Those who want to get married are not a side to it: those who want to get married, get married and live happily ever after, with or without a silly piece of paper.

This whole business from the outset was about Christian-bashing (and no, I am not a Christian). It never had anything to do with homosexuality - that was only a pretext. There are some people in the community who are very angry, probably at what they experienced in their childhood in Christian families (whether or not the behaviour of their abusive parents/guardians had in fact anything truly to do with Christianity), and some of those would never be placated until and unless all Christians end up in the gas chambers.

A peaceful plebiscite would not be sufficient for such people who rather punish the Christians themselves.

The question is, what is a libertarian Senator doing in such company and why would he vote to expand a government function that should not have existed in the first place.

“The polls have always shown substantial majority of public support for same sex marriage in Australia, and if the socially conservative Irish could manage to vote in favour, we would certainly have done it too.”

The polls are rubbish. What people say for fear of being bullied and threatened by Left thugs is different from what they say in the polling booth. This politician would be one of the very few people who doesn't agree with the homos that they would be done in a plebiscite. The Irish, of course, have been so cowered by the priests for so long that they would agree to anything that the priests did not like. We are not Irish.

He can mouth off as much as he likes about how, if the senate had not once again interferred with democracy, homos would be 'marrying' right, left and centre because he knows that his claim will neve be tested now. This politician is among the very worst when it comes to understanding people and how they think.

The only polling figure that is probably near accurate is Turbull's 29% approval rating, which will ensure the frightening election of Labor at the next election. And that's all the queers and freaks need: the socialists will legalise SSM, and the hard Left will then be free to look for even more ways to drag Australia down.

“my approach was to ask politicians of all stripes to recognise that legislating about private relationships was not their job.”

It is not their job to define who is married and who is not but it is their job to define what a couple is so that certain rights and privileges can be afforded couples on the basis of the closeness of their relationship to one another.

They already do this. There is a very precise definition of what constitutes a couple for the sake of distributing those rights. The problem is that they give benefits to married couples that are not available to other couples who have the same level of closeness in their relationship. They actually discriminate in favour of people who have a marriage certificate for no other reason than they have gone through the formality of obtaining the piece of paper.

That piece of paper gives them rights over other couples when all couples should be treated equally. The rights and privileges that the government distributes are human rights and should be given to all who apply and fit the criteria. Obtaining a piece of paper should not give you more advantages over others unless it is evidence of more appropriate worth.

Couples who seek the piece of paper from the government are actually thumbing their nose at their fellow citizens who also live as a couple. The government is doing the wrong thing by discriminating but it does not mean that unmarried couples should be a party to the discrimination.

When the Labor Gillard government extended the definition of de facto and included homosexuals, there was great mirth and celebration among the bureaucrats, lawyers and other professionals who stood to gain mightily themselves, be that from family law disputes or from the employment entitlements that the educated middle class extracted from their employment, with the federal public service for example.

Some delay after, the complaints surfaced from the herd, the lower-class gays who found that while their betters, particularly the gay pollies and middle to senior public bureaucrats did well out of Gillard's (actually the ideologically driven Nicola Roxon's) de facto changes, there was only downside for the less well to do. The public was to hear much wailing that gays actually didn't figure that they had to register their de facto partnerships with Centrelink for instance, because 'de facto' was a concept that was 'alien' to them.

I don't believe that male homosexuals especially ever wanted anything else but to continue their highly flexible 'outlaw' lifestyles, thumbing their noses at the State control and institutionalisation of heterosexual relationships and especially marriage.

Many, most, Gays might reflect now on what brought them to this impasse, where the State now tells them when they are in a relationship and what sort it is. The lawyers make a meal out of the partings that used to be done so informally.

They should never have let those feminists like Roxon sweet talk them into allowing the feminists to lead.. They always were controlling and no, the interests and 'rights' of gays were not their first, or second, or even third concern. The attention-seeking, 'look at moi' serial-activist Gay Pride lot were just window dressing and easily convinced that they were actually managing things. What jokes they are.

