple factors at work there.

<<And with the proliferation of "male only" parties around Sydney (where women are not allowed), I don't think homosexuals can be complaining about discrimination.>>

This is the Tu quoque fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

It is touching, though, that someone who is bigoted towards one demographic is simultaneously so concerned about the equal treatment of another.

phanto,

What is the evidence for any of your claims? Or are you simply engaging in more of your amateur psychology again?

<<Why would you deliberately choose a lesser pleasure when you have the option of a better one?>>

This gave me a chuckle. It would have to be one of the stupidest comments you’ve ever made, and you’ve made some whoppers in your time. What's pleasurable for one isn't pleasurable for all. I, for example, don't understand how some derive sexual pleasure from the pain involved in bondage.

Did it ever occur to you that being with the opposite sex is also less satisfying to gay people on an emotional level? Or do you have some made-up psychological explanation for this too?

<<Heterosexual behaviour can be reasonable but homosexual behaviour is never reasonable.>>

How do you define “reasonable” then? Because this statement makes little sense using a dictionary definition of the word. What is unreasonable about homosexual behaviour? Is it that you think they too must necessarily enjoy it as little as you?

I tend to agree with what Zigmund Freud once said about human sexuality to a certain degree, that is we are all born with innate bisexuality and it is the societal and cultural conditioning that "encourages" one to be heterosexual based on the gender they are born with. This process of conditioning begins from day one of life for any given individual. > http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/83/Bisexuality.html

Also, the author should exercise caution when basing the discussion around traditional interpretations of what it means to be human. This concept is under the biggest threat to its true meaning since the dawn of civilization itself in today's progressive world. Just look at the world of work and careers, that is changing quicker than most folks acknowledge.
Our sense of identity as human beings and a large part of that traditionally has been based on what one does for a living. That in itself is under serious threat today. This is just a quick example of how our identity as human beings is dynamic in interpretation throughout the ages.

Terrorist groups like ISIL or ISIS or Daesh (whatever you want to call them) know this and exploit it to the unemployed and/or disillusioned young folks around the globe to give them a new sense of "identity", and thus meaning in their lives. Even if the rest of us class this as a sick cult based on hell and death.

Hi interactive

1. Indeed your observations on the inherent contradictions of Intentionally Exhibitionistic Mardi Gras

then

"Oh don't you oppress me" look accurate.
_______________________________________________________

2. On discriminatory one gender only parties (subtley called "BLOW") see http://www.underwhereparty.com.au/
_____________________________________________________________

3. Another observation is that:

Its no longer the "Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name"

but The Love that won't shut up.
______________________________

This is noting the foibles of human nature even extend to special choices.

Alleged higher psychiatric conditions and abnormally high suicide rates, may have more to do with a higher incidence of forced repression and societal intolerance?

Perhaps some folk are deliberately misrepresenting cause and effect? Or getting it arse about?

Even so, any reasonable person, not blinded by fanatical religious intolerance, who merely witnesses what the gay community have to tolerate, including downright hostility, punishment, positive discrimination, family non acceptance and entirely unjustifiable estrangement!

And last but not least, an assorted assembly of God botherers, who will never ever accept them as part of the normal kaleidoscope that's the family of man!

Would be unable to reach any other conclusion? Than that no one without a built in death wish would chose to be gay, bullied, denied a normal family life, love, or the marriage and family that the rest of us take as our God given right!

I don't believe anyone has ever made a case for a genetically caused aberration? That doesn't mean we've conclusively proved that it is not a completely normal aberration that may have another natural cause from nature?

Nobody argues that any hetrosexual wakes up one day and conciously decides to be hetrosexual! Nor can any normal hetrosexual be conditioned to be gay! Or a left handed person be made right handed via cruelty or brainwashed conditioning! Or a traumatised bed wetter cured via the application of escalating cruelty!

Yet some will argue others choose their sexual bias! Even though they know they never ever could!

Even so, the aforementioned cruel remedies are still accepted in some cultures, where cruelty is practised as all manner of, including genital mutilation, routine brutality and argued for by sub human knuckle dragging neterendels, who take comfort in the fact, they're never wrong?
Alan B.

A J Philips:

"What is the evidence for any of your claims? "

I don't have any. It does not mean that I am wrong though.

"Or are you simply engaging in more of your amateur psychology again?"

What does it matter what I am doing? The only thing that matters on this forum are my opinions.

"This gave me a chuckle. ... time."

I am not interested in what makes you chuckle. The only thing I am interested in is your opinion. Likewise I am not interested in what you think of my record over time. I am interested only in your opinions about homosexuality. Everything else is boring.

"What's pleasurable for one isn't pleasurable for all. I, for example, don't understand how some derive sexual pleasure from the pain involved in bondage."

They don't - they are trying to meet some emotional need and this is one of the areas where people try and meet that need. You can seek out pain and bondage in other areas of life.

"Did it ever occur to you that being with the opposite sex is also less satisfying to gay people on an emotional level? "

Why should that be so? Being with people on an emotional level does not have to include sexual behaviour. It can be emotionally satisfying to be with a child.

"Or do you have some made-up psychological explanation for this too?"

Why do you need to ask me that? If you are going to answer all the questions you put to me what is the point of asking me?

"What is unreasonable about homosexual behaviour?"

It is behaviour which aims to meet emotional needs by methods which can never achieve that aim. Emotional needs should be met by interaction at the emotional level.

"Is it that you think they too must necessarily enjoy it as little as you?"

Why do you want to know what I enjoy or do not enjoy? You will have to go elsewhere to satisfy your voyeurism - which is another neurotic sexual practice.

Here's the crux of the matter, and it's not given nearly enough attention in the debates. The author says:

"The consequences of the doctrine of the same-sex marriage movement, ...impacts profoundly on family and children. The traditional nucleus of heterosexually complementary partners – husband and wife – is more stable as the statistics – of greater breakup of homosexual marriages (where these have been legalized) – indicate.
But its most serious familial impact is upon children: in the nexus of generations. The human being is distinct from all other species in that lineage – the knowledge of one's parentage – has deep personal significance. Children commissioned through artificial reproductive technologies for homosexual unions are denied that conscious continuity of identity with both one's mother and father. Apart from this basic deprivation of personal identity, children raised in a homosexual households miss out on the complementary unique contributions of the distinct role-modelling of a father and the nurturing of a mother."

Children who aren't raised by their natural parents often desperately seek to find out who they are. To legalise s-s marriage and therefore the right for those couples to "have" children,denies a fundamental right to those children

//Or does the human being possess a soul – or conscience with its own objective moral compass – which is the essential human being, and which arbitrates, whether and which impulses should be given expression?//

I dunno. What reasonable metric does one use to determine the existence of the soul? What units do you measure souls in? Do sociopaths have souls? Do our fellow great apes? Is the soul an emergent function of consciousness? Could a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence ever possess a soul?

Simply put, exactly what do you mean when you say 'soul'?

//The use of so much plastic material in the home and at work should be decreased to reduce the chances of homosexuality spreading within society.//

Good grief. Vaccines that cause autism, communists poisoning us with fluoride... now we have polymers that make you gay!

//In fact, more research should be carried out to reduce the rate of homosexuality in society to as low a level as possible.//

How is research supposed to reduce the rate of homosexuality? You seem to be confusing research with policy.

//It is known what homosexuals do//

Aye. It's being sexually attracted to males.

//and very little of it can be recommended to children, or anyone else.//

Well, definitely not to women. Otherwise they might not become lesbians, and then what would I watch whilst conducting myself in the solo symphony? Giggity.

//This is what people are always doing when they indulge in simulated sex//

I'm heterosexual and I do that all the time. It's healthy and normal. it won't make you blind, and it might help to reduce your risk of prostate cancer.

//Why else would you prefer a simulation to the real thing? Why would you deliberately choose a lesser pleasure when you have the option of a better one?//

Because hookers are expensive, phanto, and we're not all wealthy.

The 'option of a better one' is not always available. When it isn't - as is all too frequently the case - there is no shame in simulated stimulation.

Plantagenet,

There's no contradiction between exhibitionist behaviour and an expressed wish to not be oppressed. Both are understandable responses to oppression.

All your post tells us is that you're not comfortable with gay people. If that's the case, then ignore them. And if the fact that you have to ignore them in the first place upsets you, then that is a problem with you.

phanto,

I didn’t think you had any evidence.

<<It does not mean that I am wrong though.>>

No, but the fact that you made it all up means that you very likely are.

<<What does it matter what I am doing?>>

Why do you think my asking means that it must matter?

<<I am not interested in what makes you chuckle.>>

I never for a moment implied that you should be. Why should my mentioning of that necessarily be indicative of a belief that you would be interested? Perhaps it was meant to convey something else?

<<…I am not interested in what you think of my record over time.>>

Again, I never for a moment implied that you should be.

<<I am interested only in your opinions about homosexuality.>>

My opinion is that it is a natural part of the spectrum of sexuality, but that it wouldn’t say anything about its rightness or goodness even if it weren’t, for suggesting otherwise would be the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

<<…they are trying to meet some emotional need and this is one of the areas where people try and meet that need.>>

What is the evidence for this?

<<Why should [being/partnering with the opposite sex be less satisfying for gay people on an emotional level]?>>

Because that's not what they're romantically attracted to.

<<Being with people on an emotional level does not have to include sexual behaviour.>>

At no point did I suggest otherwise.

<<It is behaviour which aims to meet emotional needs...>>

What is the evidence for this?

<<Why do you want to know what I enjoy or do not enjoy?>>

I didn’t ask you what you enjoy. I assumed for the sake of an argument.

Organised and disorganised religion should get out of the habit of judging people on the basis of their sexuality.

One need only point to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Institutional_Responses_to_Child_Sexual_Abuse

to conclude that Men Of Churches (including notorious Cardinals) and many others have a very poor record on morality and moral responsibility.

Shimon's book is of course published by the very right-wing Catholic publisher Connor Court, which as far as I can make is either owned and operated by the deeply misogynist outfit Opus Dei, or has very close connections with it.
But apart from that that why not Google the topic The Secret Life of the Vatican's Gay Cardinals and Monks.
And these chaps with their double minded in your face hypocrisy presume to lecture everyone re their sexual morality and behavior

As an atheist, the argument based on religion is totally meaningless to me - and to many others. I certainly share the concerns expressed in the article about the outcomes for children, who have no choice in the matter. The only thing I'd like to add to the discussion is that we all have feelings and ideas, but we each must take responsibility for our actions. Those who choose to take part in same-sex relationships are doing just that, choosing to do to. Sexual behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual is not unavoidable.

All sex is a neurotic simulation of love.

Of all 237-or-so reasons people have sex (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/08/01/237-reasons-to-have-sex), both physical pleasure and procreation are in a small minority.

Procreation is inappropriate in our age of exploding population and temporary, body-dependent pleasure is a far cry from the unconditional and eternal peace, love and joy of being with God. Too much emphasis is placed, here and elsewhere, on the subsidiary question of what happen to be the sexual objects that we are attracted to, rather than on the fact that the signals which our body sends us purported as "pleasure", have evolved to satisfy our genes, not us, their useful idiots.

Plantagenent,

You suggest that "organised and disorganised religion should get out of the habit of judging people on the basis of their sexuality".

What do you have to say to people who do not base their objections to homosexuality on religious criteria? An abhorrence of homosexuality is not the prerogative of just the religious; and many Christians support homosexuals. In fact their are plenty of homsexual priests and ministers, irrespective of what their religion says on the subject. The only religion believing in punishment for homosexuality - death - is, of course Islam, as you know.

Louisa,

Of course we should all take responsible for our actions. But some homosexuals do not do that; by asking for "marriage" they want the rest of society to make them feel better about the problem, perversion, preference - whatever you want to call it - by instutionalising, 'normalising' it, and officially altering the morals and mores of society. As an atheist, you don't have to worry about what religion says, but simple common sense, basic knowledge of anatomy and science, should be enough to tell that same sex couplings were never meant to be. If people do want to break the 'rules' of normality, so be it. But they should keep it to themselves, TAKE RESPONSIBLITY, and not expect the rest of us to make it 'right' for them.

.

Dear Shimon (the author),

.

What a pity the “Abrahamic faiths” do not command their adherents, the “majority of humanity”, to respect the intimacy of the private lives of their fellow human beings.

Homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality. There is no such thing in nature as “the norm of the heterosexual union”. Both heterosexual and homosexual unions are “normal”.

As Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, pointed out:

« No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, ... a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue. »

Boeckman observes social advantages to the free expression of homosexual behaviour and adds :

« It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples. »

http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/

Religion historically regards homosexual sex acts as sinful, based essentially on an erroneous understanding of "natural law" (the law of nature) as shown by the results of the zoological research mentioned by Petter Boeckman.

Religious dogma is constantly proven wrong in its interpretation of nature by scientific research.

There is a perfume of "déjà vu" regarding the current debate on homosexual marriage, e.g., Galileo's condemnation for heresy when he declared in 1610 that the earth revolves around the sun.

Homosexual behaviour has never been noted to be a possible cause of the diminution or disappearance of any animal or plant species :

http://www.webofcreation.org/Earth%20Problems/species.htm

There is no objective reason to discriminate against either heterosexual or homosexual behaviour as regards the adoption and raising of children.

The role of both the Church and the State should be limited to the public - not the private – sphere, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, “Right to respect for private and family life” :

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/Convention_ENG.pdf

That said, Shimon, I fully respect your right to believe what you will.

.

Banjo Paterson,

All the old stuff about animals and ancients being homos doesn't make it normal. And, you if think it's OK for same sex couples to adopt children, you really do not care about children at all.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« All the old stuff about animals and ancients being homos doesn't make it normal. And, you if think it's OK for same sex couples to adopt children, you really do not care about children at all »
.

That’s a fascinating opinion, ttbn. Would you be so kind as to elaborate a little further ?

.

Toni Lavis:

"I'm heterosexual and I do that all the time. It's healthy and normal."

But that is not what you would choose if you had an option of the best possible experience. Homosexuals never choose the best possible experience and that is not healthy or normal.

"Because hookers are expensive,"

Why would you think that is the best possible experience of sex? To me the best possible experience is when both parties are experiencing maximum pleasure at the same time whilst also enjoying the emotional satisfaction of being with the person with whom you are having sex. That cannot happen with a hooker nor can it ever happen for homosexual people.

A J Philips:

No I don't have evidence for any of my opinions but as I said it does not mean those opinions are wrong. If you think that only opinions that are supported by evidence are worth considering then there is no point reading any of mine.

BJ,

It's not fascinating. It is fact. Abnormal behaviour has always been in existence. On the second point, you obviously do not care about children if you think it is alright for them to be brought up by a couple of queers when their school mates and friends have a mother and father, or at least access to a parent of both sexes in the case of divorce or separation. Children need a mother and father. I have glaring examples of the damage to children caused by the lack of a father in my own family. It is heart wrenching to see the effects of a fatherless child in the company of friends with fathers. I am the substitute father for my 10 year old granddaughter, but I am not always available, and I am an old man, not always able to take part in the activities a young father could. I have two other grandchildren in their late 20's who clearly demonstrate the effects of lack of paternal influence, even though their single mother has provided for them well in the material sense.

Having two 'mums' or two 'dads' instead of a mum and a dad is an abominable way for a kid to start life. I don't give two hoots what queers do with their lives, but they are not equipped to raise children.

Banjo Paterson,

Good luck in getting ttbn to elaborate much on or justify that claim. I tried nearly a year ago and didn't get much.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17786&page=0#314742

He'll likely just re-assert his claim, just as he has done above.

ttbn,

Can I take it from your silence that you no longer think that homosexuality is unnatural “from any perspective”? They were very informative links, weren’t they? I take it, too, that you don’t actually know of any studies suggesting that only 10% of gay people are born that way.

<<All the old stuff about animals and ancients being homos doesn't make it normal.>>

That depends on how you define normal. If you mean “natural”, then why not? (Forgetting for a moment that this is the Naturalistic fallacy.)

By the way, there is no evidence that children of homosexual couples fare worse than those of heterosexual couples. You are merely assuming they do because it sounds like it should make sense.

phanto,

Yes, I know you said that.

<<No I don't have evidence for any of my opinions but as I said it does not mean those opinions are wrong.>>

And I also pointed out that the fact that you’ve pulled your opinions from thin air makes it very likely that they are wrong. Extremely likely, in fact. You seem to have forgotten that.

<<If you think that only opinions that are supported by evidence are worth considering then there is no point reading any of mine.>>

Yes, I do think that. Who wouldn’t? Why would anyone ever consider an opinion that was completely made up? I will continue to read and challenge your opinions, however, for so long as you continue to state them as fact, because to state as fact that which is not evidently true is dishonest. You could at least qualify your opinions with something like, “in my opinion”.

You like psychology, don’t you? Well here’s some actual psychology: Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?

http://www.homeworkmarket.com/sites/default/files/qx/15/04/24/01/adams_et_al_1996_homophobia_defense_mechs_article.pdf

A little spoiler: the answer is ‘yes’.

Here’s a couple more studies on the topic for you to peruse:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201204/are-homophobic-people-really-gay-and-not-accepting-it
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

Interesting psychology AJ.

One wonders if we are taught to hate this or that, whether or not the opposite doesn't "break through" from time to time as some kind of normal, regulatory, and or balancing function of the mind.

After all, to hate too long can be uncomfortable also for the one hating after some length of time, can it not?

Maybe that's when some people break out the whip and start flogging themselves? <snicker, snicker>

AJ,

I must be the kettle to your pot, given your comment above. You don't 'explain' things; you merely list online references (endlessly, if you don't mind me saying it). For starters, you naturally refer only to things that support what you think. I could do the same thing with references supporting what I think, if I could be bothered. But you would continue to go with your opinions, as I would with mine: so there's not much point to it really. The other thing is that anyone can put what they wish on the Internet, without proof or reason, totally unaccountable. I read books by noted authors who find it harder to get away with untruths and waffle.

As for BJ, he seems to be a polite chap, just like you, and I will always endeavour to treat you both with the regard I have for all my fellow human beings, irrespective of thought or sexual preference. But, in the matter of the latter, please do not expect me to believe that it is normal or OK, no matter what I think of the individuals involved.

AJ Philips

Perhaps this photo could be included in a kit that goes to all the primary schools, to teach primary school children about the oppression of homosexuals in Australia.

