Leo Lane seems to engage with perverting definitions to suit a failing agenda. Let's amuse ourselves with his perversions and ask, are heterosexual people who engage in certain sexual practices perverts too? What about homosexuals who do not engage in anal sex? According to LL they are not perverts. The same would apply to lesbians...oh but hang on, what if some of them too enjoy a little anal stimulation?

What LL has clearly demonstrated is that it is not possible to have a rational discussion, let alone any form of coherent argument, with those who pervert definitions to suit their flawed agendas. That is also evidenced by their responses that resort to insulting people as some sort of means of having a 'comeback'. It is also perverting the course of the discussion to take the focus away from same-sex marriage and focus on sexual activity. That's just perverted fodder for the psychiatrist...but thanks for showing where your mind is at LL.

Minotaur:

Why does the sexual behaviour of same-sex couples seem relevant to you? Why are you so concerned about Leo Lanes’s description of homosexual people? Why does it matter?

Same-sex marriage is about two people of the same sex being able to marry – not two people of the same sexuality. Do same sex couples have to be homosexuals or should two heterosexual people also be able to marry others of the same sex. If it is about gender then why bother arguing about sexuality. You do not have to prove the validity of homosexuality – just prove the gender.

I do not see the point of arguing the toss about homosexuality when gender is the issue.

Phanto, I was responding to Leo Lane who seems to believe sexual acts are very important. Take it up with him.

If they want equality, they already have it... they simply have to marry someone of the opposite sex, because that is what marriage is about.... The Union of a man and a woman.

We don't call Tennis, Cricket or Golf, Soccer... they are all different things and Marriage is and has been for millenia the Union of a man and a woman, why would anyone want to change the definition and tradition for a handful of delusional people and the social agenda of the progressive Left?

Clearly it has been shown in 2 major studies that the majority of homosexuals are not interested in marriage or a change in lifestyle.

Leo Lane,

Again, asking one to justify one's claim is never "stupid".

<<... I was asked a stupid question, by you, …>>

It can prevent oneself or others believing baseless claims. Like yours.

<<... because you pressed a question which has a self evident answer.>>

Yes, an answer so self-evident you apparently can't provide it. Go on, resort to abuse again.

<<... the “coming out” is evidence that they are homosexual, and being homosexual is evidence of perversion.>>

So I gave you too much credit then. Your argument is still just that homosexuality is perversion because it just is.

<<I have proved what I asserted.>>

No, you have only asserted and re-asserted. You have still provided no evidence whatsoever.

<<I accept that you have no valid answer to my assertions …>>

Oh but I do. It's that you have no evidence for your claim, and we're both demonstrating that now.

--

T800,

So gay people have to marry people that they will not be emotionally or sexually attracted to?

<<If they want equality, they already have it... they simply have to marry someone of the opposite sex …>>

That’s not equality.

<<... because that is what marriage is about.... The Union of a man and a woman.>>

Social constructs are continuously evolving. I sense a fallacy coming on...

<<... Marriage is and has been for millenia the Union of a man and a woman …>>

There is it. The Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

<<... why would anyone want to change the definition and tradition for a handful of delusional people ...?>>

For better equality. You haven’t demonstrated that supporters of same-sex marriage are delusional. Nor that the social agenda of some is deleterious or sinister.

<<Clearly it has been shown in 2 major studies that the majority of homosexuals are not interested in marriage or a change in lifestyle.>>

It doesn't matter if none of them want it. All that matters is the possibility that some might one day want to marry.

--

phanto,

Why don't you ever reprimand those with whom you agree? Don't look down. Your insincerity is showing.

ROTFLMAO AJ... honestly, you take the cake mate.

"It doesn't matter if none of them want it. All that matters is the possibility that some might one day want to marry."

So lets call Cricket Soccer in case some Soccer players want to play Cricket one day? Huh? You call that logic? You call that a reason for redefining something that has been accepted for millennia? Really?
ROTFLMAO...

Let them call it something else. Problem solved.