Dear Joel,

And why should heterosexuals be discriminated against?

I knew a lady in her 70's who found the love of her life in an older gentleman, but she was careful to visit him only 3 nights a week lest she loses the age pension. What if she too was allowed a highly flexible 'outlaw' lifestyle?

By your account, the gays got what they wanted, but not the homosexuals: "gay" is a political orientation, not a sexual one. It should quite insult a real homosexual to be called that way.

ttbn,

Polls are usually conducted by phone. I hardly think people are going to be too afraid to express their bigoted views to a faceless voice. Whatever helps you to keep your head in the sand, though, I suppose.

--

phanto,

Not if de facto couples have the choice to get married too.

<<Couples who seek the piece of paper from the government are actually thumbing their nose at their fellow citizens who also live as a couple.>>

If heterosexual de facto couples want the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, then a couple of hundred bucks and a trip down to the registry office is all they need to arrange that. Why is that too much to ask?

Your flawed reasoning could be applied to any two (or more) people who are bound by a contract versus those who are not.

Your attempt to cry foul comes across as insincere and unconvincing.

--

Yuyutsu,

I think it’s time to concede that this distinction you’ve invented between ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ really isn’t catching on. Let’s face it, you’re just not going to succeed by limiting it to OLO. How about you write a book about it instead? That's how Richard Dawkins coined the word 'meme'.

--

This more socially-acceptable What-is-the-government-doing-in-the-marriage-business-anyway? approach is brilliant! Why didn't anyone think of it in the US when interracial marriage was looking to be legalised in certain states?

Just imagine how petulant and childish it would look if we were to repeal the Marriage Act just because we didn't want a certain group being able to marry, though!

Now that's a good way to further marginalise a minority.

Given TTbn usual posturing about homosexuality there is no doubt that he/she has felt a stirring in his/her loins when spending time with the same sex. Maybe he/she felt a tingle getting a hug from a close friend.
Can I suggest despite your misgiving you embrace your sexuality and give it a go take a walk on the wild side TTbn.

Phillips:

“Not if de facto couples have the choice to get married too.”

Why should they have to get married to obtain what should be rightfully theirs without marriage? That would be an irrational approach to their relationship with their government. Governments should not withhold rights unless there is a good reason to do so and anyone who allows them to get away with it lacks dignity and self-respect.

“If heterosexual de facto couples want the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, then a couple of hundred bucks and a trip down to the registry office is all they need to arrange that. Why is that too much to ask?”

If it is not much to ask then why bother asking it at all? How does a couple of hundred bucks and a trip to the registry office make them any more worthy of those rights? Are governments in the business of selling off human rights now?

“Your flawed reasoning could be applied to any two (or more) people who are bound by a contract versus those who are not.”

Those rights should not be distributed according to the possession of a contract. There is no reason why you should have a contract in order to obtain what is rightfully yours from the government. It should be irrelevant to the government whether you have a contract or not.

“Your attempt to cry foul comes across as insincere and unconvincing.”

My sincerity is not really relevant here. The only issue is who has the best arguments. You should focus on the arguments and not my feelings.

phanto,

That depends on what exactly you think should be rightfully theirs without a marriage contract.

<<Why should they have to get married to obtain what should be rightfully theirs without marriage?>>

What if a couple doesn’t want the responsibilities of marriage in the event that the relationship breaks down? Should we just create an ‘anti-marriage’ certificate for those instances instead? No, it makes more sense to have couples - who want to be legally bound - enter a contract, as this situation occurs less frequently than does the formation of romantic relationships.

<<Governments should not withhold rights unless there is a good reason to do so and anyone who allows them to get away with it lacks dignity and self-respect.>>

No rights are being withheld. Again, they are free to enter a marriage contract if that’s what they want.

<<If [marriage] is not much to ask then why bother asking it at all?>>

Because many won’t want the arrangement. An opt-out system for less-committed couples in newer relationships makes less sense than the current opt-in system, because, again, romantic relationships are formed more frequently than are marriages. You don't think most people have entered more marriages than they have romantic relationships, do you?