The photo shows a homosexual being pepper sprayed in a brutal display of oppression and savagery.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/big_picture/public/mardi_gras_3.jpg?itok=Q-b-oOVr

Or perhaps this photo that shows a hapless homosexual being tied and ruthlessly beaten.

http://cdn.scahw.com.au/imagevaultfiles/id_52860/cf_8/sydney-mardi-gras-2011_13.jpg

Or perhaps this photo, that shows a gang of malicious thugs who are out to disrupt homosexual events, and destroy the hard won rights of homosexuals in Australia.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/61/43/e7/6143e71599ac53fae2f13b62b8ebc75b.jpg

With all this oppression, it is no wonder that homosexuals have issues, such as mental and health issues.

Or perhaps their g-strings are too tight.

But all will change with same sex marriage, and this photo shows how much homosexuals really do regard the sanctity of marriage.

http://www.tntdownunder.com/media/mardigras3.jpg

The concept that homosexuals are being oppressed in Australia is one of the greatest cons and pieces of BS being perpetrated on the public in Australia.

ttbn,

I don’t “merely” provide “online references” either (you say that is if they lose their value when they’re not on paper).

<<…you merely list online references (endlessly, if you don't mind me saying it).>>

Why, here’s a comment of mine where I briefly explain why your assumption that children with two parents of the opposite sex fare better is wrong:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17371#306701

Most of my references are scholarly and peer-reviewed and are either linked to because we have word limits, or as evidence of my claims. I should hope that I do it "endlessly".

<<For starters, you naturally refer only to things that support what you think.>>

You make it sound like I’m cherry-picking. In fact, I’m not aware of any evidence to the contrary. I ask people like yourself to provide evidence of your claims and (not to my surprise) you never do. You see, not everyone forms an opinion and then looks for evidence to support it. On the contrary, I started off as a homophobic Christian and changed my mind because there was no evidence to support that position.

<<I could do the same thing with references supporting what I think, if I could be bothered.>>

So you could, but you just can’t “be bothered“? I haven’t heard that one since school. If you ever change your mind, please make sure that what you link to is scholarly/peer-reviewed/fully-referenced.

<<The other thing is that anyone can put what they wish on the Internet, without proof or reason, totally unaccountable.>>

Not if it’s peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed papers require evidence and must pass a rigorous process. Which is why everything I have linked to on this thread so far is peer-reviewed.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking this is merely a clash of opinions. The links I have provided demonstrate the truth of my claims.

<<I read books by noted authors who find it harder to get away with untruths and waffle.>>

There are electronic versions of all primary sources, so this is not an excuse. Furthermore, all the authors I have linked to are academics with reputations too.

You see,

T.o t.he b.in.

the ins and outs of homosexuality have been (exhaustively) peer reviewed and found to, stand up, when scrutinised, ;-)

//Why would you think that is the best possible experience of sex?//

Why would you think heterosexual intercourse is necessarily the best possible of experience of sex? A lot of women are crap in the sack - just starfish. I've had plenty of roots less pleasurable than time spent shaking sticky white coconuts from the veiny love tree.

//To me the best possible experience is when both parties are experiencing maximum pleasure at the same time whilst also enjoying the emotional satisfaction of being with the person with whom you are having sex.//

And homosexuals can't experience pleasure or the emotional satisfaction of being with the person with whom they are having sex? Huh? How does that work, phanto? They're gay, not androids.

//nor can it ever happen for homosexual people.//

Why not? And how can you be so certain in your knowledge? Have you personally polled them all, or do you have amazing powers of telepathy? Or are you just making unfounded assumptions?

//No I don't have evidence for any of my opinions//

Well that explains a lot.

//but as I said it does not mean those opinions are wrong//

No, it just means you have no reasonable metric to determine whether are correct on incorrect. Opinions not based on any sort evidence come under the heading of 'creative writing'.

Toni Lavis:

“Why would you think heterosexual intercourse is necessarily the best possible of experience of sex?”

If you were designing the species and you wanted to make sure that it continued on by procreating wouldn’t you be sure to make certain that the method of procreation was the best of sexual behaviours? If there was some sexual behaviour that was better than the type of behaviour that leads to procreation then people would naturally gravitate towards that since we always go after what is best if we have that option. If you want to guarantee the continuation of the species you would steer people in the direction that leads to that outcome.

Whilst every act of sexual intercourse may not be as enjoyable as you would like it does not mean that in general the most enjoyable sex is that which is designed to advance the species.

“And homosexuals can't experience pleasure or the emotional satisfaction of being with the person with whom they are having sex? Huh? How does that work, phanto? They're gay, not androids.”

They experience some pleasure but it will never be the best of pleasures because what they do will always be a poor simulation of the best sexual experience. It can never approach that sexual experience which is open to heterosexuals. In fact they have chosen never to be open to the best sexual experience.

“how can you be so certain in your knowledge? “

I don’t need to be certain. It just seems logical to me but you may be able to show me where the logic does not add up. I am open to genuine argument.

Dear Phanto,

«If you were designing the species and you wanted to make sure that it continued on by procreating wouldn’t you be sure to make certain that the method of procreation was the best of sexual behaviours?»

I think that you are confusing "best" in the sense of highest-pleasure with "best" in the sense of goodness/virtue/righteousness. Why should they coincide?

«If you want to guarantee the continuation of the species you would steer people in the direction that leads to that outcome.»

Who is "you" in the above two observations?

If there is indeed a designer, not just any designer but one who is worthy of respect, then I can see why you would want to obey and participate in his design, regardless whether the act is pleasurable or even painful.

But what if the designer is some mad scientist from the 55th dimension? And what if the designer is a blind unconscious evolutionary force? Why should such a designer be respected? If that is the case, doesn't it outrage you when this designer tries to seduce you with sensations of pleasure to dance to his flute?

From some of the fragments that I can recall of some science documentaries is that the drive for the survival of the species by way of some form of procreation is indeed hard wired so to speak in some species. Verily, the whole purpose of their existence is to produce strong and healthy offspring such that when this task is concluded, they simply die.

I like to believe as Humans though that their is nothing wrong with choosing to simply Love Orgasm. I have always been singularly disinterested in having children. But orgasm .. is one of the great pleasures of being in the flesh and I believe highly therapeutic, or at least, has the potential to be.

And just to jump for a moment, I am reminded of one of the Biblical stories. Now, if I do not misrecall, Jesus did not rail upon the Ho when conversing, but rather encouraged her to consider only making Love when in Love, for he was of the view that she was (as in the Greek) missing the point of what sex is for.

I believe that it is not unreasonable for Humanity to take it upon them selves to enjoy to their Hearts' content the pleasures of orgasm above and beyond the need to procreate.

And historically there has been more than a few instances when non-hetero forms of sexuality have been the "norm." Still, it is probably also true to say that this form or that has always upset some people, and thereafter it has remained in the realm of one prevailing majority or another inflicting and imposing its views on everyone else.

We really need to go beyond a mono-culture imposing itself on a population which has many different peoples of differing cultures within it to a greater expression of what multi-culturism could be.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

Many thanks for providing that background information. I appreciate it. Mine is similar in many ways.

I'll respond in the same order as your comments :

« Abnormal behaviour has always been in existence »

Agreed - in both heterosexual and homosexual unions.

« you obviously do not care about children if you think it is alright for them to be brought up by a couple of queers when their school mates and friends have a mother and father »

I am heterosexual and “care about children”. I have been married for fifty years and have two daughters and three grand-children. The homosexual couples I know are very discreet and highly respectable. They are not what I should call “queers”. There is nothing in their outward appearance or behavior that indicates their sexual orientation.

My father left home in the Queensland outback when I was a toddler. My mother never remarried and I grew up without a father but that was never a problem for me at school. Same for my wife. Her father died when she was two years old. We now spend most of our time bringing up our two grand-daughters. Our elder daughter’s husband sexually abused the children and left them with a mountain of debt.

I spent the last ten years going through the courts with her to sort out all the problems caused by the husband and “father” of the children (incest plus huge debt). My wife and I provide financial support.

Our two grand-daughters are much happier, safer and far better off without their father. They now live “normally” and have many good school friends.

« Having two 'mums' or two 'dads' instead of a mum and a dad is an abominable way for a kid to start life. I don't give two hoots what queers do with their lives, but they are not equipped to raise children »

I understand and have full respect for your attitude but heterosexual mums and dads can be even worse.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued...)

.

I think you will find that my experience of life is fairly comparable with yours so far as childhood and parenthood is concerned. Given our ages, it is possible that our relationships with our respective life companions (both, wives I presume) is fairly similar too.

The sexual orientation of couples is only part of the story. I doubt that same-sex couples raise children much differently than we do.

The track record of heterosexual marriages in Australia is extremely poor:

- There were 121 000 marriages but also 50 200 divorces in 2010.
- Roughly 50% of divorces each year impact on children aged less than 18 years
- 41% of all reported sexual assault victims were aged 0-14 years (Aust. Institute of Health & Welfare, 2009)
- 19% of women and 5.5% of men reported experiencing sexual violence since the age of 15 ( Aust. Bureau of Stats. survey, 2005)
- 25% of women experienced intimate partner physical violence at least once in their lifetime and in the last 12 months, 1995–2006 (UN Stats. Division:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/WW2010%20Report_by%20chapter%28pdf%29/violence%20against%20women.pdf)

- Family Violence costs Australia about $8 billion per year, a substantial proportion of which is borne by the victims themselves (Vic. Health, 2004)

According to a survey by The Aust. Institute of Criminology in 2003 :

- 20.8% of all homicides involve intimate partners. This represents approximately 76 homicide incidents within Australia each year.
- Over three-quarters (76.9%) of these intimate partner homicides involved a male offender and a female victim.
- Of these homicides, 65.8% occurred between current spouses or de-facto partners, whilst 22.6% occurred between separated/divorced spouses or de facto partners.
- 10% occurred between current or former boy/girlfriends, and
- 2% occurred within same sex relationships

Even if there were to be just as much intimate partner violence in same sex marriage as there is at present in heterosexual marriage, at least the protagonists would be boxing in the same category !

On the basis of the latest available statistics, same sex relationships only count for 2% of all intimate partner homicides.

.

(Continued...)

.

Phanto,

I think your use of the word ‘best’ is confusing everyone. Yuyutsu has one interpretation of what you mean, I have another. I think what you’re trying to say is that, objectively, heterosexual sex, physically (and emotionally?), provides the highest possible level of sexual pleasure out of all forms of sex, irrespective of one’s preferences (i.e. in theory, all perfectly 50/50 bisexual people would agree that heterosexual sex is more pleasurable).

Very creative!

Not only is that impossible to gauge, but the fact that individuals derive maximum pleasure from such a wide range of activities and fetishes (including simulation (e.g. strap-ons, blow-up dolls (just look where you’ve taken this discussion!))) discredits that. Your argument from design is flawed for two reasons too. Firstly, you’re appealing to a conscious designer that most of us here know doesn’t exist anyway. Secondly, the actual designer - evolution - is a far-from-perfect designer, and favours variety anyway.

But hey, let’s say you’re right about homosexual sex not being as pleasurable as heterosexual sex. So what? Gay people still prefer homosexual sex, so it’s better than heterosexual sex for them and, contrary to your claim,

<<...they have chosen never to be open to the best sexual experience.>>

they don’t choose to be attracted to who they are any more than you do. That’s just who they are.

Even if you were right, the best your point would demonstrate is that gay people don’t enjoy the sex they prefer as much as what heterosexual people do. Either way, they still prefer it and it feels better for them, even if their enjoyment levels never reach the same as ours. What your point does not demonstrate (for reasons already mentioned), however, is that there is something innately wrong with, or unnatural about, homosexuality.

By the way, that your arguments sound logical to you means little given that you are working with incomplete information. There are a lot of facts that are counter-intuitive to the naive. I’d give examples, but they could end up having the effect of a throwaway line.

.

(Continued...)

.

Also, about 50% of all heterosexual marriages today, end up in separation or divorce. The children end up living with a single sex parent, generally, the mother.

Same sex relationships have a far better track record than heterosexual relationships in this regard.

Here are the latest statistics which are not much different from those indicated above. If anything, perhaps a little worse, in some areas :

http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence/domestic.html

I'm sorry to have been so long but I think it is important to take all these factors into account when comparing the ability of heterosexual and homosexual couples to raise children.

The male partner in a heterosexual couple is generally the genitor of the children but not necessarily a competent and caring father. He may even be far worse than that and cause life-long harm to the children.

Whereas in a homosexual couple, there may or may not be a male partner or a genitor but the children are generally raised in a safe environment by truly caring parents. Also, it should be noted that children raised by homosexual couples are usually heterosexual just like children of heterosexual couples.

May I conclude that, as often is the case, there are advantages and disadvantages to both heterosexual and homosexual couples and neither should be considered better or worse than the other - at least so far as raising children is concerned.

And, hopefully, those of us who are of religious disposition may, perhaps, finally conclude, one of these days, that it's the Creator that done it and that's the way it is.

But, not to worry, ttbn, I don't expect that that will come to pass during our lifetime !

.

//If you were designing the species and you wanted to make sure that it continued on by procreating wouldn’t you be sure to make certain that the method of procreation was the best of sexual behaviours?//

Nah, I'd make 'em do it like bees, where a drone dies shortly afterwards because his penis explodes during sexual intercourse. Or like Argonaut octopuses, whose 'penis arm' is detached during mating and kept by the female. Or maybe like deep-sea anglerfish: you can look them up for yourself. Much more amusing.

//It can never approach that sexual experience which is open to heterosexuals.//

There's only way you could speak with such authority and certainty, phanto, and that's if you've experienced it. I'm not keen to do that myself, so I'm prepared to trust the testimony of those who have.

//I don’t need to be certain.//

You do if you're stating certainties rather than possibilities.

Yuyutsu:

“I think that you are confusing "best" in the sense of highest-pleasure with "best" in the sense of goodness/virtue/righteousness. Why should they coincide?”

No I am not concerned with man-made values but only with what is observable in nature. It is observable that heterosexual sex is the way to procreate and continue the species. It is observable that heterosexual intercourse can be extremely pleasurable. It is observable that there are other types of behaviour which can give sexual pleasure but not as much as the pleasure that can be experienced when men have sexual intercourse with women. There are physiological reasons for this.

Two people of the same sex cannot experience the ultimate sexual pleasure because the physiological conditions are not present. What they do is to try and mimic the sexual behaviour of heterosexuals in the hope of achieving the same level of pleasure but it can never happen without those physiological conditions.

It is irrelevant whether or not there is a ‘designer’. These things are just observable facts and from these observable facts it seems to me that homosexual activity can never be as pleasurable as heterosexual behaviour can be. If homosexuals are born that way then they have been given a very poor deal by nature.

There are frequently issues of identity for those who are not raised by the people to whom they are genetically connected and for those who are never able to know their genetic history. This should not be overlooked. No amount of caring parenting can make up for the lack of information and/or connection with heritage. Many people around the world spend a great deal of time, energy and money tracing their family members and ancestors, yet we allow people to create children and cut them off from those to whom they are related by blood. The Australian government has already apologised to those who have suffered because of past adoption separations and yet we still allow people to create children who will never be able to know what it means to share a heritage with anyone. Many of these children are created for same-sex couples, who feel that they have a "right" to have children. No one has a "right" to raise a child, either their own or someone else's. We all understand, of course, that being a genetic parent doesn't make you a good parent, any more than being a non-genetic parent prevents you from being a good parent, but the issue of genetic connection is an important one which is too often overlooked.

phanto,

So it appears that my interpretation was the right one then.

<<No I am not concerned with man-made values but only with what is observable in nature.>>

Your observed observables are correct right up until the second claim in this statement:

<<It is observable that there are other types of behaviour which can give sexual pleasure but not as much as the pleasure that can be experienced when men have sexual intercourse with women.>>

What is the evidence for this?

I explained in my last post why your logic fails here, so surely you’re not relying on that anymore.

<<Two people of the same sex cannot experience the ultimate sexual pleasure because the physiological conditions are not present.>>

And, in light of the points I made earlier, how does the absence of such physiological conditions matter?

<<It is irrelevant whether or not there is a ‘designer’.>>

Actually, it’s not irrelevant if that designer is an imperfect process like evolution, that favours variety either way.

<<These things are just observable facts and from these observable facts it seems to me that homosexual activity can never be as pleasurable as heterosexual behaviour can be.>>

Okay, so now you’re at least acknowledging that your claim, that gay people cannot achieve the same level of sexual pleasure, is just something that seems to you to be the case. Because, before, you were talking about this as if it were an observable fact.

You are getting yourself into one almighty tangle here.

--

Banjo Paterson,

Thanks for taking the time to type all that out. Given that you have still only scratched the surface of these issues, I hope ttbn now has some appreciation as to why I link directly to the studies and primary sources.

today we read of a mother/son attracted to each other and having sex. Why can't they be married? I mean surely they were born this way.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/im-your-mum--but-im-falling-in-love-with-you/news-story/3b4f29f841dd9ee9a2450f457da4a4dd

Dear Phanto,

«It is observable that there are other types of behaviour which can give sexual pleasure but not as much as the pleasure that can be experienced when men have sexual intercourse with women.»

As I am not in a position, nor have the desire to verify this observation, I am happy to give it the benefit of the doubt.

«If homosexuals are born that way then they have been given a very poor deal by nature.»

Your implicit assumption here is that pleasure is good and the greater the pleasure the better. I disagree with this assumption.

In my view, those who feel no sexual urges at all, who are not bothered and agitated by it like their poor mates, who remain composed and direct their time and energy into higher pursuits, have been dealt the best hand by nature.

«What they do is to try and mimic the sexual behaviour of heterosexuals in the hope of achieving the same level of pleasure»

Firstly, most sexual activities are not entered into for the sake of pleasure anyway.

Heterosexuals commonly use sex to try and mimic love. The question is whether homosexuals mimic the heterosexuals or do they try to mimic love as well, only in a different way. Either way, both fail.

«It is irrelevant whether or not there is a ‘designer’.»

But it is relevant whether there is a designer whom one respects and wishes to serve. Having a blind/uncaring designer is indeed practically the same as having no designer at all.

Hi Yuyutsu,

You suggest that " .... most sexual activities are not entered into for the sake of pleasure ...."