I didn't think so.

You are going nowhere with this line of reasoning.

<<How does a couple of hundred bucks and a trip to the registry office make them any more worthy of those rights?>>

It doesn’t. There is a difference between qualification and worthiness.

<<Are governments in the business of selling off human rights now?>>

No.

<<My sincerity is not really relevant here.>>

It is when your lack of it is so revealing.

<<You should focus on the arguments and not my feelings.>>

I have said nothing about your feelings. Your insincerity reveals your motivations (or at least a disconnect between what you say and why you are saying it) not your feelings.

Phillips:

“That depends on what exactly you think should be rightfully theirs without a marriage contract.”

Everything that it is available to those who have a marriage licence from the government. Which things would you deny them of and why?

“No, it makes more sense to have couples - who want to be legally bound - enter a contract, as this situation occurs less frequently than does the formation of romantic relationships.”

They can have a ‘contract’ if they want one but the government does not need to be a party to it. The government only needs to have a relationship to couples as couples. For the government to meet their commitments it is sufficient to know who are couples according to the government’s own definition. Any extraneous characteristics of that relationship are irrelevant. The government is not interested in romantic relationships. It has nothing to say about them. It is only interested in those who live as a couple according to its definition of a couple.

“No rights are being withheld. Again, they are free to enter a marriage contract if that’s what they want.”

They are being withheld if you put unreasonable conditions on people having those rights. Having to be married is an unreasonable condition.

“romantic relationships are formed more frequently than are marriages.”

Romantic relationships are not the issue. We are talking about people who meet the criteria established by the government which makes them a couple. Romantic relationships do not meet that criteria.

“It doesn’t. There is a difference between qualification and worthiness.”

So what qualifies them other than a visit to the registry and a few hundred bucks?

“Your insincerity reveals your motivations”

What relevance are my motivations? We don’t make judgements on issues of government policy based on the perceived motivations of either side of the arguers. We make them based on the logic of the argument.

De facto couples are not denied anything, phanto.

<<Which things would you deny them of and why?>>

Once again, they have the freedom to enter a marriage if they please. So long as they’re not the same sex, of course.

<<They can have a ‘contract’ if they want one …>>

So, then they get all the additional complexity and expense, without any of the benefits that marriage's standardisation offers?

Good luck selling that one!

<<… but the government does not need to be a party to it.>>

It does if you want to reap the benefits of a standardised system.

<<For the government to meet their commitments …>>

It’s not just about the government.

<<… it is sufficient to know who are couples according to the government’s own definition.>>

There is no reason the government must stop at “sufficient”.

<<It is only interested in those who live as a couple according to its definition of a couple.>>

So now you want to discriminate against couples who don’t live with each other? Where’s their “human rights”?

You see what happens when you’re not honest about your real motivations? You contradict yourself all over the place because you have to make it all up on the fly. Like lying, you need to remember what you’ve said.

<<[Rights] are being withheld if you put unreasonable conditions on [attaining them].>>

A trip to the registry office is more reasonable than expecting expensive contracts to be drawn up that are too complex and varied to be of any use in emergency situations. Your contracts would have more problems than marriage, with none of the benefits. And all in the name of a feigned concern for rights.

<<Having to be married is an unreasonable condition.>>

Why?

<<So what qualifies them other than a visit to the registry …>>

Other than being in a heterosexual relationship? Nothing. That’s the point.

<<What relevance are my motivations?>>

Oh? Suddenly motivations no longer matter to you?

“… I think your motivation is suspect.” - phanto (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18217#323736)

Your motivations are relevant because they reveal the disingenuousness of this bogus libertarian line.

We already have two standards. Why should marriage be the standard?

"Your motivations are relevant because they reveal the disingenuousness of this bogus libertarian line."

Disingenuousness is not relevant - only arguments are relevant.

phanto,

There is a difference between having A standard, and assigning something to be THE standard.

<<We already have two standards. Why should marriage be the standard?>>

I’m not suggesting that it should be. Marriage does, however, offer STANDARDISATION. Which is useful in all sorts of circumstances.

Circumstances which require two people to have considered their relationship seriously, and contemplated the level of trust they are willing to place in each other.

Circumstances which require more commitment and trust than, say, the relationship of a pair of horny kids who have shacked-up together ‘cause mum and dad suck, and they wanna smoke weed.

<<Disingenuousness is not relevant …>>

It is if it suggests bigotry, as bigotry is harmful.

<<… only arguments are relevant.>>

Arguments certainly are important, which is why I discredit yours before concerning myself with your disingenuousness.

--

Speaking of disingenuousness, though. I loved this bit from the article:

<<To reinforce that, they came up with an argument that relies on a remarkably stereotypical, if not homophobic, premise - that gay and lesbian people are just too fragile to countenance a public debate.>>

Suddenly were worried about gay people.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that giving bigots a platform with a public debate would have resulted in increased mental health issues. Indeed, it has done exactly that in other countries.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=marriage+equality+debate+mental+health&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

<<Apparently this affliction only applies to Australian gays and lesbians, who are not quite as tough as the Irish.>>

Straw man.

The Irish had to have a referendum because marriage was defined in their constitution.

Phillips:

“There is a difference between having A standard, and assigning something to be THE standard.”

The government is quite specifically committed to two standards. There is the standard whereby married people qualify for privileges and advantages and the standard whereby couples qualify. It does this because it has accepted that not all couples want to marry and yet they agree that they should have the advantages given to married people.

There are differences in the way these two standards are enforced despite the fact that the relationships as human relationships are fundamentally the same. This is an example of the invasive questions that can be asked before any privileges or advantages can be granted to couples -

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/sites/default/files/ss284-1611en.pdf

Married couples on the other hand need only to show up at the registry office with a few hundred bucks. No questions are asked.

Why does the government discriminate in this way when they are dealing with human beings in identical relationships?

“Circumstances which require two people to have considered their relationship seriously, and contemplated the level of trust they are willing to place in each other.”

How is a marriage certificate proof of this when it is not tested as part of the process of obtaining such a certificate? Cannot people who do not possess a marriage certificate also consider their relationship and the level of trust they are willing to place in each other?

“It is if it suggests bigotry, as bigotry is harmful.”

Yes, but this is not the place to fight bigotry. No one is saying that bigotry is a good thing. It is the place to counter arguments about specific issues of social concern. You are just abusing the forums for an unrelated personal agenda.

Yes, I’m fine with that too, phanto.

<<The government is quite specifically committed to two standards.>>

I even explained why that’s reasonable.

<<There are differences in the way these two standards are enforced despite the fact that the relationships as human relationships are fundamentally the same.>>

Yes, and that’s as it should be, for reasons I’ve already mentioned.

If de facto couples don’t like Centrelink’s invasiveness, then they’re free to get married (so long as they’re the opposite sex), but then they have the additional hassles that a relationship breakdown would entail. There’s a trade-off either way.

<<Married couples … need only to show up at the registry office with a few hundred bucks. No questions are asked.>>

And de facto couples are free to do this too.

<<Why does the government discriminate in this way when they are dealing with human beings in identical relationships?>>

I’ve already explained why in many different ways.

<<How is a marriage certificate proof of this when it is not tested as part of the process of obtaining such a certificate?>>

Why does there need to be proof beyond the signatures?

<<Cannot people who do not possess a marriage certificate also consider their relationship and the level of trust they are willing to place in each other?>>

Of course they can. And, indeed, many would.

<<Yes, but this is not the place to fight bigotry.>>

Why?

<<No one is saying that bigotry is a good thing.>>

No one has to.

<<You are just abusing the forums for an unrelated personal agenda.>>

Bigotry is related to any topic in which it may play a role as a driving factor. I am abusing nothing.

You're not the moderator of this forum. You don't make the rules. There is no rule here against fighting bigotry.

From amateur psychologist to self-appointed forum moderator.