Some maybe, but 'most' ? What, are we supposed to file a ten-page research report each time ?

And then Toni scaremongers us (well, half of us) with this alarming fact:

" .... Argonaut octopuses, whose 'penis arm' is detached during mating and kept by the female .... "

Now there's a sure-fire way to encourage young women into STEM courses, and I'm sure that many of them will be researching the DNA of Argonaut octopuses intensively from now on.

It gives new meaning to the terms 'in a relationship' or 'to cleave to each other as long as you both shall live.' Or 'partner'.

Joe

//And then Toni scaremongers us (well, half of us)//

The half us that are argonaut octopodes?

Yuyutsu:

"Your implicit assumption here is that pleasure is good and the greater the pleasure the better. I disagree with this assumption."

Why? Don't you ever choose what is pleasurable or do you deliberately always choose that which is not pleasurable?

"In my view, those who feel no sexual urges at all, who are not bothered and agitated by it like their poor mates, who remain composed and direct their time and energy into higher pursuits, have been dealt the best hand by nature."

Everyone has sexual urges. They may not act upon them but they have them. What makes them higher pursuits? The highest pursuit you can have is to live life to the full.

"The question is whether homosexuals mimic the heterosexuals or do they try to mimic love as well, only in a different way."

They do not need to mimic love because there is nothing stopping them from loving someone of the same sex. If they want the best possible sexual experience then they cannot have it - they can only try and mimic it.

"But it is relevant whether there is a designer whom one respects and wishes to serve. Having a blind/uncaring designer is indeed practically the same as having no designer at all."

Why would such a designer design a world where you are not meant to follow the designs?

Toni Lavis:

"There's only way you could speak with such authority and certainty..."

Not really because all you need to know is some basic physiology. It is not hard to work out where the nerves are in the human body which lead to pleasure and how the coming together of male and female sexual organs stimulate that pleasure in a way that is not possible in heterosexual behaviour. I have never tried childbirth either but I can know that it would be painful.

phanto,

You have not yet justified any of your claims. To dig your heels in now and simply repeat them is dishonest. Ignoring someone because they have you cornered may help you to maintain demonstrably false beliefs, but it looks desperate to everyone else.

runner,

This is sure to be a waste of time, but I’ll answer your question because there’s bound to be some other, slightly more rational, person wondering the same.

The reason those people can’t get married is because incestuous relationships are illegal. While most of the reasoning behind prohibiting incestuous relationships is now considered archaic and no longer relevant, such laws remain to protect the vulnerable. Wrongful life (to put it in legal terms) is another reason why such relationships are, and should remain, illegal. There is no rational non-religious argument against same-sex marriage, however. Phanto and ttbn have given it a good crack, but alas...

If such people were born that way, then they are an anomaly as we have evolved to feel repulsed by the idea of incest as a mechanism to prevent inbreeding. Even those who fantasise about incest don’t usually fantasise about themselves with their own family members.

Situations like that of the one in the article you linked to, however, are not uncommon, but seem to occur more frequently between brothers and sisters who meet for the first time as adults. The last I read, it is not fully understood why this happens. It’s possible that the love people naturally feel for their family members becomes a romantic one when it is not inhibited by the lack of sexual attraction that would normally result from people growing up together.

Perhaps, from your religious perspective, you might want to ask your god why he made us so that this happens so often?

Stay fabulous.

Yes but you know AJ I do not think I can go so far as to agree that we evolved to feel repulsed by incest.

I can agree that as a society we have a mature understanding that accepts the medical fact that incest produces a sharply higher risk of generating mutations in the offspring.

Whilst I do not know I am wondering whether or not historically that we learned that by repeated, unfortunate experience resulting in a number of offspring with genetic deformity.

Consequently, this understanding has permeated our social and religious laws in an attempt to minimise the likelihood of this reoccurring. Otherwise I would think that attraction to cousins at least is still not rare, but it is discouraged for this very important reason in most parts.

..

As for Runner I expect that he would point out that homosexuality was illegal not so long ago and that the medical justification for that is that bare back buggery brings with it AIDS and, Spiritually speaking, it brings with it something at least as ghastly.

..

As for Phanto and conducive, physiological conditions, whilst this is not an appropriate forum, it does bring to mind a desire to recount the "Erotic Tale of Nova Box and Quiver Dick."

DreamOn,

It’s been a while since I studied evolutionary psychology, and what I did study focused on criminal behaviour, so I could be wrong about incest-repulsion evolving as a mechanism to prevent inbreeding, but that’s what I remember.

You could be right about incest-repulsion resulting from us learning of the deleterious effects that inbreeding can produce. Social conditioning could be a factor too. From a legal perspective, however, incest became taboo when the virginity of daughters (who were once a valuable commodity in true traditional marriage) needed to be maintained to increase their value. So keeping brothers, fathers, and uncles away from them was important.

As for runner, yeah, there were a million potential responses from him that ran through my head with every sentence that I typed, but I don’t take him too seriously or worry much about what he says. I’d be a wreck if I did.

Dear Joe,

«Some maybe, but 'most'?»

Relief, curiosity, profit, obligation, manipulation, guilt, gratitude, health, rebellion, boredom, status, rarely even love and caring - look at this long list: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/08/01/237-reasons-to-have-sex

If you wish to look at it from a metaphysical point of view, the desire for sex comes from the Brahma-Granthi ("the creator's knot"), which includes the first three chakras: Muladhara, Swadisthana and Manipura. Of these, only the second, Swadishthana, generates the desire for physical pleasures. In contrast, Muladhara is preoccupied with the desire for physical survival, including procreation while Manipura is preoccupied with power, fame and social influence. All three further the purpose of creation, but they are in fact an obstacle which does not further one's own purpose.

---

Dear Phanto,

«Why? Don't you ever choose what is pleasurable or do you deliberately always choose that which is not pleasurable?»

We all have bad habits, but I'm sure that you too can point to instances in your life where you refrained from something pleasurable because you knew that it is not right and would hurt others.

«The highest pursuit you can have is to live life to the full.»

It may seem so, but looking deeper into it, one (consciously or otherwise) wants to live life to the full because they believe that then they won't miss anything and thus won't need to come back to earth ever again. While tempting, it's a false solution.

«there is nothing stopping them from loving someone of the same sex.»

True, but do they? When you truly love someone, you don't need to express it sexually.

«Why would such a designer design a world where you are not meant to follow the designs?»

The designer may want you to follow, but you have the capacity to resist and not follow their design; and you should indeed use this capacity when the designer is of a dubious character.

Hi Yuyutrsu,

Your comment on my comment:

«Some maybe, but 'most'?»

"Relief, curiosity, profit, obligation, manipulation, guilt, gratitude, health, rebellion, boredom, status, rarely even love and caring - look at this long list: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/08/01/237-reasons-to-have-sex

"If you wish to look at it from a metaphysical point of view, the desire for sex comes from the Brahma-Granthi ("the creator's knot"), which includes the first three chakras: Muladhara, Swadisthana and Manipura. Of these, only the second, Swadishthana, generates the desire for physical pleasures.

"In contrast, Muladhara is preoccupied with the desire for physical survival, including procreation while Manipura is preoccupied with power, fame and social influence. All three further the purpose of creation, but they are in fact an obstacle which does not further one's own purpose."

Yeah, but still I've always liked it. End of :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hmmm .. AJ, when you speak of legally safeguarding the Virginity of Daughters a number of different cultures come to mind. Do you speak of Australia specifically or Common Law countries more broadly perhaps?

But by virtue of the fact that "we" needed to make a law to safeguard ripe young females from other family members tends to again make me think that there is no primitive evolutionary function that repulses us from incest, but rather it is the newer structures which provide us with the conscious ability to choose from refraining from certain behaviours on reasonable grounds, and that being from knowledge that we have aquired which is again of the counter-intuitive kind as you previously mentioned.

For example, thinking of street dogs, I believe they are not so well equipped visually but rather rely far more heavily on highly optimised olfactory sensors. And, it seems to these mutts the smell of a ripe female is the smell of a ripe female and smells good and is sexually arousing even if it is the dogs own mother or sister.

So, with people, if double blinded and they didn't know, sexual pheremones would likely still have the same effect in terms of their ability to arouse regardless of the source

(don't think I'll bother trying to find a human study to try and support that one ;-).)

But as discussed there are other more compelling reasons for us not to indulge in these kind of behaviors even though it runs counter-intuitive to our primitive senses.

..

Maybe that's part of the problem with some homophobes in that they haven't got the intellectual capital to override their primitive sensors which are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of other than hetero sex.

For one bi-sexual mate (as I recall his words) the first kiss with another guy almost made him spew. But in the aftermath, he expressed feelings of euphoria and liberation.

//Not really because all you need to know is some basic physiology.//

I do. What are the essential differences between male and female oral cavities, in your opinion?

//It is not hard to work out where the nerves are in the human body which lead to pleasure//

No, it isn't. They're in the brain. Everybody has them, regardless of their sexual orientation.

//and how the coming together of male and female sexual organs stimulate that pleasure in a way that is not possible in heterosexual behaviour.//

I assume you meant homosexual in that last sentence. But I can see how you'd get these things confused ;)

Anyway, I don't see what stops gay people having oral sex, which is definitely the most pleasurable sort of sex when performed with skill. And before you say anything about it only providing pleasure to one party in the oral sex, I'd like to point out that my maths teachers taught me that the positive integers go past 68.

The male and female oral cavities are pretty much the same, as far as I know. So I don't see why blowjobs would be necessarily less pleasurable because they are homosexual blowjobs rather than heterosexual blowjobs. How would you tell the difference in the dark?

And of course things have been known to happen in the dark ..

..

And I believe that there is most likely considerable variance in those aspects of our physiology that define sexuality between individuals, spanning one extreme to the other with a "rainbow" of different combinations in the twixt.

So, it would not surprise me at all to learn at a future point from legitimate science that indeed some people are hard wired (at least at an instinctive level) to be attracted to individuals of the same sex. Conversely, I have met people who even though they are hard wired hetero, have chosen to Love homo.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in the absence of societal stigmatism, I suspect that there would be a lot more sexually active individuals who are not exclusively hetero.

..

As for what the author refers to as the "moral agency" I think that it is clear that what any one individual has as a moral agency depends entirely on the combination of their genetics and the sum of their environmental experience. That is to say that it is programmable and accordingly we really ought consider programming greater levels of tolerance and the reasons why we do not wish to coerce children of other Gods to become entirely as we are.

Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 10 August 2016 8:45:00 AM;

"Love will win"

You have summarised the intent and purpose of the Cowen article with insight, wit and brevity. it's regrettable that a similar observation cannot be made of Cowen and his supporters without doing irreparable violence on truth, integrity and fellowship.

Mention has been made on the prevalence of same-sex affinities throughout the animal kingdom. It would be a singularly fortuitous event for christians if humans, rejoicing in membership of that proud realm, were to be entirely free of such affinities. What a wonderful and powerful indicator of our divine origins it would have been. That an omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous and universally loving god failed to provide for such an indicator surely must be an unkind commentary on the esteem which he holds for his creation.

Humans are animals, are members of the natural order of the biosphere of planet Earth and as such are a fundamental but nonotheless parasitical element of nature. We are of and within the Laws of Nature and as such can only act within nature. It follows with an elegant inevitability then that nothing humans do is "unnatural", however strange or counter-intuitive it may seem.

It arouses a sphinctre-loosening fear in the faithful when faced with the reality that if humankind disappeared from the Cosmos, there's nothing to mourn our passing.

Why all the Saints and Sages who discuss'd
Of the Twin Worlds so wisely - they are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn
Are scattered, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.

......The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam XXVI

DreamOn,

I don’t remember what cultures/legal systems outlawed incest with that in mind, sorry.

Regarding the origins of incest avoidance, to me it seems unlikely that we could become so repulsed by the thought of incest purely through social conditioning.

Some of the papers listed here discuss the possible evolutionary origins of incest avoidance:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=evolution+incest&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Here’s a paper that discusses it specifically:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.140.8222&rep=rep1&type=pdf

--

phanto,

You’re not getting into amateur physiology now, are you?

<<… all you need to know is some basic physiology.>>

Perhaps if you’d gotten into amateur neuroscience, then you would understand that there is a lot more to sexual arousal than the number of nerve endings involved. How else do you explain the enhanced pleasure that role play and pornography can provide couples with?

Toni Lavis:

"What are the essential differences between male and female oral cavities"

It doesn't really matter. My claim is that the most pleasurable sex is the sex that you engage in which can lead to procreation. Behaviour which can never lead to procreation can never be the most pleasurable.

Your claim is that oral sex is the best possible sexual pleasure. If that is the best then why would anyone bother to choose sexual behaviour where their genitals come together? How would 'nature' ensure the continuation of the species if it created oral sex as the most desirable choice?

You seem to have a problem with just accepting the way we have been created. It doesn't mean that other behaviours are bad or wrong - it just means that they are not the best. What is the problem with having one type of behaviour as the best? Why would it bother homosexuals that they cannot have the best of sexual experiences

DreamOn:

"So, it would not surprise me at all to learn at a future point from legitimate science that indeed some people are hard wired (at least at an instinctive level) to be attracted to individuals of the same sex."

All of us are hardwired to be attracted to individuals of the same sex. You do not need a study to work that out. Being attracted to them and having sex with them are two entirely different issues. People are attracted to others for a whole range of reasons but none of them are sexual. Attraction brings us together and we want to be with those to whom we are attracted. We can be attracted to children because they can be very delightful to be with but we do not have sex with them. Having sex is a choice. We choose whether or not to have sex with the person we are attracted to. We do not have sex with everyone we are attracted to because other things also come into consideration.

One of those things that we should consider is what is the best type of sexual experience. If we can have the best sexual experience with someone we find attractive to be with then we would be stupid to pursue anything else. Homosexual people settle for something far less than the best and this is sad.They do not even go looking for the best.

Phanto, I think that you have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous in an exercise in splitting hairs and have lost the point of what was said.

Further, sex is not always a choice and

how can it be sad if two people are Lovers and their Love for one another goes beyond mere sex as only part of a wider more fulfilling relationship?

And I do not believe that you have made the case, and nor has it been conceded, that hetero intercourse is the best form of sex as here again, you are dealing with the tastes of the individual and there is an exceedingly large range of diversity in that area.

..

AJ, I think that I need to meet you half way on the "evolutionary basis for incest repulsion" as it appears that some animals do have incest repulsion (eg Bonobos) and some don't (Chimpanzees and dogs) and likewise with people, some do and some don't.

..

http://chimpanzeeinformation.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/sex-differences-between-bonobo-apes-and.html

" ... So whence comes our preoccupation with exclusivity and monogamy? That’s a tougher question to answer, and it involves a certain amount of guesswork. But make no mistake — the facts are the facts, and our interpretation must not make light of them, nor may it brush them casually aside. The thing that makes human sexuality different from animal sexuality is precisely that we are obsessed with it, that we desire it with many different people, and that we use it for social purposes as much or more than the animals. If you want to have sex like an animal, lose your sex drive and only do it when you want a baby.
Sources:
de Waal, F. (2005) Our Inner Ape: The Best and Worst of Human Nature. London: Granta Books.
Ryan, C and Cacilda, J. (2010) Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. U.S: HarperCollins. ... "

phanto,

You still have not yet justified this claim.

<<Behaviour which can never lead to procreation can never be the most pleasurable.>>

Your measure of what constitutes the ‘most pleasurable’ shifts around with your ducking and weaving too.

<<If [oral sex] is the best then why would anyone bother to choose sexual behaviour where their genitals come together?>>

For variety.

<<How would 'nature' ensure the continuation of the species if it created oral sex as the most desirable choice?>>

Well it's done a pretty good job given that not everyone agrees that heterosexual vaginal sex is the best form of sex, so oral sex being the best form of sex wouldn't be much of a hindrance given our desire for variety that you failed to take into account.

Your argument is a fallacious appeal to nature.

Most people would stop digging when their argument had been defeated. Not you though, phanto. Your arguments just become increasingly bizarre. Obviously it's very important to you that you be right on this topic

--

DreamOn,

I think that's a good compromise. There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer one way or the other.

DreamOn:

"Further, sex is not always a choice "

When is it not a choice? Even rape requires at least the rapist to make a choice.

"how can it be sad if two people are Lovers and their Love for one another goes beyond mere sex as only part of a wider more fulfilling relationship? "

Heterosexual people can have all that as well as the best of sexual experiences so it is sad that homosexual people lose out. All human beings should have what is best and the loss of what is best leads to sadness.

"And I do not believe that you have made the case, and nor has it been conceded, that hetero intercourse is the best form of sex"

Nor have you made a case to the contrary.

"as here again, you are dealing with the tastes of the individual and there is an exceedingly large range of diversity in that area."

There might be a wide range of behaviours but what is wrong with judging one experience to be the best? The only ones that would be bothered by that are those who fear they may be missing out.

.

it’s the Creator wot done it. He does everythin’ :

FRYING PAN'S THEOLOGY

Scene: On Monaro,
Dramatis Personae: Shock-headed blackfellow, Boy (on a pony).
Snowflakes are falling
So gentle and slow,
Youngster says, "Frying Pan,
What makes it snow?"
Frying Pan confident
Makes the reply -
"Shake 'im big flour bag
Up in the sky!"
"What! when there's miles of it!
Sur'ly that's brag.
Who is there strong enough
Shake such a bag?"
"What person tellin' you
Ole Mister Dodd,
Tell you in Sunday-school?
Big feller God!
He drive 'im bullock dray,
Then thunder go,
He shake 'im flour bag -
Tumble down snow!"

.

Phanto: "When is it not a choice?"

Forced prostitution, economic coercion ..

Phanto: " ... Heterosexual people can have all that as well as the best of sexual experiences so it is sad that homosexual people lose out. All human beings should have what is best and the loss of what is best leads to sadness. ... "

You are just repeating unsubstantiated claims, which have been challenged and you have thus far not addressed the challenges. What you consider the best is one thing, but surely you can recognise that given the diversity of individual tastes AND the desire for variety, that what is most satisfying for one is not shared by everyone.

Phanto: " ... Nor have you made a case to the contrary. ... "

I haven't tried. Actually, I challenged ;-) various parties to go one better than "The erotic tale of *Nova Box* and *Quiver Dick*" Toni came back (pardon the pun) with Fellatio in a 69er and I expect there is more that could be shared from various contributors. I do strongly suspect though that a range pf personal tastes and fetishes could be forthcoming .. ;-)

phanto,

You are still yet to demonstrate that heterosexual vaginal sex is objectively the best.