Here’s a question for you, since you’re so-o-o-o concerned about rights: if the Marriage Act were to never be repealed, and you could know that it never would be, would you then support same-sex marriage?

Or do you not deny that you are being disingenuous?

Phillips:

Once again you have been sucked into an argument not because you care about the subject but because you want to expose the perceived flaws in anyone who dares to challenge the arguments for same-sex marriage.

You want to talk about motivation, sincerity, disingenuity and other traits like homophobia and bigotry. These are your real concerns. The argument just becomes a vehicle for you to express all your resentment and bitterness.

None of those things should come into account when a decision about same-sex marriage is being considered. The only things that matter are the reasonableness of the arguments.

All I did was present a few arguments which appear to me to be reasonable. If they were not then the only alternative in this forum would be to show that they were unreasonable. Nothing else is appropriate. However, that is not enough for you. You have to focus on my supposed flaws, as you do with most people you disagree with.

This bitterness and resentment comes through in most of your posts. It is not anger or desire for justice. It is bitterness and resentment and these are largely narcissistic traits where you think the world owes you a better deal than the one you have.

I don’t think this forum is the place to deal with those personal problems and anyone who abuses these forums for other purposes should be exposed. This place is too important and valuable to be poisoned by your immature needs.

I thought you no longer cared about motivations, phanto.

<<Once again you have been sucked into an argument not because you care about the subject but because you want to expose the perceived flaws in anyone who dares to challenge the arguments for same-sex marriage.>>

Oh, I absolutely care about this topic, and any other topic regarding equality, for that matter. I will admit, however, that I find it endlessly fascinating to watch you lot cling so desperately, to such a negative position, that is shown to be so utterly irrational, despite how harmful it is.

You lot must be very unhappy people.

<<You want to talk about motivation, sincerity, disingenuity and other traits like homophobia and bigotry.>>

Correct. But, again, only after I’ve dealt with the arguments. Otherwise one starts to tread dangerously close to the ad hominem fallacy.

<<These are your real concerns.>>

And you can pick this despite my dealing with the arguments of others first and foremost?

I somehow doubt that.

<<None of those things should come into account when a decision about same-sex marriage is being considered.>>

“[They should] if [they suggest] bigotry, as bigotry is harmful.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753)

<<The only things that matter are the reasonableness of the arguments.>>

“Arguments certainly are important, which is why I discredit yours before concerning myself with your disingenuousness.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753)

<<This bitterness and resentment comes through in most of your posts.>>

(Now we’re back to the amateur psychology.)

In real psychology, this is what they refer to as 'projection'. You are 'projecting' your own feelings of resentment on to me, as I am a source of the distress which you are clearly feeling right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

<<I don’t think this forum is the place to deal with those personal problems ...>>

Well, we agree on that much at least.

So, do you actually have any counter-arguments? Or will it just be the ad hominem fallacy from here on in.

Incidentally, kudos for not lying. You could have said that you'd support same-sex marriage in my hypothetical scenario, but you chose not to. I guess that just makes you disingenuous.

Phillips:

“I thought you no longer cared about motivations, phanto.”

Only about the motivations of those who abuse the forums.

“I will admit, however, that I find it endlessly fascinating to watch you lot cling so desperately, to such a negative position, that is shown to be so utterly irrational, despite how harmful it is.”

That is a rather perverse sense of fascination. Shouldn’t you be concerned about the harm rather than the ‘desperate clinging’? Why are you fascinated by the act of someone clinging? Do you enjoy watching people who are desperate?

“You lot must be very unhappy people.”

In real psychology that is called projection.

“Correct. But, again, only after I’ve dealt with the arguments.”

So it is a reasonable thing to do just because you do it after something else? Why do you need to do it all? Either your arguments are not good enough or your arguments are just a cover for your obsession with bigotry. Why not just talk about bigotry? Start your own topic in the general forum and leave this discussion about same-sex marriage? Otherwise it just looks like you are trying to hijack this topic for your own personal agenda.

“And you can pick this despite my dealing with the arguments of others first and foremost?”

The fact that you do this is to try and hide your obsession with bigotry. Either talk about same-sex marriage or start up you own discussion on bigotry. It is illogical to mix the two.

“bigotry is harmful”

That is a revelation. You must be the only one who has worked this out. What is your point exactly? If something is harmful then we should stop it? Why do you need to state the bleeding obvious?

“Now we’re back to the amateur psychology.”

Anyone can pick resentment and bitterness except the bitter, resentful person.

“So, do you actually have any counter-arguments? Or will it just be the ad hominem fallacy from here on in.”

No I will be just focusing on your obsession with bigotry.

Just more ad hominems, phanto?

<<Only about the motivations of those who abuse the forums.>>

Well, if you can show how I have abused these forums, then I will gladly apologise and walk away with my tail between my legs. How’s that for a deal?

<<That is a rather perverse sense of fascination.>>

No, there is nothing “perverse” about being intrigued with the ability of some to cling to irrational beliefs.

<<Shouldn’t you be concerned about the harm rather than the ‘desperate clinging’?>>

Indeed, I am. My fascination is an aside, not a motivation. I think I made that quite clear.

<<Why are you fascinated by the act of someone clinging? Do you enjoy watching people who are desperate?>>

Cute, but, no. It’s because I can’t relate to it.

<<In real psychology that is called projection.>>

Perhaps if I were getting upset, you’d have a point.

<<So it is a reasonable thing to do just because you do it after something else?>>

Only if that “something else” is addressing the arguments of one’s opponent. I explained that.

<<Why do you need to do it all?>>

Because bigotry is harmful.

<<Either your arguments are not good enough or your arguments are just a cover for your obsession with bigotry.>>

No, I’m satisfied I’ve discredited your arguments thoroughly. Your resort to character assassination is a testament to that.

<<The fact that you do this is to try and hide your obsession with bigotry.>>

And your evidence for this is..?

<<Either talk about same-sex marriage or start up you own discussion on bigotry.>>

There is no reason I can’t do both if bigotry is relevant to the same-sex marriage debate.

<<You must be the only one who has worked this out. What is your point exactly?>>

You would have seen it had you not been so busy selectively editing what I said. Go back and read it. Sarcasm doesn't become you.

<<If something is harmful then we should stop it? Why do you need to state the bleeding obvious?>>

If it’s so obvious, then why are you still bigoted?

Phillips:

For all your huffing and puffing on this topic over the years you have not come up with a reasonable argument as to why legislation should be changed to allow same-sex marriage.

You have resorted to the staple diet of all those who simply cry bigotry! Like the coliseum you just bay for the blood of the bigots because you are too afraid of those around you not to do so. You cannot prove that anyone is a bigot but proof is not really part of your values in this regard.

I don’t think you will ever come up with a reasonable argument because then there would be no reason to join the mob at the arena and you are too emotionally dependent on that mob.

I always enjoy your emotive choice wording, phanto.

<<For all your huffing and puffing on this topic over the years …>>

“Huffing and puffing”. As if I were getting all fired up. I like that.

Speaking of which, what happened to focusing on my alleged obsession with bigotry? (As if one could ever be too obsessed with fighting bigotry. But, anyway...) Finally realised that character assassination isn’t the way to go, did we?

Good on you. Now that WOULD be an abuse of the forum.

<<… you have not come up with a reasonable argument as to why legislation should be changed to allow same-sex marriage.>>

Oh, I have. Many, many times:

Equality.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336385
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336466
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336576
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336691
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333380
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327646

You have never once countered this. In fact, up until recently, you were getting all concerned about equality yourself (but not for gay people, naturally).

<<You have resorted to the staple diet of all those who simply cry bigotry!>>

No, I have resorted to nothing. Please show me where I have ever done this?

<<Like the coliseum you just bay for the blood of the bigots because you are too afraid of those around you not to do so.>>

That doesn’t make much sense. Care to re-phrase it? Perhaps you should calm down a little before you do, though?

<<You cannot prove that anyone is a bigot …>>

(I was waiting for this one.)