<<Heterosexual people can have all that as well as the best of sexual experiences so it is sad that homosexual people lose out.>>

Remember too that this is your reasoning as to why homosexuality is unreasonable.

<<All human beings should have what is best and the loss of what is best leads to sadness.>>

All the gay people I know (particularly the men) seem pretty damn happy.

<<Nor have you made a case to the contrary.>>

The case has been made a few times. You are yet to adequately address it.

<<There might be a wide range of behaviours but what is wrong with judging one experience to be the best?>>

The fact that you cannot possibly determine that objectively.

"Forced prostitution, economic coercion .."

They are still choices to have sex rather than face the consequences of not having sex.

"You are just repeating unsubstantiated claims, which have been challenged and you have thus far not addressed the challenges."

All I can see are equally unsubstantiated claims which say that oral sex is the best or it is all just a matter of taste. Where is the evidence for these claims?

"What you consider the best is one thing, but surely you can recognise that given the diversity of individual tastes AND the desire for variety, that what is most satisfying for one is not shared by everyone."

So just because variety exists there can be no value put on any of those various behaviours? No judgments can be made about them? No one is allowed to say what they think is the best?

If you really believed that oral sex is the best then you would have simply left me to my opinion. Or if you think it is just a matter of taste then you would have ignored my comments. Obviously you are not sure of your views and feel like you have to defend them. What is there to defend? What can happen by me expressing my opinions?

All that has happened is that you have exposed your own insecurities about your own opinions.

Dear Phanto,

«My claim is that the most pleasurable sex is the sex that you engage in which can lead to procreation»

As I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But do you mean that sex which does not lead to fertilisation is not as pleasurable?

If the couple is old or otherwise infertile, or if it is simply not the right time of the month, is the sex less pleasurable?

Also, what about stillbirth? If the fetus dies 5 months later, can we say retrospectively that the sex wasn't that pleasurable?

«Behaviour which can never lead to procreation can never be the most pleasurable.»

Now you seem to have extended the discussion beyond sexuality, to include any behaviour whatsoever in any area of life.

If you don't like to talk about religion (which can give you eternal joy beyond the beyond any possible pleasure), then OK, let me use a different example: Are you saying that behaviour which leads you to win an Olympic medal is not as pleasurable? Or perhaps it is after all more pleasurable, but only because being a champion allows you to obtain a superior partner for procreative sex?

I think *Phanto* that you having been pinned on the ropes and suffered more than a few telling blows, and that now you are going into melt down and ought consider something like a nice cup of tea and to try not to be too worried about it.

Of course, in the wake of new experience, you may find that your personal preferences change over time, and at different times under different circumstances, as well as between different partners. Exploring what different people find most satisfying at any one point in time is a pleasure in itself is it not?

And it is worth mentioning that not everyone is up to best practice. I have had more than one partner who had had a number of sexual encounters, but had never previously known the extended delights of sexual rapture. One of them in particular already thought she had had the best that sex had to offer only to find herself more than a little pleasantly surprised.

And *Phanto* another parting thought. What about multiple orgasm? Is this better than your best and if so, do you think its best to do it the same every time or rather expand out into a range of techniques?

//My claim is that the most pleasurable sex is the sex that you engage in which can lead to procreation. Behaviour which can never lead to procreation can never be the most pleasurable.//

Ah, of course. It's all about the procreation. So you have vaginal sex with an infertile women, then by your logic that must necessarily be less pleasurable than vaginal sex with a fertile woman.

A question: if you don't know a woman is infertile before you shag her (and it is quite a personal question to be asking somebody you've just hooked up with), how do you know to rein in your pleasure to ensure that you don't have the most pleasurable experience since it can't lead to procreation?

And a question for the ladies, if there are any still left on this sausage-fest of a forum: is heterosexual intercourse necessarily less pleasurable if the male does not ejaculate, again eliminating the possibility of procreation. What about vasectomies? Do you just lie back and think of England if a fella can only shoot blanks?

//If that is the best then why would anyone bother to choose sexual behaviour where their genitals come together?//

Like AJ said, variety. Oral sex all the time would get a bit samey, as would vaginal sex all the time. It's nice to mix things up a bit.

Also, one's tongue does tend to get sore after a while. The spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak.

//How would 'nature' ensure the continuation of the species if it created oral sex as the most desirable choice?//

Nature doesn't care; evolution is not teleological.

//You seem to have a problem with just accepting the way we have been created.//

We haven't been created. You seem to have a problem with either accepting or understanding the theory of evolution.

Phanto,

It sounds like you need to read a little more carefully

<<All I can see are equally unsubstantiated claims which say that oral sex is the best or it is all just a matter of taste. Where is the evidence for these claims?>>

Well Toni Lavis, DreamOn and myself have pointed out that sexual arousal involves more than just nerve endings. I pointed out that evolution favours variety when you fallaciously appealed to nature. Yuyutsu has pointed out that fertilisation is not the hallmark of good sex.

<<So just because variety exists there can be no value put on any of those various behaviours?>>

Not objectively as you have been attempting to do, no.

<<No judgments can be made about them?>>

You are free to make judgements all you like.

<<No one is allowed to say what they think is the best?>>

And there, my homophobic friend, are the operative words: “what they think”.

<<If you really believed that oral sex is the best then you would have simply left me to my opinion. Or if you think it is just a matter of taste then you would have ignored my comments.>>

Again, if you state your opinions as fact, then expect them to be challenged. Had you qualified your opinions with something like, “in my opinion”, then you may not come up against so much resistance.

<<Obviously you are not sure of your views and feel like you have to defend them.>>

Obviously? You say this all the time and yet, whenever I list other possible motives and ask how you ruled them out, you never seem to have an answer.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311627
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17648#312155

<<What is there to defend?>>

Reality.

<<What can happen by me expressing my opinions?>>

Some idiot may come along and think you have a point. That’s how bad ideas spread.

<<All that has happened is that you have exposed your own insecurities about your own opinions.>>

The same could be said for you. Which is why your amateur psychology fails: it could be applied to anyone here by virtue of them merely being here.

phanto, Saturday, 13 August 2016 6:02:29 PM

<My claim is that the most pleasurable sex is the sex that you engage in which can lead to procreation. Behaviour which can never lead to procreation can never be the most pleasurable.>>

Rather than presenting as a high-flyer in this topic you give every impression of being a low-flyer held aloft by occasional gusts of wind [with homage to Sir Humphrey Appleby]. You have yet to burst forth on the metaphysical world stage with a statement that has a tincture of credibility about it. Your opinion, sans supporting evidence, carries no weight but relies on a glib logical progression, an exercise in tunnel-thinking.

The joy of sex is simply that, a joyful indulgence. Humans have coccooned it in an impenetrable web of romantic and religious piffle. Its practice has outgrown its mundane practical value mainly due to the discrediting of religious taboos that had erstwhile made sinful the sheer enjoyment of sex. Now it is practiced purely for the stimulation of our cerebral pleasure centres on a vastly wider scale than just for procreation. Women, with their partner's tacit agreement, give oral sex not only as an improved method of climaxing but as a highly successful method of contraception.

Sex only for procreation runs a distant second these days.

People have voted with their genitalia.

Your bald opinion is utterly discredited.

DreamOn:

Why do you also feel the need to be patronising?

You might try many different things but still arrive at the same judgement so what is your point?

Toni Lavis:

Why would you interpret 'the behaviour which can lead to procreation" as the behaviour that must lead to procreation. Whether two 20 year olds or two 70 year olds are having sex it is exactly the same behaviour and it can lead to procreation. It is the only behaviour which does lead to procreation.

"variety"

Variety has no end in itself. Why would you choose to do something of lesser pleasure just for the sake of variety? Anyone who does not always choose the best when it is on offer would be a fool.

Pogi:

"Sex only for procreation runs a distant second these days."

No one has sex only for procreation. They have it for pleasure and maybe also for procreation. It doesn't prove that the sexual behaviour which can lead to procreation is not the best type of sex. Homosexuals cannot have the best type of sex.

"Your bald opinion is utterly discredited."

How is that? All you have done is described something. You have described the observation that people engage in other types of sexual behaviour other than the type of behaviour which can lead to procreation. An observation is not an argument.

Posted by Pogi:

" ... Women, with their partner's tacit agreement, give oral sex not only as an improved method of climaxing but as a highly successful method of contraception. ... "

I thought your last post summed up nicely *Pogi*

As for the quote above, and with the additional endorsement of *Toni Lavis* I am thinking that I will have to revisit my views on receiving Oral Sex. Historically, I have usually preferred to decline that particular pleasure. I shall attempt to answer why that is by answering Toni's question below, without becoming uncouth or crass.

Posted by Toni Lavis:

" .. And a question for the ladies, if there are any still left on this sausage-fest of a forum: is heterosexual intercourse necessarily less pleasurable if the male does not ejaculate, again eliminating the possibility of procreation. ... "

So as no one else has been forthcoming, I thought I would have a crack at this one by sharing something of my (admittedly limited and not statistically significant) sexual experience. For the record, I am male and hetero (though there have been a few likely lads along the way that have expressed an interest in sharing new experiences with me)

Simply put, and in my experience, if ones female partner is already in the throws of rapture, there will be an accompanying and not insignificant increase in temperature in the relevant excited tissues

(which can be enough to propel the already engorged male member into throbbing rigidity on the cusp between pleasure and pain)

AND if at this time one ejaculates into this environment, it can for some women at least be an excitation upon excitation generating cascading effects.

And AJ, some indicators which go to evidence the medical fact that this cascading series of events is occurring would include, but not necessarily be limited to, a sharp increase in dB, shuddering, drooling, gushing .. ;-) etc

So, it is worth waiting for this AND the problem with receivng oral sex for me during foreplay is because it heightens the risk of losing control before the moment.

Yes it does, phanto.

<<Variety has no end in itself.>>

Boredom prevention.

<<Why would you choose to do something of lesser pleasure just for the sake of variety?>>

Because the supposedly more pleasurable activity becomes less pleasurable if it’s all you do.

<<Anyone who does not always choose the best when it is on offer would be a fool.>>

You have not yet demonstrated that heterosexual vaginal sex is the best. All you have done so far is fallaciously appeal to nature and design.

Perhaps the only person here you are trying to convince that heterosexual sex is the best is yourself?

http://www.homeworkmarket.com/sites/default/files/qx/15/04/24/01/adams_et_al_1996_homophobia_defense_mechs_article.pdf

*Phanto* you seem to fail to recognise that many aspects of the debate that you keep re-agitating are considered resolved by the majority.

And, it seems quite plain that you are failing to grasp much of what skilled writers are taking the time to tell you.

It was not that I meant to be patronisning in the first instance, but you did appear to me to be becoming emotionally perturbed and the cohesion between your ideas was starting to become strained.

I believe you can over do it in forums such as this and my genuine advice for you at that time was that you needed to take a breather and to re-balance your self.

..

AJ, interesting article, and I am in the process of reading it. I thought there were a few bits along the way worth quoting e.g.:

" ... Although the causes of homophobia are unclear, several psychoanalytic explanations have emerged from the idea of homophobia as an anxiety-based phenomenon. One psychoanalytic
explanation is that anxiety about the possibility of being or becoming a homosexual may be a major factor in homophobia
(West, 1977). For example, de Kuyper (1993) has asserted that
homophobia is the result of the remnants of homosexuality in
the heterosexual resolution of the Oedipal conflict. Whereas
these notions are vague, psychoanalytic theories usually postulate
that homophobia is a result of repressed homosexual urges
or a form of latent homosexuality. Latent homosexuality can be
defined as homosexual arousal which the individual is either
unaware of or denies (West, 1977)

Hi DreamOn,

A bit of heterophobia doesn't hurt, I suppose, us heteros can take it.

But we can also dish it out, we too can come up with bogus scientific explanations for homosexual behaviour: for example, is it possible that homosexuals tend to be only children, or from very small families, or the only boy or girl in their family ? That they don't like sharing or going without ? That they are accustomed to being indulged, and so have no desire to sacrifice their incomes to raising children ? Children cost money, heaps of it. And they take up your time too, so less time for your most important person, yourself. Just a thought.

After all, taking it up the clacker doesn't need contraception. Neither does oral sex. And much of the 'debate' around homosexual marriage skirts delicately around issues such as inheritance, pension and super. In other words, is even this issue a product of the self-obsession of homosexuals and preoccupation with their own comfort ?

I'm not suggesting that anybody in particular has any obligation to have children, just because our birth-rate is well below replacement rate. But let's face it: the more the homosexual example is followed, the more rapidly our population will stabilise and then plummet.

Heterophobia, allophobia, paidaeophobia, whatever you call it. You're entitled, DreamOn, to get stuck in, us heteros are a thick-skinned bunch.

Here's a shocking thought: are some homosexuals secretly terrified of being in any way heterosexual, and therefore that they might weaken and, horrors ! - decide to marry someone of the other sex and have children ? Perhaps only in their dreams.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi *LoudMouth*

I am hetero Joe but I wasn't sure that you realised that? But I have no concern about people who are not and do not seek to impose my preferences upon them, quite the contrary.

And, I am glad to see that you have some depth of feeling about this issue.

As for children, it is true as I said that I would have been just as happy to have not had children at an earlier time, but I did not say no to my step child coming into my life. And I have not said no to my UnBorn. Suffice to say, the roller coaster nature of it as well as the numerous other joys that a child brings into one's life has melted and outweighed by initial trepidations.

So, as I am hetero, you will have to make a stronger case to convince us that homos are latently selfish and self absorbed to the extent that they choose to be homo in order to avoid having children, in sufficiently large numbers to make it significant relative to the rest of the population.

But AJ has in my view put up (what I previously mentioned as an article but actually it is a study) some interesting material and I remain of the view that it raises some issues relevant to this thread.

That this appears to irk you Joe provides me with some measure of mirth, and I look forward to any efforts made to deconstruct it and identify any fallacies contained within.

Hi DreamOn,

Aah, just having you on :) No, I'm just surmising about homosexuals and their narcissism. And since they make up less than 2 % of the population, somewhat less in Muslim communities, especially those with tall buildings, their non-replacement is no big deal.

Homosexuals have as much right to practise their skills as I do, we both agree, without shoving it in our faces, or down our throats. They don't particularly irk me, I'm relatively unirkable, it's more a matter of chacun a son gout: et mon gout toujours implique des femmes, avec ses corps parfaites et ses bouches baisables.

As for marriage issues, it shouldn't be much trouble to find another word besides 'marriage' for homosexual unions: union, perhaps. After the plebiscite, Parliament could easily tidy up all the loose ends about inheritance, property, pension rights, etc.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

Why would a new word for same-sex marriage be necessary? I've seen this proposed many times before by those on OLO who have issues with gay people, but there never seems to be a reason for having a different word beyond a refusal to see such unions as legitimate.

They didn't come up with a new word for interracial marriage, why should it be any different in this instance?

Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 15 August 2016 5:46:45 PM

" ... Why would a new word for same-sex marriage be necessary? I've seen this proposed many times before by those on OLO who have issues with gay people, but there never seems to be a reason for having a different word beyond a refusal to see such unions as legitimate.

They didn't come up with a new word for interracial marriage, why should it be any different in this instance? ... "

Yes, I am wondering how long ago it was in Australia that my current marriage would be found to be illegal on the grounds that it is interracial?

..

But back to AJ's quote at hand, and if I do not misunderstand, marriage is a sacrament of a religious organisation, but the state defines the parameters of what constitutes a marriage.

So, for those religious entities which continue to practice a sacrament of marriage which is also extended to those of the LGBT community, it has already created a situation wherein these Unions are legally required to be given a different name. One that comes to mind is the so called "Covenant of Love."

Of course, these Unions currently do not have the same status in Law as marriage, and that seems to be the point for those who want to maintain the status quo as others have pointed out.

DreamOn:

If you were not patronising me then there is no need to try and explain yourself.

The fact that you needed to patronise more or less gives me the information I needed to know. I am not interested in your arguments against my claim - I am only interested in the emotional reaction that such a claim invokes in you and others who have responded. The fact that anyone needs to patronise, belittle, 'educate' and advise is a sure sign of a very defensive reaction. It is the kind of reaction I expected but you have laid it all out there for everyone to see.

One way to test the truth is to observe the unreasonableness of responses to a simple claim which has no evidence to back it up. The fact that anyone would respond at all is remarkable - that they need to be so defensive is a sure sign that they consider there to be some truth in the claim. You cannot hide such defensiveness no matter how hard you try but once you have reacted there really is no taking it back.

So you have been helpful despite yourself - not because of what you have said but the way you have said it.

DreamON,

In many if not all States, inter-racial marriage has never been illegal. In SA, if an Aboriginal woman married a non-Aboriginal, she could be given a lease of land, enough to support a family. If she died, it reverted back to the State to be set aside until the children had reached 21. The first such lease was in about 1845, eight years after settlement. Such marriages were between a man and a woman.

Joe

Joe,

So is it because same-sex marriage would be going from not-legal to legal then? Is that why same-sex marriage (as opposed to interracial marriage) requires a different word for it? That doesn’t sound like very sound reasoning to me.

--

phanto,

So, according to your amateur psychology, how does one correct a misunderstanding without looking like they're not doing the very thing they’re trying to explain that they didn’t do in the first place?

<<If you were not patronising me then there is no need to try and explain yourself.>>

Answer: they can't. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions now, this is just a sloppy debating tactic of yours used to leave others damned if they do and damned if they don't.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7136#218946
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18217#323735

<<I am not interested in your arguments against my claim - I am only interested in the emotional reaction that such a claim invokes in you and others who have responded.>>

So when did this change? Because, before, you were interested in the opinions of others:

“I am interested only in your opinions about homosexuality. Everything else is boring.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327317)

It seems you're only interested in opinions of others when they're not too confronting.

<<The fact that anyone needs to patronise, belittle, 'educate' and advise is a sure sign of a very defensive reaction.>>

No, I think a better sign is an inability to respond to certain rebuttals, and persistence in the face of conclusive defeat.

<<One way to test the truth is to observe the unreasonableness of responses to a simple claim which has no evidence to back it up.>>

To a small degree, yes. The claims being responded to don’t require a lack of evidence though. Just look at the claims your unreasonable responses are responding to.

//Why would you interpret 'the behaviour which can lead to procreation" as the behaviour that must lead to procreation.//

Phanto, I didn't even touch on the conditions on the conditions that are necessary for procreation.

I mentioned the conditions that are sufficient: a fertile man, a fertile woman, and a male ejaculation. All the shagging in the world won't produce issue if one of the above three sufficient causes is unfulfilled. Further research into the necessary causes for procreation are left as an exercise for the reader.

//Whether two 20 year olds or two 70 year olds are having sex it is exactly the same behaviour and it can lead to procreation.//

No, it can't. Not in the case of the two 70 year olds anyway. It's rather embarrassing that I should have to be explaining the menopause to you on a public forum, so we'll cut to the chase and say that being 70 years old means the woman is not fertile and that one of three sufficient conditions mentioned above cannot be met.

//It is the only behaviour which does lead to procreation.//

Nope, there's all sorts of things they can do with machines and pipettes and petri dishes that are a long way from good old-fashioned shagging and still produce issue.

But that's more medicine than sex, and I believe we were discussing the relative pleasures of various sexual acts...

//As for marriage issues, it shouldn't be much trouble to find another word besides 'marriage' for homosexual unions: union, perhaps.//

Nah, I've tried running that idea up the flagpole a few times and it won't fly.

//I've seen this proposed many times before by those on OLO who have issues with gay people, but there never seems to be a reason for having a different word beyond a refusal to see such unions as legitimate.//

Which is why it won't fly. A rose by any other name etc.

Homophobes aren't so silly to realise that giving gay marriage a different name means that gay people aren't being wedded.

phanto, Sunday, 14 August 2016 8:18:46 PM

"No one has sex only for procreation."

If you continue to spew forth bald assertions like this then you will confirm an opinion of you that is fastly gathering currency among contributors here.....that you are a gormless opinion holder who can provide no cogent reason for forming those opinions. If you had thought for a moment you would not have made such a foolish and incorrect statement as you have above.

Sex has been a political tool devoid of the mundane joys that the headcount normally ascribes to it. From earliest times a family, tribe or clan leader was expected to produce a male heir, the more the better. That practice can be observed, to a greater or lesser degree in royal families even today. Japan is a classic example, one of many in history and up to the present day almost world-wide, where if the coupling of the royal pair is unsuccessful in producing a male heir then a succession of royal concubines kept in the royal vicinity are brought into play. Science has largely made such arrangements redundant. As well, social mores are far less strict so that a much broader genetic diversity is entering the royal hierarchies. Nevertheless, sex purely for procreation was once common but still practiced today in some societies

Barren couples, desperately trying to induce conception naturally, certainly endure bouts of repetetive boredom, even to the point of resignation and reluctance toward what was once a shared transcendence. For them, it is something like a family duty, a yearning blighted by diminishing returns. If you allow for the existence of such unfortunates, it is easy to conjecture that among a population of 6.5 billions several million couples suffer thus. Regrettably, I can find no reliable statistics.

To add to your list, Pogi, are homosexuals who endure heterosexual sex for procreation. It's quite common.

AJ,

"So is it because same-sex marriage would be going from not-legal to legal then? Is that why same-sex marriage (as opposed to interracial marriage) requires a different word for it? That doesn’t sound like very sound reasoning to me."

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this comment does seem to verge towards racism, if you'll excuse me for saying. What is anomalous about inter-racial marriage ? I was in one for 43 glorious years and I can certainly recommend them. How is inter-racial marriage comparable, in any way, to homosexual unions ? Woman + man = marriage. Find another word, AJ.

By the way, currently, most marriages involving Indigenous partners are with non-Indigenous people, up to 90 % in Sydney amongst working people. It's interesting how many top sportspeople at the moment are either the product of inter-marriage or are in one themselves. Wonderful. The lucky people.

Joe

Pogi:

Why do you need to tell me what you or anyone else thinks about me? Why would I care?

Then you say that I provide no cogent reasons to support my opinions. Then you proceed to present two paragraphs of reasons to counter my opinions which have no basis in reason. I make an assertion without evidence or any viable argument and then you proceed to present arguments to what end?

If there is nothing to argue against why do you feel the need to present arguments? You have said all that needs to be said when you say I do not have any arguments. It does not even make sense to do that much. Why would you bother to respond to a bald-faced statement at all? The only thing that makes sense is to not respond at all. The point of these forums is to argue and if someone does not present an argument then what is the point of even engaging with them?

You behaviour is totally illogical. Either I have an argument or I do not and if I do not then the only logical response is to ignore me. It is a simple choice for you to either put up or shut up. Either you behave logically and not respond to me or shut up about my lack of reasoning. No one would be so illogical as to present arguments when an argument has not even been proffered.

But perhaps your posting is just an excuse to hide your aggression. You need to try an hurt me by trying to make me feel bad about the fact that others think ill of me. This must be the only logical reason for your post - the need to put me down for some reason. Why would you need to do this unless the claims I made have caused some discomfort inside you? You would not want to try and hurt me just because I have not presented arguments to back up my claims but only because my claims have unsettled you.

Joe,

Yes, you’re interpreting what I said incorrectly.

<<Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this comment does seem to verge towards racism, if you'll excuse me for saying.>>

It sounds to me like you harbour negative feelings towards homosexuality, and that causes you to see something offensive in my comparing of the two.

<<What is anomalous about inter-racial marriage ?>>

Nothing, now. But it used to be anomalous, just as same-sex marriage is now. The similarities between the push against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (regardless of their legal statuses at the time) are striking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

<<How is inter-racial marriage comparable, in any way, to homosexual unions ? Woman + man = marriage.>>

The fact that they were/are seen by many as abominations (see the above video).

<<Find another word, AJ.>>

You have not yet justified the necessity in doing so. So we’re back to my original question: why would a new word for same-sex marriage be necessary?

Is it just because “Woman + man = marriage”? Because what constitutes a marriage has continuously evolved throughout history. Why must that necessarily stop now?

According to my Bible, woman + man + murdering son = marriage. Sounds like you conservatives need to stop being such a bunch of progressive-pandering wets and get a bit of Bible Truth back into you.

Dear Phanto,

«The point of these forums is to argue»

I would say that this is one of the very few remaining sites in Australia where one can express their views freely and anonymously, thus without fear of retribution.

According to the preamble to this site:

¨About The National Forum

The National Forum, publisher of this site, was incorporated as a not-for-profit company to be a vehicle to promote democratic uses of the Internet in Australia. The National Forum site is a virtual Town Square designed to provide free democratic space on the web for our citizens, and shop fronts for our institutions."

- I see there no mention of arguments.

Yuyutsu:

What is wrong with the process of argument? It is how human beings strive to come to the truth to work out the best way to structure society. Most people come to these forums because they want to contribute to that process. It is not a negative thing but one of the most profound things we do as humans.

A J Philips:

"It sounds to me like you harbour negative feelings towards homosexuality, and that causes you to see something offensive in my comparing of the two."

What does it matter what a person's feelings toward homosexuality might be? The only thing that matters is what their arguments are. Decisions in society are made according to the most logical argument not feelings.

"why would a new word for same-sex marriage be necessary?"

It might not be necessary but if it costs you nothing to accept a new word and it pacifies other people then why would you not want to change it? Surely same-sex couples value peace and harmony and if it can be had this way then why would they refuse it? Is calling your relationship a marriage really that important?

"Because what constitutes a marriage has continuously evolved throughout history. Why must that necessarily stop now?"

What would be the problem if it did stop? Lots of things have evolved to their final resting place. Just because marriage has evolved does not mean it has to go on evolving. That is not an argument for a continuation of evolution - it is simply an observation that our understanding has evolved. Since it is up to human beings to decide when such evolution should cease why shouldn't it stop at the point where it excludes homosexuals? You have to provide an argument why the evolution of the understanding of marriage should continue beyond where it now resides - as relationship between a man and a woman.

//Find another word//

You don't read/remember so good, eh Joe?

I HAVE.

I have suggested it on this very forum. When I did, the homophobes immediately decided they didn't like the word I'd found, and shifted the goalposts to demand that those in favour of gay marriage invent a new word instead of finding an old one and re-purposing it.

I didn't bother to invent a new word, because I had a fairly strong hunch that even if I did, the homophobes would do another swift repositioning of the goalposts.

I can't be arsed repeating myself again. What's the point of applying my linguistic abilities to solve the problem set, when as soon as I give an answer the problem changes? Waste of my time.

The fact that it resulted in a misunderstanding of what I was saying, phanto.

<<What does it matter what a person's feelings toward homosexuality might be?>>

You need to read my words in the context of what I’m responding to.

<<It might not be necessary but if it costs you nothing to accept a new word and it pacifies other people then why would you not want to change it?>>

Because it implies (and indeed the clear motivations of those who insist on a different word confirm) that same-sex marriage is somehow inferior to, lesser than, or not as legitimate to opposite-sex marriage. Then there are issues of symbolic equality:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227202
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227191
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227182
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227162

Do we really need to go through that again?

<<Surely same-sex couples value peace and harmony and if it can be had this way then why would they refuse it?>>

Because it is not in a society’s interests to pander to irrational fears and bigotry. Fear and bigotry should be fought, not accommodated. Perhaps if those insisting on a different word could rationally justify it… But until then, such irrational fears should be shown the same disregard and contempt that proposals to label interracial marriage differently would be.

<<Is calling your relationship a marriage really that important?>>

If I were denied the “privilege”, yes.

<<What would be the problem if [the evolution of marriage] did stop?>>

Nothing, per se. It’s the reasons that people want it to stop that are at issue.

<<Just because marriage has evolved does not mean it has to go on evolving.>>

No-one has suggested otherwise.

<<That is not an argument for a continuation of evolution - it is simply an observation that our understanding has evolved.>>

Correct.

<<Since it is up to human beings to decide when such evolution should cease why shouldn't it stop at the point where it excludes homosexuals?>>

For reasons of equality. Your memory is appalling.

<<You have to provide an argument why the evolution of the understanding of marriage should continue beyond where it now resides - as relationship between a man and a woman.>>

Equality.

Dear Phanto,

No forum rules prevent us from arguing here, but no rules say that we should argue or that this is what this forum is about. I think that currently the balance here tips too much towards an argumentative culture.

«It [argument] is how human beings strive to come to the truth»

What if some Greek suggested a theory that this is how humans should operate - how many actual human beings do you personally know who do so in their life? Then of those who do, how many arrive at the truth?

«to work out the best way to structure society»

Isn't society already too structured?

«Most people come to these forums because they want to contribute to that process»

Count me as one who wants to unstructure society, so as to protect individuals from its tyranny.

A J Philips:

Stating the word equality is not an argument. It is just a word. Just stating a word in response to an argument is pointless. If you do not want to argue then don't argue. That is the most rational way to behave. If you do not want to argue then why would you say one word? There seems only two courses of action which make sense to me. Either you present a coherent argument or stop posting single words. Either you put up or shut up.

"Do we really need to go through that again?"

You sound exasperated. No we don't have to go through that again if you do not want to. It is up to you. If it is all too exasperating then don't do it! That would be the logical way to behave. If you are going to do it then it is your choice and you should take responsibility for your choices in which case it is irrational to behave in such a way as to make it sound like it is my fault. So either you don't go through it all again or you take responsibility for your choices. The only logical reason for such a query would be that it is an attempt to paint me as some kind of dullard and why would you need to do that if you were convinced of your position?

AJ,

<<What is anomalous about inter-racial marriage ?>>

"Nothing, now. But it used to be anomalous, just as same-sex marriage is now. The similarities between the push against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (regardless of their legal statuses at the time) are striking .... "

No, inter-racial marriage did not require any change in the law: it's always been legal, at least in SA and, I suspect, in all States. So there was nothing particularly anomalous about it, any more than marriage between left- and right-handers. And it was wonderful.

Joe

It is if it answers your question, phanto.

<<Stating the word equality is not an argument.>>

I had even provided you with links before that to where I had explained why equality is an argument.

<<If you do not want to argue then why would you say one word?>>

See above.

<<There seems only two courses of action which make sense to me. Either you present a coherent argument or stop posting single words. Either you put up or shut up.>>

Does the fact that your arguments are so simplistic and ignorant that they can be countered with one word annoy you?

It should.

There’s a third course of action: actually read what I say and link to. There’s a fourth too, now that I think about it: engage your brain and try to think back to the last time we discussed the issue of equality. Or the time before that, or the time before that…

<<No we don't have to go through that again if you do not want to. It is up to you. If it is all too exasperating then don't do it!>>

So is it your plan to exasperate me by getting me to repeat arguments that you were never able to counter in previous discussions? Maybe then I’ll go away and you’ll be free to make all the fallacious arguments you like, eh?

Déjà vu!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227202

Toni Lavis:

"I didn't bother to invent a new word, because I had a fairly strong hunch that even if I did, the homophobes would do another swift repositioning of the goalposts."

Why do you think that those who oppose same-sex marriage are automatically homophobes? Same-sex couples are being discriminated against because they are the same sex and not because they are homosexual. Same-sex couples who are heterosexual are also being discriminated against.

There is no way of telling which ones are homophobes and which ones are against all same-sex marriage. It is rather arrogant to act like you know which is which.

phanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:41:43 AMphanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:41:43 AM

"Why do you need to tell me what you or anyone else thinks about me? Why would I care?"

I noted that one other sought to call your attention to the shortfall of logic and reason in your opinions. It was done in moderate, even courteous language, but elicited no change in attitude from you. I sought a confrontational approach that might attract more of your attention. Alas, to no avail.

Why do you post your opinions here if not to arouse like-minded posters or to provoke reactions of disagreement? Why do you post at all if you don't care whether your opinions are respected or not? There's no question whatsoever as to your right to post here whatever genius or tomfoolery you choose, if not to provoke reactions then why do you do it? Would you rather no one responded and your opinions hung there in the ether in splendid isolation? Would you expect people go to an art gallery and ignore all the paintings therein?

You will note that I have addressed the likelihood of your declaiming: "Is this not a forum for the expression of opinions, etc, etc, etc?" Indeed it is! It is your motivation that I would elicit. What purpose prompts you to post your opinions? Do you regard them as holy writ, sacred and inviolable, beyond and automatically immune from the sweaty mass's deliberations?

Cont.......

phanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:41:43 AM. .........Cont.

"If there is nothing to argue against why do you feel the need to present arguments?"
Your bald unsupported assertions are themselves provocative. That is why people are arguing with you. It does appear, however, that at the point in the argument where you are expected to present compelling support for said assertions you present the incomprehensible argument that your opinions, simply because they emanate from you, are supported by some kind of indefinable divine truth, that the entire Cosmos shudders with outrage at the presumption of posters here to discover wherein lie your motives for posting. Your fall-back position tries to shift the burden of providing evidence when you state: "I don't have any [evidence]. It does not mean that I am wrong though." Your tactic here is a millennia old religious one discredited by logic. There is a vanishing chance you may not be wrong, but it certainly does not make you right.

"You need to try an hurt me by trying to make me feel bad about the fact that others think ill of me. This must be the only logical reason for your post - the need to put me down for some reason."

For some [unknown, indefinable] reason? Or is the reason to try to hurt you into feeling bad about.....? Which is it? In fact it is neither. But first, let me advise you that this forum [or even just this topic] does not exist for the purpose of ensuring that you feel good about yourself. When you propose that: "/My claim is that the most pleasurable sex is the sex that you engage in which can lead to procreation. Behaviour which can never lead to procreation can never be the most pleasurable.//", your stance is immediately perceived by some as highly contentious, especially when your choice of words leaves no doubt that you regard that position as inarguable. Cont.......

phanto, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:41:43 AM
Cont.....

Some other contentious assertions from you:
[1] "You can't be born a homosexual since there is no such thing. There are just heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual type behaviour."

[2] "Heterosexual behaviour can be reasonable but homosexual behaviour is never reasonable."

[3] "No I don't have evidence for any of my opinions but as I said it does not mean those opinions are wrong. If you think that only opinions that are supported by evidence are worth considering then there is no point reading any of mine."

[4] "These things are just observable facts and from these observable facts it seems to me that homosexual activity can never be as pleasurable as heterosexual behaviour can be. If homosexuals are born that way then they have been given a very poor deal by nature."

[5] "Your claim is that oral sex is the best possible sexual pleasure. If that is the best then why would anyone bother to choose sexual behaviour where their genitals come together? How would 'nature' ensure the continuation of the species if it created oral sex as the most desirable choice?"

Every one of the above has been discredited by means of rational argument, evidence and logic.

I give you this undertaking......that while you claim to shift the burden of "proof" from the asserter to the assertee or insist that your unevidenced assertions require no support in order to share equal legitimacy with those assertions which are copiously evidenced, I will oppose and expose the drivel you write. Please consider the advice I offer; Your views are approaching those views held by fanatical religious bigots, minus the threats of violence. I urge you to watch your step and give thought also to the sensibilities of any homosexuals who may read your obnoxious opinions.

Meanwhile, you fail to acknowledge the gross error in your assertion: "No one has sex only for procreation." Both Yuyutsu [p.17 Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:22:08 AM] and I exposed it as fallacious and insupportable.

Joe,

Legal status is not the be-all and end-all of what determines anomalousness.

<<No, inter-racial marriage did not require any change in the law: it's always been legal, at least in SA and, I suspect, in all States. So there was nothing particularly anomalous about it, any more than marriage between left- and right-handers.>>

Anomalous:
Deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anomalous)

But okay, let’s agree there was nothing anomalous about interracial marriage back in the day.

So what?

My analogy is still valid because objecting to same-sex marriage having the same label as opposite-sex marriage would still be as abhorrent and irrational as objecting to interracial marriage having the same label as mono-racial marriage. Furthermore, suggesting that my analogy is racist is, ironically, homophobic.

I’m still yet to hear anyone provide a rational justification for requiring a different word for same-sex marriage.

--

phanto,

You just make this stuff up as you go, and it gets more and more bizarre the further you dig yourself in.

<<Same-sex couples are being discriminated against because they are the same sex and not because they are homosexual.>>

So let me get this straight, those who are against same-sex marriage are not necessarily homophobes because they may oppose two heterosexual people of the same sex getting married - a situation that would never occur for conventional reasons.