Yes, I can. We’ve even discussed how I can here (where the same reasoning applies for the label ‘bigot’):

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229170

Which is why I happily use the term to describe those for whom it is fitting.

<<I don’t think you will ever come up with a reasonable argument because then there would be no reason to join the mob at the arena and you are too emotionally dependent on that mob.>>

Well, that was a bad prediction now, wasn’t it? Not to mention, a poor psychological diagnosis. You never learn, do you?

Tell me, what is the problem you have with homosexual people? Why are they the only group not deserving of equal treatment, in you eyes?

There is no such thing as homosexual people. Just people who indulge in homosexual behaviour. That does not make you a homosexual person. There are only persons, not homosexual persons or heterosexual persons or any other type of sexual persons. Just persons who indulge in sexual behaviour.

There is no such thing as a sexuality and so you cannot discriminate on the basis of something that does not exist.

Well, that's got to be the biggest sidestep I've ever come across, phanto. Not to mention the most absurd.

<<There is no such thing as a sexuality ...>>

What is your evidence for this claim?

There's no evidence that such a thing exists.

Wrong, phanto.

<<There's no evidence that such a thing exists.>>

There is an abundance of evidence for the existence of sexuality:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=human+sexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality

Why, I can feel it in my loins every time I set eyes on an attractive woman. You wouldn't happen to be asexual by any chance, would you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

I don't mean to get personal or anything, but it WOULD explain a lot; such as your disdain for marriage, for example. You even feel offended by this question, don't you? I knew it!

Anyway, try again.

“Why, I can feel it in my loins every time I set eyes on an attractive woman.”

That would be rather weird. You feel pleasure because of the beauty of the woman in the same way you feel pleasure at seeing other beautiful things but it is not sexual pleasure. That doesn’t kick in until you start to imagine having sex with that woman. You are not sexually attracted to that woman but to your own images of that woman in a sexual atmosphere which she is not in when you first see her. You are not sexually attracted to her at all. You are simply attracted by her beauty.

The more you entertain your fantasies the more likely you are to feel sexual feelings in your ‘loins’. To say that you are sexually attracted to that woman as she appears is not true.

Sexuality seems to suggest that we are attracted to people sexually. We are attracted to people for many reasons but sex is not one of them. If we are not attracted to people sexually then what is sexuality?

That it does, phanto.

<<Sexuality seems to suggest that we are attracted to people sexually.>>

Most of us, at least.

<<We are attracted to people for many reasons but sex is not one of them.>>

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=sexual+attraction

There are 428,000 peer-reviewed articles there which disagree with you.

<<If we are not attracted to people sexually then what is sexuality?>>

You haven’t yet demonstrated that sexual attraction doesn’t exist.

This is just getting downright weird!

Why did you look it up? Don't you trust your own loins? Or perhaps you do not trust your own imagination.

It seems there are 428,000 other people who do not trust their loins either. Who are they trying to convince? Surely 427,000 conclusions would be enough.

It wasn’t for my own sake, phanto.

<<Why did you look it up? Don't you trust your own loins? Or perhaps you do not trust your own imagination.>>

It was for yours.

You see, I’m not unreasonable enough to assume that my personal experience should constitute evidence in your eyes.

That’s one of your biggest problems, isn’t it? Assuming that the only reason anyone ever does something is to re-assure themselves of something.

<<It seems there are 428,000 other people who do not trust their loins either.>>

You see what I mean?

And, actually, it’s 437,000 now. Google’s web crawlers found an addition 9000 articles literally overnight. Looks like you're really up against it.

But, no, those are scholarly articles from researchers which discuss sexual attraction in some way or another. Your assumption that they’re all trying to re-assure themselves of something is nothing short of bizarre, and is indicative of a state of denial that is downright delusional.

<<Who are they trying to convince?>>

You have not yet demonstrated that anyone is trying to convince themselves of anything yet.

Nor have you justified your assertion that sexuality doesn’t exist, for that matter.

“I’m not unreasonable enough....your eyes.”

So why did you offer it in the first place? Why not immediately go in search of links?