That’s what I call getting someone off on a technicality! You should be a lawyer.

Now that you mention it, though, I don’t think most homophobes would be against two blokes (it never seems to be women, because we all love a bit of girl-on-girl action) gettin’ hitched if it were for a laugh, a dare, or to achieve some other means (e.g. succession, migration, custody). So long as they don’t love each other or kiss.

Heck, they’d probably even be allowed to use the same word.

--

Pogi,

Thanks for that refreshing insight into phanto’s bizarre behaviour. Just brace yourself for a psychological assessment of your actions or a torrent of irrelevant questions about why you would want to do this or that.

AJ,

There was and is nothing anomalous in law about inter-racial marriage.

I rest my case.

Joe

Joe,

So it’s that there is/was nothing “anomalous” about interracial marriage specifically in law?

<<There was and is nothing anomalous in law about inter-racial marriage.>>

Because, before, it sounded like you were just talking about anomalousness in general. I wouldn’t have thought that ‘anomalous’ was the best word to use to convey the fact that something had always been allowed for in legislation either.

Anyway, that’s all irrelevant because I’ve already agreed with you, for the sake of argument, that, back in ‘the day’, interracial marriage was standard, normal, expected, welcomed by the most hardened conservatives, and blessed by even the most fundamentalist churches, and have gone on further to point out that having an issue with labelling same-sex marriage thus is as irrational and abhorrent as what having an issue with labelling interracial marriage thus would have been had the past not been a time of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everywhere.

Just not the gay kind.

Whether or not a form of marriage has always been legislated for does not say anything about whether or not the word ‘marriage’ should be used. To argue otherwise would be a non sequitur, and borders on the Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy.

<<I rest my case.>>

On that note? I’ll take it, then, that you don’t have a rational justification for finding another word for same-sex marriage.

AJ,

It's not my task to find another word for homosexual unions. Why should it be ?

As you say,

"back in ‘the day’, interracial marriage was standard, normal, expected, welcomed by the most hardened conservatives, and blessed by even the most fundamentalist churches, and have gone on further to point out that having an issue with labelling same-sex marriage thus is as irrational and abhorrent as what having an issue with labelling interracial marriage thus would have been had the past not been a time of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everywhere."

That's right, inter-racial marriage was quite legal between British subjects, as Indigenous people were, like it or not. But you do tie yourself in knots in the second part - a sort of argument by somersault ? You still seem to imply that inter-racial marriage was somehow objectionable ? And 'therefore' sort of, almost, more or less, illegal, as illegal as 'homosexual marriage' ? Is that what you are attempting to say in a roundabout, and possibly racist, way ?

As for equality, and its controversial relationship to difference (and the relationship between difference and INequality), I refer you to Joan W. Scott's wonderful feminist article in about 1986.

Joe

//There is no way of telling which ones are homophobes and which ones are against all same-sex marriage. It is rather arrogant to act like you know which is which.//

Awww, isn't that cute? A lecture on phanto about the arrogance inherent in inferring people's motives from their actions.

Once upon a time, phanto, there was a mighty king of a primitive, savannah dwelling people. Being savannah-dwellers, they fashioned their crude huts from the materials available to them: grass.

This king, who we shall call 'Bob', ruled wisely and justly from the seat his forefathers - a great throne, carved from an enormous boulder. From time immemorial it had been the material symbol of the power of his dynasty, but everybody agreed that Bob occupied it the best out of any ruler.

In order to pay homage to their great ruler, the best grass hut builders constructed a mighty grass palace for him. They even managed to make it a multi-storey construction, an impressive feat of engineering when your raw material is grass.

Unfortunately, Bob ruled a little bit too well: his kingdom grew wealthy and his neighbours grew envious. They plotted an invasion, and Bob, fearing that their raiding parties might steal away his most prized possession - his colossal rocky throne - decided to have it hidden in the attic of his grand palace.

Where it immediately fell through the flimsy grass floor, crushing poor Bob flat.

Now, what's the moral to this story?

That people who live in grass houses should not stow thrones.

//It's not my task to find another word for homosexual unions.//

So whose job is it? I've volunteered but been rejected.

//You still seem to imply that inter-racial marriage was somehow objectionable ?//

It was. Joe, if you won't take my word for it then at least take Sherlock Holmes' (yes, I know he's fictional). Read 'The Adventure of the Yellow Face', published in the 1890's.

Possibly a bit more relevant than articles from the 80's. For one thing, A.C. Doyle was actually there.

Pogi:

I didn't bother reading your post but the mere fact that you felt the need to respond to me only proves my point.

A J Philips:

Why would you need to thank Pogi for his insights into my bizarre behaviour? It sounds like you are unsure about your own insights. You wouldn't need his insights if you were confident about your own. Perhaps you are sucking up to him in the hope of forming a partnership but that presumes he needs a partnership with you. I don't think Pogi is as insecure about his insights as you are trying to suggest by your behaviour that he is.

Joe,

At no point have I said or even implied that it is up to you to find another word.

<<It's not my task to find another word for homosexual unions.>>

I have only asked you what rational justifications there are to necessitate a different word. That was the worst sidestep I've ever seen.

<<That's right, inter-racial marriage was quite legal between British subjects, as Indigenous people were, like it or not.>>

At no point have I claimed that it was illegal, like it or not. You’re ducking and weaving.

<<You still seem to imply that inter-racial marriage was somehow objectionable ?>>

It was to many conservative types. This is still irrelevant to my argument, though.

<<And 'therefore' sort of, almost, more or less, illegal, as illegal as 'homosexual marriage' ?>>

Frowned upon by some, not illegal. Still irrelevant.

<<Is that what you are attempting to say in a roundabout, and possibly racist, way ?>>

Yeah sure, Joe. Play the ‘racist’ card with one of OLO’s most vocally anti-racist regulars, while never saying peep in opposition to OLO’s actual racists. Even if I WERE trying to stretch a bow as rediculously long as that, no-one in their rational mind could possibly extract racist undertones from it.

By the way, you may feel all virtuous ‘n’ stuff being anti-racist, but your homophobia makes you no better than a racist.

<<I refer you to Joan W. Scott's wonderful feminist article in about 1986.>>

Going by your description and the year, I can only assume you're talking about ‘Gender and the Politics of History’. But that's a book, not an article. All of Scott’s journal articles date no earlier than the nineties and don't appear to be as relevant.

How about you tell me how what she says supports your position or contradicts mine? Are you suggesting that the difference between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage demands a different word? Your reasoning would want to be good given the innuendo in, and deleterious consequences of, demanding a different word. People aren’t that easily confused, after all.

Toni Lavis:

I agree with you that people who live in glass houses ..etc. What is your point though? How does that apply to the statement I made?

If you do not know the reasons why someone objects to same-sex marriage then it would be arrogant to act as if you do know. That is what arrogance is. You have no evidence to support your claim that someone is homophobic and yet you behave in such a way that you do know.

The change in the Marriage Act would make it possible for two heterosexuals of the same sex to marry. There is no denying this as a fact. These two could go on to become parents and many people think that children should have parents of opposite sex. They could be opposed to same-sex marriage for this reason. Homophobia is obviously not the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage. However much homosexuals want it to be about them it is not.

When you say that you will not bother giving us all your 'other name' because the homophobes would jump on you then you are acting on the assumption that all opponents to your 'other name' are homophobes. You cannot make that assumption and to act like that is arrogance.

//What is your point though? How does that apply to the statement I made?

If you do not know the reasons why someone objects to same-sex marriage then it would be arrogant to act as if you do know. That is what arrogance is.//

Fcuk me sideways... not too quick on the uptake, are ya phanto?

Being lectured by you on the evils of arrogance is being like lectured by Shane MacGowan on the evils of substance abuse.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A3-5&version=KJV

AJ,

"Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of post-structuralist theory for feminism", JW Scott - Feminist Studies, 1988.

From memory, the gist of her argument was that 'equality' and 'difference' are not always in opposition, they overlap. One can be 'different', say racially, and still have equal rights to marry. 'Equality' doesn't have to mean the 'same'. At the time, 1980s, rights groups were getting themselves all tangled up in trying to square being 'different' with being 'equal'. No problems for women or Blacks.

Inter-racial marriage has been legal in Australia since the beginning, as marriage, as inter-racial, as inter-racial marriage. There didn't have to be a different word for it, and there wasn't. I don't give a toss what some racists thought of it: if they didn't like it, they didn't have to do it. But they couldn't stop it either. It was and is legal. It's called 'marriage'.

As for such prejudice: I'm told by a Tasmanian friend about a family in Burnie, the daughter of which fell in love with a bloke from Devonport. The father wouldn't speak to her for months. One hears of Ford owners whose son buys a Holden and is given the same treatment. But it's not illegal to marry a bloke from Devonport, or to own a Holden. So what ?

Joe

AJ Philips, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:39:36 PM

"Thanks for that refreshing insight into phanto’s bizarre behaviour......."

I'm moved by your appreciation, thanks.

I'm so regularly amazed by the ratbaggery that can preoccupy the human intellect that I shouldn't describe the sensation as amazing anymore. It's becoming more like an "Oh, not again......! in conjunction with a dull throbbing in the amygdala region.

As a protest against corporate religion many forums such as this were inundated with bizarre reinterpretations of scripture beginning in earnest, if my memory serves me correctly, in the last years of the 20th century.

But the only feature of Phanto that is somewhat different from the rest is his curious idea that if he can extract an opinion from his mind and place it here, devoid of evidence or supported only by a veneer of logic, then that should be sufficient for all comers and malcontents. His homophobia [doubtless in company with misogyny and an obsession with crucifying small animals] is shared by most of the other presumptive message-bringers and born-again evangelists.

Can you imagine any serious poster sitting still when reading: "[1] "You can't be born a homosexual since there is no such thing. There are just heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual type behaviour."" Such reader may be struck momentarily dumb by the blatant stupidity of the assertion. It's a statement using the logical processes of a ten-year-old essay writer.

Toni Lavis:

Why not stop playing the hapless victim and just deal with the fact that I described a particular instance of your behaviour as arrogant? Are you so fragile that someone cannot question one thing you have done without going off on a rant about 'glass houses' and being 'lectured'? If you have not behaved arrogantly then just show me how my logic about what you have done is invalid. If you have been arrogant then why not 'man-up' and admit it?

Pogi:

If I have made a statement that you equate with a ten year old then it should be easy to refute it but instead you seem to want to whine and whinge like a five year old about the fact that I provide no evidence to back up my claims. Then you bury your face in the bosom of A J Philips so you can mutually comfort yourself about how awful I am.

There is no rule that says you cannot make a statement on these forums. There is nothing to say that you must provide evidence to support your statement. I have not provided evidence so what? You do not make the rules around here.

If I have not provided evidence then ignore me. If you do not ignore me then you are a blatant fool. Either you do not play by your own rules or you do not agree with your own rules. Which is it? Either you put up or shut up. You just look so childish going on and on about it. Grow up and act like an adult and not some scared infant who wants the world to be like it is behind his mother's skirts.

phanto,

The stupid questions and amateur psychology are boring. Get another act.

<<I have not provided evidence so what?>>

Not just “haven’t provided”, you openly admit that you have no evidence; yet you state your opinions as fact.

Let me guess, if I was secure in that you openly admit that you have no evidence, then I why would I need to point it out?

Because it became relevant.

Let me guess, if I was secure in the belief that it became relevant, then why would I need to say that it became relevant?

Because I pre-empted your question.

Let me guess…

--

Joe,

Okay, I’ve read the article. It’s more geared towards those who fear acknowledging differences in the name of equality. It’s not relevant to my position, nor is it an argument for a different word for same-sex marriage. Certainly not so long as there are those who only want a different word because they see homosexuality as a defect or refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of such relationships.

<<Inter-racial marriage has been legal in Australia since the beginning, as marriage, as inter-racial, as inter-racial marriage. There didn't have to be a different word for [interracial marriage], and there wasn't.>>

So are you saying, then, that there does need to be a different word for same-sex marriage because it will have gone from not-legislated-for to legislated-for? Where’s the logic in that?

<<I don't give a toss what some racists thought of it: if they didn't like it, they didn't have to do it. But they couldn't stop it either. It was and is legal. It's called 'marriage'.>>

That’s the spirit! However, I’m sure there are gay people who will have a similar attitude towards people like yourself who don’t like the idea of same-sex marriage and/or insist that there must be a different word for it.

<<…it's not illegal to marry a bloke from Devonport, or to own a Holden. So what ?>>

I don’t know. You’re the one telling the story. You’ll need to tell me “what”. I don’t see where these stories fit into the picture.

I could not see where the article addressed the title. The authors moral agency is not being denied, he is free to battle his own cravings whatever they may be. If anything the removal of legal boundaries and social consequences around most sexual activities between consenting adults enhances his moral agency. The issue then becomes one of doing what his conscience tells because it's what his conscience instructs without the possibility that choices are driven by the legal and or social consequences of those actions.

In regard to the same sex marriage, I see no valid reason for the government to be involved in the registering of relationships. That registering does not carry with it a responsibility to procreate, it's reversible with no legal consequences for breach of the initial conditions, almost all of the laws around those registered relationships apply to those who have not so registered (based on some unfortunately poorly defined criteria).

Just what role does government registration of marriages actually play? At best making heterosexual couples and family feel better about their own relationship and the principle argument against extending that to same sex relationships then seems to be people not wanting same sex couples to feel better about their own relationships.

R0bert

A J Philips:

"The stupid questions and amateur psychology are boring. Get another act."

Here is a little more for you. When someone keeps going on and on about another person's behaviour and does not do anything to avoid that behaviour when it is within their power to do so - it is called nagging. A nag is a gutless person who does not have the courage of their convictions. They can avoid the behaviour but are too afraid of letting go of the power trip they get from the bullying.

"you state your opinions as fact"

Aren't they contradictions in terms?

RObert:

There are no good reasons for the government to register marriages. Sometimes they need to know when two people are to be considered a 'couple' and they have a reasonable definition of the word 'couple'. They have no need to know which couples are married because, as you say, all benefits from the government are equally distributed to couples whether married or not.

In fact they act in quite a discriminatory manner in this regard. In order to declare two people a couple they become quite invasive in collecting evidence. This might be fair enough but in relation to married couples it is sufficient to just check their registration of marriage. They should treat all couples equally.

I don't think it is the government's responsibility to help people feel good about their relationship. Where would such a responsibility stop since we have a wide variety of relationships. Why should we single out marriage? Many people also are able to feel good about their relationships without any government help. Some are just more secure than others so such security must be something that can be attained without government involvement. If people need to be married to feel good about their relationship then it is not a very good start to a relationship.

So now you’re an amateur English scholar, phanto?

<<When someone keeps going on and on about another person's behaviour and does not do anything to avoid that behaviour when it is within their power to do so - it is called nagging.>>

No, to nag means to be “constantly harassing someone to do something”. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nagging)

<<A nag is a gutless person who does not have the courage of their convictions.>>

No, a nag is a “person who nags someone to do something”. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nag)

A gutless person is a person who is “lacking courage or determination”. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gutless)

Having the courage of one’s conviction means to “act on one’s beliefs despite danger or disapproval”. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/courage)

So you get an F for English. What I’m more interested in, however, is how my actions suggest that I’m gutless and don’t have the courage of my own convictions. It’s not like I’ve shied away from anything, after all.

One minute - according to your bogus, amateur, and admittedly-non-evidence-based psychology - if I stay here, it means that I’m unsure of my own beliefs. Now it somehow means that I’m gutless and lack the courage of my own convictions.

The former sounds more convincing, if only for the fact that the latter makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But the former is discredited by the total absence of anxiety felt by me and the thrill I get from responding to stupidity.

Let me guess, if I was secure in the belief that I don’t experience anxiety, then why would I mention it?

Boring! Find another angle.

<<[Naggers] can avoid the behaviour but are too afraid of letting go of the power trip they get from the bullying.>>

Bullying?

[Verb] Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bully)

You flatter me, phanto. No, nothing superior here. I’m just an ordinary guy who gives a damn about facts and actual psychology. That’s all.

<<Aren't they contradictions in terms?>>

No, it’s possible to state one’s opinions as if they were facts.

Your English skills were better before you took up amateur English.

phanto, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 4:18:07 PM.

"I didn't bother reading your post but the mere fact that you felt the need to respond to me only proves my point."

My posts, though addressed to you, were for a wider readership, not only for yourself. But I do confess to a profound disappointment that my unworthy prose should not be graced by your august attention and consequently I am plotting a course to the nearest active volcano for jumping into or the shortest travelling time to the Haig Distillery in Scotland where I might drown myself in a vat of their 12-year-old peat-smoked Dimple. The only drawback with this latter option is that on previous occasions I've been forced to climb out for a leak several times before the final depth-dive. Another thing is that I seem to lose interest in the suicide aspect of the project after about three leaks.

So, I have proved your point? As I see it, the point you make is somewhat at variance with the point you would like to make. Using the word "prove" colloquially, I perceive the emergence of a proof that accomplishes nothing for you except ignominy. In spite of generous offers of advice and fellowship you maintain a stubborn attachment to the declaration: "No I don't have evidence for any of my opinions but as I said it does not mean those opinions are wrong. If you think that only opinions that are supported by evidence are worth considering then there is no point reading any of mine." Your first sentence is perfectly correct but the corollary that attaches is devastating to your stance. Your opinions will be accorded zero credibility when all opinions that oppose you are presented with supporting evidence. To use a horse-racing analogy, you fell at the first hurdle of the race and are determined that you will go no further. Cont.......

phanto, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 4:18:07 PM.

Cont...... You should reflect on the consequences of a post before posting. I write because, among several other fulfilling pursuits, I enjoy deflating presumptuous piffle and obstinate obliquity. A man I admire immensely, though on the opposite end of the see-saw, passionately observed: "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." That man is Martin Luther King jr. And Albert Einstein admonished us: "Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value." MLK jr was and remains a man of value. Few of us indeed can expect such elevation in humankind's estimation. We harken too infrequently to the thoughts and experiences of great minds. Their blood and sweat are offered to us free of charge and so many times we scorn the offer. That is a sad commentary on humankind because it reduces us to engage in not a noble struggle to succeed but an ignoble one that pits us against each other. The prospect that leaves us with is as one of the Cosmos's failed experiments.

So, how do you expect to be remembered, Phanto?

Posted by Pogi, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 3:37:48 AM

" ... Nevertheless, sex purely for procreation was once common but still practiced today in some societies. ... "

In so far as I understand Balinese Hinduism, couples are encouraged to have relations well prior to marriage and if the female partner does not become pregnant, the that is a legitimate reason in their culture for the male partner to dissolve the relationship and any future prospect for marriage at his discretion.

..

Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 4:05:56 PM

" ... It was. Joe, if you won't take my word for it then at least take Sherlock Holmes' (yes, I know he's fictional). Read 'The Adventure of the Yellow Face', published in the 1890's. ... "

Yeah Joe, I am not convinced that you are correct about inter-racial marriage always being legal in Australia. Certainly it was illegal in certain states of America back in the day.

..

If a person of age and sound mind wishes to have a faith and practice a religion the majority of us I believe support this, within reason.

And, within limitations, we even tolerate them prosletyzing.

And when these people are clearly confused between the difference of what the meaning of "to know" is, as distinct from "to believe" there are some people who offer to assist them to take on a knew understanding.

But when they unite on mass to manipulate the machines of democratic government with a view to subjecting everyone to their particular religious persuasion then clearly it becomes a problem, requiring perhaps something a bit stronger mixed in with their tea i.m.o.

As AJ recently said, and as I and many others have said in the past, much of the debate in relation to homosexuality etc turns on the need to stop the discrimination and ill treatment as distinct from something favorable the majority must afford a minority.

phanto, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 6:01:13 PM
Cont........

"There is no rule that says you cannot make a statement on these forums. There is nothing to say that you must provide evidence to support your statement etc, etc, etc."

I predicted you'd issue a statement like this, didn't I? Of course you can do as you have done! As I wrote earlier, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."*

You have given us every reason to view you as a closet fundamentalist christian creationist. Normally this would brand you as a YEC [Young Earth Creationist]. For myself, it won't make much difference whether you are any of these things. I'm enjoying myself dealing with your posts as it is, so there won't be any major diversions for the present.

"If I have not provided evidence then ignore me."

Not for a minute if I can help it.

"If you do not ignore me then you are a blatant fool."

And if I did ignore you then you would lead a much more dull and boring existence [and so would I].

"Either you do not play by your own rules or you do not agree with your own rules. Which is it?"

My rules in this context are the rules of this forum.

"Either you put up or shut up."

I have been putting up. You refuse to supply evidence and defend your assertions against legitimate criticisms.

"You just look so childish going on and on about it etc, etc, etc."

It redounds on your credibility and maturity when you have no retort but exaggeration of the criticisms I made of you mixed with a little hyperbole. Expand your mind a little and pick a real vulnerability.

* The genuine author of this epithet is of course Francois-Marie Arouet aka, Voltaire

Hi DreamOn,

Yeah, I used to think that inter-marriage had been illegal until the early sixties, at least in SA, but no. Hanging around Aboriginal women with lustful intent was illegal in most states until the sixties, but not marriage: i.e. the authorities tried (in vain, to say the least) to repress casual contact for sexual purposes - shag and shoot through - but promoted marriage. Anecdotally, it seems the police would ask a bloke how serious he was, and if he wasn't, they would warn him off - but if he was intent on marrying, then he would he shepherded through the process, expeditiously.

It happened a lot more than people think, as did marriage between Aboriginal men and non-Aboriginal women: the earliest example of that that I can find in SA was up at Mt Barker in about 1855, and there were three or four others that I know of, later in the 19th century. In fact, in dribs and drabs ever since 1855.

In most states, 'co-habiting' with Aboriginal women was either illegal or frowned upon. After all, in those days before single parent's benefit, how could an Aboriginal woman raise a child without a bread-winner ? In some states and the NT before 1960, the authority had control of who Aboriginal women could marry, but no mention on inter-racial grounds.

Check out McCorquodale's 'Aborigines and the Law: A Digest', it's pretty exhaustive.

And of course, DreamOn, what happened in US law has no bearing at all on the law here. 'Back in the day', by the way, is only forty or fifty years ago over there, although by the fifties, inter-marriage was illegal in only a minority of US states.

Joe

Not just unions with members of the Original people of course Joe, but any inter-racial marriage. You see, up until the end of WWII Australia did not even recognise other races as equal at all. The Japanese in particular took great offence to this.

And their partners in this of course were the u.k. and the u.s.a who as other so called "common law" countries share quite a bit in common with us. In fact I have heard it said that Australian law and its system has only ever been a sub set of the u.k. system which in part accounts for "The Australia Act" overriding provisions of the Constitution without having had to resort to a referendum as would normally have been the only way to initiate such a change.

A J Philips:

I accused you of nagging. The normal response would be to examine your conscience to see if you felt guilty about anything that you had done. If you felt no guilt about anything then it would be irrelevant what the meaning of nagging was. There is no point to your study of nagging if you are in touch with your own feelings.

Pogi:

Whatever you think I should do is not really relevant. I made a claim that there is no such thing as a homosexual and so they cannot be born that way. You should be able to provide evidence to refute my claim but you have not done so. Since there is no evidence to refute such a proposition then it would be reasonable to accept that the proposition is true until proven otherwise.

We know for certain that heterosexuals are born that way so in the face of any evidence to the contrary it would be reasonable to assume that everybody is born that way. This would be a more reasonable assumption on the basis of the evidence than the assumption that there are people who are born homosexual. There is absolutely no evidence that people are born homosexual.

So perhaps you can provide conclusive proof that people are born homosexual. The onus is on you really.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/largest-ever-study-into-the-gay-gene-erodes-the-notion-that-sexual-orientation-is-a-choice-9875855.html

" ... Research conducted by the NorthShore Research Institute in the US found clear links between male sexual orientation and two specific regions of the human genome, with lead scientist Alan Sanders declaring that the work “erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice”.

The study is three times larger than any previously done and highlights two genetic regions that have been tied to male homosexuality in separate research: Xq28, first identified in 1993, and 8q12, spotted in 2005.

However, Sanders does not claim to have identified a single gene which ‘causes’ male homosexuality in humans and stresses that with complex human traits like sexual orientation there are many influencing factors, both genetic and environmental. ... "

There is no “normal” response, phanto.

<<The normal response [to an accusation of nagging] would be to examine your conscience to see if you felt guilty about anything that you had done.>>

There would be a number of responses that would be the most frequently observed, or the most constructive, or the least problematic. But there is no such thing as a “normal” response. And even if there were, you wouldn’t know about it anyway as your psychological analyses are all pure guesswork.

<<If you felt no guilt about anything then it would be irrelevant what the meaning of nagging was.>>

The definition of a word is always relevant when someone uses that word incorrectly.

No guilty consciences required.

<<There is no point to your study of nagging if you are in touch with your own feelings.>>

How Zen of you.

So, according to your amateur psychology, people who are in touch with their feelings don’t feel the need to correct definitions when misunderstandings of them arise? Where's the logic in that?

<<So perhaps you can provide conclusive proof that people are born homosexual.>>

This is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof). You were the one who claimed that people can’t be born homosexual, it is up to you to provide evidence of that claim:

“You can't be born a homosexual since there is no such thing. There are just heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual type behaviour.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327307)

And why does the proof have to be “conclusive”? Are you pre-emptively attempting to shift the goalposts out of fear that someone will provide evidence? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)

Speaking of which...

http://www.behavioralneuroscience.org/neurogenetics_files/La%CC%8Angstro%CC%88m%20et%20al.%20-%202010%20-%20Archives%20of%20sexual%20behavior.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/12572213_Genetics_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Its_Correlates_in_an_Australian_Twin_Sample/links/0deec518bc0435c0cd000000.pdf

But even if it were found that gay people weren’t born that way, the fact that they can’t change and have no reason to would mean that such a discovery would change nothing.

From AJ's 1st link:

" ... Our results support the notion that same-sex behavior
arises not only from heritable but also from individual specific
environmental sources. ... "

2nd link:

" ... New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual orientation in men: female fecundity increase in the maternal line. .. thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males. ... "

DreamOn,

Thanks for talking the time to actually read the papers I link to. I wish my opponents would do the same. Not that I mind too much either way. Having them on the record is the main thing. It is telling, though, when it’s obvious that they haven’t even bothered to click on the links, as was the case with ttbn.

phanto,

You are now left with nothing but two fallacies: shifting the burden of proof and ad hominem. You seem utterly incapable of appreciating the fallaciousness of ad hominems. No matter how many times you’ve been told in the past that what you do constitutes ad hominem, you just keep doing it.

You take the most unflattering possible explanation for the reasoning behind your opponent’s actions and present that as the only possible explanation out of many as to why they say what they say, using your own bogus form of psychology that you make up on the spot to distract from the fact that your position is thoroughly discredited and dead in the water.

Not satisfied to take my word for it that I feel no anxiety and thoroughly enjoy discrediting nonsense, you imply that I just mustn’t be in touch enough with my own feelings to realise that I am actually as anxious as what Dr phanto insists that I must be, and then justify your bogus diagnosis with a non sequitur which presumes that only possible motive behind the defining of a word is a lack of personal insight.

Even if I did start out anxious about the extent to which my position was grounded in reality, that certainly wouldn’t be the case anymore given that your position collapses at even the most cursory scrutiny. Not to mention all our other discussions in which your arguments flopped.

Your amateur psychology fails on multiple levels.

I don’t know what’s different this time. Usually you would have given up by now, but your persistence in flogging a dead horse this time around has allowed those of us still reading this thread to witness a most spectacular meltdown.

Reaction Formation [Reaktionsbildung]...

phanto, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 6:01:13 PM

"If I have made a statement that you equate with a ten year old then it should be easy to refute it"

That statement is: ""You can't be born a homosexual since there is no such thing....."

You have made an assertion. The rules of logic state that you bear the burden of "proving" said assertion. It will be denied credibility of any kind until you do. In order to refute I would be compelled to do so with every possible and imagined assertion in the Universe. This is regarded as impossible by the rules of logic. So you have two choices; [1] Provide compelling evidence and gain credibility. [2] Commit your assertion to competition for a "privileged" position within a hierarchical infinity of assertions.

I could have attributed your statement to a penguin, an ant or a giraffe but the conditions remain unchanged. In the case of [2] your assertion has the same value as if it had remained unsaid by you. For in an infinity of things no position in a hierarchy can be allocated as there can, by definition, be no beginning or end from which to count or measure it. Your assertion is in fact in a kind of limbo with only one small door to the real world. The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that all your unsupported assertions share this fate.

Logic shares with mathematics a certaity of proof that is universally recognised. It is of the type; 2 + 2 = 4, if A = B and B = C then A = C and finally the proof of Pythagoras's theorem re right-angled triangles. If you can save your tattered opinions by refuting mathematics and logic then great riches and a Nobel Prize are yours

A J Philips:

I never mention anxiety at all. I am talking about guilt. I accused you of nagging. When a person is accused of something they examine their conscience. Every human being does this and that includes you. If you do not do it then you have some serious emotional problems.

Instead of examining your conscience and concluding that either you were guilty or you were not you decided to change the subject from one about guilt to one about the meaning of the word nagging. If you felt no guilt then that is all you need to know. If you do not feel guilty then why would you bother going to the dictionary? You don't need that information to know whether or not you feel guilty. The dictionary will not help determine your guilt or otherwise. You can only find out whether you feel guilty or not by being in touch with your own conscience - your own feelings.

This is not psychology it is something that human beings who cannot even read know for sure. Unless of course they have spent a lifetime divorced from their own emotional nature. Every time I appeal to your human nature and your aggressive behaviour this is what you do. You go off and gather as much information and links as you can find. You avoid any emotional acknowledgement and bury you head in the sand of your books.

My 'psychology ' bothers you because it is trying to engage you at the level of being a human being rather than your head. If you are so removed from your own emotions how can anyone take you seriously. You are not trying to quieten me or win arguments nor are you interested in the truth. You are only interested in avoiding any connection with your own feelings. You like to think you are some great scholar but that scholarship is a drug you use to avoid engaging with people at an emotional level.

phanto, Thursday, 18 August 2016 6:14:12 PM

Firstly, my thanks are sent to Dream On for that gem of a human custom in Balinese Hinduism. You jogged a memory that gave up jogging years ago.

"We know for certain that heterosexuals are born that way so in the face of any evidence to the contrary it would be reasonable to assume that everybody is born that way."

No, it would not be reasonable.
Once again you attract the derision and ridicule of those who think before posting. Don't you ever learn? Or is the martyrdom imposed by your betters a perverse way of getting to feel good about yourself?

It is Dream On again who has this time pointed to the latest research on the issue of inheritance and environment as being the cause of same sex affinity [DreamOn, Thursday, 18 August 2016 6:32:35 PM]. When science demonstrates that homosexuality has a biological basis, how will you accommodate this into your world of absolutes? It is as certain as night follows day that science will confound you and your ridiculous assertion in the near future.

"I made a claim that there is no such thing as a homosexual and so they cannot be born that way."

And in the above sentence you condemn yourself. You made a claim that something does not exist. The situation as it stands for you is inevitable, incontrovertible and inescapable in logic. HOWEVER! Your task is an impossible one, because to "prove" a negative assertion one must "disprove" all and every possible and imagined assertions that have ever existed in the Universe.

As I indicated to you, Assertion: "God exists!" The rules of logic dictate that I cannot prove the negative "God does not exist!" The reasoning why is given in the immediately above paragraph.

Hi Pogi,

The Romans said it more succinctly: Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis.

Also known as Hitchens' Razor.

Joe

Pogi:

OK I have made an assertion and provided no evidence. Why should it bother you? People make assertions on this forum plenty of times without evidence. Do you feel the need to take them to task like you are doing to me or is it just this particular assertion that has got under your skin?

What harm does this particular assertion do? They are simply words. Everyone who reads them would look for some evidence to back up this assertion and if they did not find any then they would simply move on. You have not done this but feigned some concern for how I might be damaging my credibility or my legacy. Your credibility and legacy might be important to you but that just shows insecurity since no mature adult should live their lives to impress others.

Are you this concerned about assertions of others which have no evidence or is it just this particular assertion which has caused you to act in such a defensive manner?

The fact that you have been drawn in by such an unfounded assertion surely begs the question why? Why this one? What bothers you about this particular assertion? Are you afraid that even though there is not supporting evidence there might be an element of truth in it?

Thankyou *Pogi* but it was really AJ's links that really "put the matter to bed." ;-)

I was most pleased just to receive a high pass and participate in the slam dunking of *Phanto* and the rest of these disgusting homophobes

(some with affiliations to these "pedophile friend" churches)

They have no humility these people, when time and time again it has been shown that they have been so terribly wrong, with horrific consequences, and yet, some of them are as deluded as ever as to continue to want and inflict them selves on us in a most unreasonable and unacceptable manner.

Pogi:

"Once again you attract the derision and ridicule of those who think before posting. Don't you ever learn?"

I don't care about the derision or ridicule of others so why would you want to mention it unless to were trying to make me feel bad and why do you want to try and make me feel bad.

"When science demonstrates that homosexuality has a biological basis, how will you accommodate this into your world of absolutes? "

I'll worry about that when it happens. Since it has not happened then my assertion remains just as likely to be true as the opposite.

"It is as certain as night follows day that science will confound you and your ridiculous assertion in the near future."

Do you have any evidence for that assertion of certainty? You know that the rules of logic dictate that assertions must have evidence or else you risk being ridiculed?

" You made a claim that something does not exist."

You have made a claim that homosexuals exist without any evidence. What is the difference

More amateur psychology, phanto?

<<If you do not [examine your conscience] then you have some serious emotional problems.>>

Please cite the research supporting this.

<<Instead of examining your conscience ... you decided to change the subject from one about guilt to one about the meaning of the word nagging.>>

I made no such decision. Your misunderstanding of the word “nag” was in need of correcting, however.

<<If you felt no guilt then that is all you need to know.>>

Correct.

<<If you do not feel guilty then why would you bother going to the dictionary?>>

To provide my correction with some authority.

<<The dictionary will not help determine your guilt or otherwise.>>

Correct.

<<You can only find out whether you feel guilty or not by being in touch with your own conscience - your own feelings.>>

That's beautiful.

<<This is not psychology it is something that human beings who cannot even read know for sure.>>

I’m glad you're consigning your unfounded assessments to the spiritual bin.

<<Every time I appeal to your human nature and your aggressive behaviour … You avoid any emotional acknowledgement and bury you head in the sand of your books.

Yeah, “aggressive”, so much for your newfound intuitive side.

Otherwise, I should certainly hope I bury my head in books. Emotions prove themselves time and time again to be a poor means upon which to base opinions.

<<My 'psychology' bothers you because it is trying to engage you at the level of being a human being rather than your head.>>

No, it bothers me because it's pure guesswork and completely wrong.

<<If you are so removed from your own emotions how can anyone take you seriously.>>

That would actually be a reason TO take me seriously.

<<You are not ... interested in the truth.>>

You're the one getting into all the spiritual hokum.

<<You like to think you are some great scholar ... to avoid engaging with people at an emotional level.>>

No, but I am mistaken for one regularly on OLO by those who think that's an insult. Nevertheless, I'll take that as a compliment.

There remain ongoing serious concerns of course. I believe some members (and yet to be members) of the LGBT community are still being terribly demonised. And herein also we find some of the worst hypocrasy. As where exactly does the "moral agency" of the author figure in when some parent or school teacher

(can you imagine someone which is a mish mash of some of the characteristics of some of the worst homophobes in this place?)

is attempting to say, make "their" homosexual child a man by sending him to one of these schools that advertise quite openly on their public web site that homosexuality (amongst other things) is an abomination.

Well may we EnShrine the "Rights of the Child" and protect them from their misguided parents and teachers as well.

phanto, Friday, 19 August 2016 4:40:43 PM

"Are you this concerned about assertions of others which have no evidence or is it just this particular assertion which has caused you to act in such a defensive manner?"

The assertion of yours was a random choice, there is nothing indicative that you might apply your puerile psychology to. The issue of the causes behind homosexuality was a worthy one as it will consign you and your execrable notions to the garbage bin within a few years.

There can be no doubt that you are a fundamentalist christian creationist and YEC. You weren't born like that. Someone carefully nurtured you and inculcated into you the awful notions you now hold. I can assure you no one here is congratulating you on your insightful revelations. Both runner and ttbn seem to find you unworthy of their attention.

"They are simply words. Everyone who reads them would look for some evidence to back up this assertion and if they did not find any then they would simply move on."

You are not only wrong, you are deliberately lying, as the presence of AJP, DreamOn, Loudmouth, Toni Lavis, Robert, Yuyutsu, Banjo Paterson, Daffy Duck etc, attest.

" Since it has not happened then my assertion remains just as likely to be true as the opposite."

It means your deliberately unevidenced assertion is worthless. Objective, useful, logical information is wasted on you, isn't it? You're a genuine waste of space yourself.

"" You made a claim that something does not exist."[Pogi accuses Phanto of making this claim]

You have made a claim that homosexuals exist without any evidence. What is the difference"

Albert Einstein observed; "Two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former." I'm sure he had an encounter with someone like you that prompted him to write of his experience. I have pointed to the difference several times, apparently to no avail. Well, being as thick as two planks is no detriment to a fundamentalist. In fact it's been a positive asset to you.

You’re very slow to learn, aren’t you, phano?

<<OK I have made an assertion and provided no evidence. Why should it bother you?>>

Because http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof, and you state your assertions as incontrovertible facts.

<<What harm does this particular assertion do? … Everyone who reads them would look for some evidence to back up this assertion...>>

I don’t think you really believe this, and you’d be right not to. Why would you bother expressing unfounded opinions if you did? I don’t think most people look for evidence for the claims they read. Especially if they were already inclined to believe them.

<<I'll worry about that when [science demonstrates that homosexuality has a biological basis].>>

Here’s those links again:

http://www.behavioralneuroscience.org/neurogenetics_files/La%CC%8Angstro%CC%88m%20et%20al.%20-%202010%20-%20Archives%20of%20sexual%20behavior.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/12572213_Genetics_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Its_Correlates_in_an_Australian_Twin_Sample/links/0deec518bc0435c0cd000000.pdf

DreamOn picked out two choice quotes in case you don’t feel like reading all that. It appears you missed all the fun, or are you just ignoring it because it’s inconvenient? Perhaps the evidence doesn't count when you're talking to someone else? Is that it?

<<Since [homosexuality has not been demonstrated to have a biological basis,] my assertion remains just as likely to be true as the opposite.>>

No, it doesn’t. Had you actually had some formal qualifications in psychology, like some here, then you would understand that all behaviour has at least some biological basis, but sometimes pinpointing it can be difficult.

<<Do you have any evidence for that assertion of certainty?>>

See above.

And you were the one with the burden of proof. *Tsk tsk* Very disappointing.

Dear Pogi,

I noticed that you cited my name as if I claimed that Phanto is deliberately lying.

- I never claimed anything like it.

While I respect Phanto's views on many other issues, on this specific tiresome issue of homosexuality, I believe that he happens to be wrong, but certainly not lying deliberately. To summarise my views in response to his main claims:

Phanto: "Heterosexual behaviour can be reasonable but homosexual behaviour is never reasonable"
Me: I believe that neither is reasonable.

Phanto: "what they do will always be a poor simulation of the best sexual experience"
Me: All types of sex are a poor simulation of love.

Phanto: "If homosexuals are born that way then they have been given a very poor deal by nature"
Me: Anyone who is born a slave to their bodily passion has been given a very poor deal by nature, regardless who/what/which happen to be the object(s) of those passions.

Phanto: "The highest pursuit you can have is to live life to the full."
Me: The highest pursuit you can have is to get over your addiction to earthly life.

Phanto: "No one has sex only for procreation"
Me: Many do, that's not to say that I place them on a pedestal. I believe that procreation is wrong in this day and age of extreme overpopulation.

---

Dear DreamOn,

«I believe some members (and yet to be members) of the LGBT community are still being terribly demonised»

And rightly so, not for their sexual traits but for politicising them.

There are beggars in India who make a living of showing tourists their disgusting wounds and missing/distorted limbs - I similarly view those who identify with the LGBT or any other sexually-based community, heterosexual too.

Except for a very rare few saints, we are all born afflicted with sexuality of one kind or another. Nobody should be demonised for it, but nobody should fuss over it and be proud of it either.

Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 20 August 2016 8:16:27 PM

*DreamOn*
«I believe some members (and yet to be members) of the LGBT community are still being terribly demonised»

*Yuyutsu*
" ... And rightly so, not for their sexual traits but for politicising them. ... "

It is the very laws themselves which require changing so it necessarily follows that the matter needs to be politicised. And part of that is public debate and education. And why should they not be able to freely air their grievances as any other resident who rights arguably are being infringed upon?

" ... There are beggars in India who make a living of showing tourists their disgusting wounds and missing/distorted limbs ... "

And is this entirely their own fault in your view? And there is self harm in the mix there too I believe but when the Indian government is so capable as to provide better opportunities for these folk too I am sure they will be all "ears."

" ... - I similarly view those who identify with the LGBT or any other sexually-based community, heterosexual too. ... "

I am having trouble understanding this one, would you like to rephrase?

" ... Except for a very rare few saints, we are all born afflicted with sexuality of one kind or another. ... "

Afflicted!? You must be evolving into a higher form of only partially corporeal life *YY* with only a limited need for your physical body. .. Sexuality is a tonic, a healer, a rejuvenator. I accept that it not without its downsides, but on balance, I wouldn't want to be without it.

and then you say *YY*

" ... Nobody should be demonised for it, ... "

contrary to what you have said above if I am not mistaken. Would you like to take a moment to retract and rephrase?

" ... but nobody should fuss over it and be proud of it either. ... "

Why not?

Dear DreamOn,

«It is the very laws themselves which require changing»

There have been bad laws in the past regarding homosexuality, but they are long gone now.

«And why should they not be able to freely air their grievances as any other resident who rights arguably are being infringed upon?»

What grievances do homosexuals still have which others don't?

Homosexuals can already marry each other, even tonight! Nothing stops them except perhaps this perverse desire to receive a piece-of-paper from the government which nobody should be receiving anyway. Government should not define our personal relationships, in fact it should not even know about them.

I have many grievances about Australian laws too, I too am in a minority in several other areas of life, probably in even smaller minorities than homosexuals, bi-sexuals, transgenders, etc. Nothing stops me from freely airing my grievances, but nothing stops them from keeping their oppressive laws either. Do you really think that politicians ever listen?

By asking government for this piece-of-paper you actually strengthen their control. Why fight separately about this or that specific problem when we can fight together for the total abolition of state control over our lives?

«would you like to rephrase?»

Being seduced and having our mind polluted by our body's sexual tendencies (whatever sexual-object(s) they happen to be directed at, it makes no difference) is a weakness of character. 99.9999% of us are imperfectly afflicted by this seduction to one degree or another. This is OK, we are not angels, we should not be demonised over it but we should not be proud of it either.

«Sexuality is a tonic, a healer, a rejuvenator.»

This is an illusion: what actually happens is that sexuality already troubles one's mind, then during or immediately following the physical sexual act, the mind is temporarily vacated of desire and this is felt as a healing relief. Just imagine how rejuvenated you could constantly be if the desire was absent from your mind to begin with!

«Why not?»

The more you fuss about sex, the stronger it will persist in your mind and torment it.

Yuyutsu, Saturday, 20 August 2016 8:16:27 PM

Yuyutsu writes: "I noticed that you cited my name as if I claimed that Phanto is deliberately lying."

Pogi replies: I realise a cursory reading of my own paragraph in isolation might determine as you suggest.

Phanto wrote: "They are simply words. Everyone who reads them would look for some evidence to back up this assertion and if they did not find any then they would simply move on."

Pogi replied: You are not only wrong, you are deliberately lying, as the presence of AJP, DreamOn, Loudmouth, Toni Lavis, Robert, Yuyutsu, Banjo Paterson, Daffy Duck etc, attest.

Pogi replies: However, when read in conjunction with Phanto's post the intention in my own post is made clear. [a] Let us look at, "Everyone who reads them would look for some evidence to back up this assertion....." The assertion that "everyone" would would look for evidence is clearly directly contradicted by many posts in this topic, especially as Phanto has declared that he is too intelectually indigent to provide evidence or his posts bear the imprimatur of eternal and inviolable truth simply because he claims so. In my estimation both conditions apply. My judgement of him is that he knows his assertion is false, hence he is lying.

[b] Then let us look at the second part of his assertion, "....and if they did not find any then they would simply move on." Here Phanto has made another assertion that he knows full well is untrue. "Everyone" is understood to apply here as it does in [a]. None of those listed above have declared they are not interested in continuing to contribute and have not necessarily moved on. Most of them are maintaining a vigorous and vociferous presence. He even replies to them! Again, in my estimation, Phanto is undeserving of leniency or being allowed literary licence.

I can find no good reason to interpret what I wrote as suggesting you shared any of my thoughts or intentions. Nevertheless I will remain vigilant so that I will continue to be innocent of disturbing your equanimity.

phanto? Are you still there? It… it’s just that I’m feeling a bit insecure about my beliefs at the moment and need to debate someone so that I can reassure myself of them. Please. It’s really bad this time. I keep trying to remind myself that if I really were feeling insecure about my beliefs then I wouldn’t feel the need to say so, but it’s not working.

Hi DreamON,

I suspect that the situation is far worse than you suggest: "I believe some members (and yet to be members) of the LGBT community are still being terribly demonised."

There may actually be people out there, probably bigots every one of them, who don't give a flying toss about LGBTI issues. As is their right.

Even more dreadful, some people may still regard heterosexuality as normal. Some of those utter bastards may not care particularly about homosexual issues. They may even be 'homophobes'. As is their right.

Suck it up.

Joe

phanto,

You were right! I’ve been trying a bit of meditation and yoga to assist in my attempts to “examine my conscience”, and I had a spiritual awakening that felt like Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Now all my guilt over “nagging” you has suddenly surfaced and it’s unbearable!

I’ve taken your advice and am now thinking with my emotions instead of my brain, but all that’s happened so far is that I’ve developed a gluten intolerance and require a strictly-organic, non-GMO paleo diet because that’s what my intuition tells me is right. The conservative in me, however, wants to find God and deny climate change.

I’m growing a big beard and only drink craft beer now, but nothing helps. Could it be the immeasurably small amounts of scary-sounding metals and chemicals in the vaccines that Big Pharma fooled my parents into thinking I needed? Would reading some Deepak Chopra help, do you think?

Oh please help, phanto!

--

Joe,

How does the fact that there are people out there who don’t care about these issues make the situation “far worse”?

<<There may actually be people out there ... who don't give a flying toss about LGBTI issues.>>

There’s bound to be important issues that just can’t get me mobilised. We can’t expect to be interested in every important issue. People just don’t have that much energy. For example, if you’re right and the stolen generation is all a myth, then spreading the word would be important, but stuffed if you’d get me off my arse to do that.

<<...some people may still regard heterosexuality as normal. Some ... may not care particularly about homosexual issues.>>

So long as they don’t treat gay people as though they were abnormal or attempt to spread unfounded ideas, then that’s fine too.

But thank you for letting us know, in spectacular fashion, that you don’t give a toss about these issues, despite the benefits to be had. Personally, I want a less discriminatory society to live in and I’m not afraid, as a heterosexual, to admit that some of the reasons for that are selfish.

Hi AJ,

Sorry, I was trying to stay on DreamOn's good side, but couldn't keep it up for long. No, I don't care about homosexual issues, and I don't have to. As you say, there are many issues for one to get interested in, and that's not really one of them.

I certainly think that being homosexual and practising homosexuality should be legal, as they are, and anybody should be able to ponce around dressed as they like and get themselves docked if they like, provided they are consenting adults. But I don't have to care, any more than I have to take sides in some pointless argument about the superiority of Toohey's over whatever the beer is in Melbourne. Foster's. All dishwater compared to Cooper's.

Good luck to homosexuals, polyamorists, dog-lovers, whatever. But don't expect everybody to give it the time of day: it's their right not to, as you point out.

Joe

I'm still feeling a bit astounded by *YY's* post.

But *Joe* whilst I can appreciate what you say, from a certain "limited" perspective, the problem to me is this.

Whether it is child abuse (physical,sexual, psychological or otherwise) or Human Rights abuses more broadly, we should have zero tolerance for it.

It is worth baring in mind that if you allow your guvment to do this, and allow them to refuse to be held to account, sooner or later they will be abusing someone a bit closer to you.

So, in my book, you can be personally staunchly opposed to other than hetero, but you can still say no to discrimination and inequality, you can still say no to child abuse, regardless of whose kids they are, you can still say no to human rights abuses, even if they are your enemy.

..

And there is bad blood in the community. Over the ages, through place and time, the minority communities in question have been abused. And, not unsurprisingly, they resist oppression .. by for example .. having a mardi gras

(really dangerous radical stuff admittedly)

No, Joe, you don’t have to care any more.

<<But I don't have to care, any more than I have to take sides in some pointless argument about the superiority of Toohey's over whatever the beer is in Melbourne. Foster's. All dishwater compared to Cooper's.>>

But any decent human being would given that there are tangible implications to the marriage equality issue.

<<Good luck to homosexuals, polyamorists, dog-lovers, whatever. But don't expect everybody to give it the time of day: it's their right not to, as you point out.>>

Thanks for the False-Comparison-Bordering-on-Slippery-Slope fallacy. I’ve been waiting for it on this thread and was starting to think it was never going to happen. Thanks for pulling through for us.

Your comparisons are no more valid than they would be had they been applied to interracial marriages.

Hi DreamOn,

A lot of 'ifs' there :) Your progression from child abuse, through uncaring governments, to child abuse near me, is a little tenuous, and irrelevant.

Child abuse is happening, on a horrific scale, in many Indigenous 'communities', perhaps fifty times more likely there than in an 'average' Australian home, i.e. about two hundred times more likely than in Mosman or Toorak. Infant and child deaths are probably in the same ratio. THAT is an issue. Dreadfully short life expectancy in some Indigenous 'communities' is another critical issue. Being able to find the best fresh kale or make-up is NOT an issue.

Frankly, I've never seen anything particularly radical or progressive about homosexual activities: do it all you like, but don't call it radical or progressive. Maybe because I come from a working-class background, I've always seen much of it as a sort of middle- and more particularly upper-class perversion. So sue me.

And what is stopping homosexuals doing whatever they liked within the existing law ?

Let's move on to more important issues.

Joe

Hi AJ,

I'm certainly not asking you to 'care' about inter-racial marriages, simply to recognise that they are quite legal and always have been in Australia. They are, and have been, a marriage between a man and a woman. There was never any need to change any marriage law in order for it to happen. Great.

As for my unkind crack how can ' .... people out there who don’t care about these issues make the situation “far worse”?

<<There may actually be people out there ... who don't give a flying toss about LGBTI issues.>>

By not taking any particular notice: that may be the cruellest thing to do, even worse than the odd smack in the mouth, if that ever happens.

There are very serious issues in the world today, so I look forward to the day when people can get over themselves and rise above trivia, and do something useful for the rest of the world. No, not the ME-generation.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

I recognise that they are legal and always have been in Australia.

<<I'm certainly not asking you to 'care' about inter-racial marriages, simply to recognise that they are quite legal and always have been in Australia.>>

Why is it so important to you that I do, though? I have, after all, already explained why that’s irrelevant to my analogy.

<<They are, and have been, a marriage between a man and a woman. There was never any need to change any marriage law in order for it to happen. Great.>>

This is irrelevant to anything. Again…

“So are you saying, then, that there does need to be a different word for same-sex marriage because it will have gone from not-legislated-for to legislated-for? Where’s the logic in that?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327726)

<<By not taking any particular notice: that may be the cruellest thing to do, even worse than the odd smack in the mouth, if that ever happens.>>

That’s a good point. I was trying to be understanding, but now that you mention it, I suppose those who don’t give a toss are almost as guilty as the religious moderates who enable the extremists through their passive support.

<<There are very serious issues in the world today, so I look forward to the day when people can get over themselves and rise above trivia, and do something useful for the rest of the world. No, not the ME-generation.>>

I fail to see what relevance the ‘me’ generation has to do with this. This issue, after all, does not arrive out of selfishness any more than equal rights for people of colour did, and would be close to it on the scale of “usefulness”. There is nothing "trivial" about it. I’ve explained why this is the case many times on OLO before. I’m sorry you missed it.

I think *LoudMouth* has missed more than a few things actually.

It is not complicated Joe. Simply, if you care about issues such as discrimination and abuse then it automatically follows that you will care about issues such as those we are discussing.

And what about some of us here? It may, say in my case for example, be that I am not personally being harassed. I am not personally being discriminated against in regards to my relationship, which enjoys the full support of the Marriage Act. My BeLoved will share equally in the fruits of our labour and not someone else and so on.

And some of YuYutsu's earlier comments about there being no bad laws in effect visa vi this topic were so ignorant as to not even be worth commenting on.

So, Joe asks us why should we care and "reminds" us that there are more pressing issues at play that demand our attention.

Societies are judged by some in terms of how well they care for their most vulnerable members.

What exactly is the nature of the moral agency of the author if it supports discrimination and abuse?

It disgusts me that some of the religious bigotry we see in some of the schools for example is tolerated.

Though, I am Heartened to see sensible actions such as the new order visa vi vaccinations, that being the end to conscientious objection on religious grounds.

And Heartened further that the Rights of the Child are being strengthened in ways such as their right to Privacy, say as it is now with the vaccination record requiring the child's consent prior to release.

Much more needs to be done in my view. Verily, the Politicians needs some new "hymns." .. Break free from the Shadows of the past .. Put the bar up a bit higher, and get ahead of the 8 ball.

Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 21 August 2016 8:52:30 PM

"<<They are, and have been, a marriage between a man and a woman. There was never any need to change any marriage law in order for it to happen. Great.>>

This is irrelevant to anything. Again… "

..

I would say that there must be transparency. And, there must be peer review. Having that, we ought be able to determine the reasons why the law, as it was in the past, was written in the way it was and if it was based on some of the discredited views akin to those that we have seen here, then what we have in the here and now is an archaic law based on archaic, discredited views.

Let's all shed a tear for the "Pillars of Salt" amongst us, for it is not the strong who survive, but those most capable of adapting to change.

..

LoudMouth, your claim needs to be substantiated. I don't know, but I am inclined to believe that your view about inter-racial marriage as it was historically is not the full story. Australia had churches like some of those in South Africa, or is that not true?