You see an attractive woman and your first response is to feel sexual feelings. This is what all your peers also apparently feel and so they come to the conclusion that we are attracted by sex.

This must be very frustrating since there are thousands upon thousands of attractive women and each one causes you to feel sexual arousal. No one could tolerate such frequent arousal. Sexual feelings create tension and that tension needs to be released. It is not always appropriate or convenient to immediately attend to sexual feelings and release that tension. You would have to suppress that tension time and time again. Constantly suppressing feelings of any type is unhealthy don’t you agree?

So, on the one hand we have all these experts, with whom you seem to agree, telling us that we are attracted by the desire for sex and yet we seem to be built in such a way that this attraction is at loggerheads with our health. It seems a rather cruel trick of nature to me.

There is no doubt that we feel attracted to other human beings but we can be attracted by many facets of another person. Usually the first thing we know about another person is how they look. Before they even open their mouth we can find them attractive to look at and this might make us linger upon their looks. We are attracted by their beauty – by the pleasure that their looks give to us.

Because we are attracted by someone else's looks it does not automatically follow that we are attracted to them sexually. So many other things have to be taken into consideration before it is reasonable to have sex with them. We might imagine having sex with them but imagination and reality is not the same thing. In that case we are not attracted by sex but by the images that we conjure in our heads.

Please don't play dumb, phanto.

<<So why did you offer it in the first place? Why not immediately go in search of links?>>

To remind you that you are arguing against the existence of something which we can all confirm the existence of through personal experience.

Well, most of us anyway. I'm sorry you can't.

<<You see an attractive woman and your first response is to feel sexual feelings.>>

To varying degrees. For some, it may just be an appreciation for their appearance that I would not feel for a fellow male.

<<This is what all your peers also apparently feel and so they come to the conclusion that we are attracted by sex.>>

Yes, that and the fact that the existence of sexual attraction is well established.

<<This must be very frustrating since there are thousands upon thousands of attractive women and each one causes you to feel sexual arousal.>>

No, that's rare. Increasingly so, too, the older I get.

<<No one could tolerate such frequent arousal.>>

That would be pretty extreme, yes.

<<Constantly suppressing feelings of any type is unhealthy don’t you agree?>>

Absolutely. Serial rapists are sometimes like that.

<<So, on the one hand we have all these experts, with whom you seem to agree, telling us that we are attracted by the desire for sex …>>

Not in the extreme way you're framing it, no.

<<In that case we are not attracted by sex but by the images that we conjure in our heads.>>

Technically, yes.

Now, about that evidence...

If we are attracted to one another by the desire for sex then wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask why we want sex? Do people only have sex for the sake of the sexual pleasure they get? Surely there are lots of reasons for having sex. Things like excitement in an otherwise dull life, loneliness, money, power etc.

Could it be that we are attracted by those things rather than sexual pleasure? We do not need to be with another person in order to have sexual pleasure. All of us are capable of relieving our own sexual tension and relief of sexual tension is the aim of sexual feelings. It is pleasurable however we decide to achieve that aim.

If we do not need sex with another person then why do we have it? What is it about the desire for sex with another person that we truly seek? Of course it may simply be the sexual pleasure but very often it seems that people are prepared to take extreme risks in order to get pleasure which they can have without risk. They can risk family breakup, disease, losing their job or even going to jail just for a few moments of pleasure. They would not take such risks unless there was something more valuable to them than the sexual pleasure to be had.

It would be true to say that these people are not attracted by sex but by something else and that they use sexual behaviour as a substitute for the other perceived value. It seems that from the outside that they are simply responding to sexual feelings but quite obviously they are not.

An observer might say it is just sexuality that attracts them but unless you probe much more deeply into their reasons for having sex you will always being making the wrong conclusions. Just because people have sex does not necessarily mean they are attracted to the sex or the person they are having sex with.

It's not just about sex, phanto.

<<If we are attracted to one another by the desire for sex then wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask why we want sex?>>

But I’ll agree for argument's sake.

<<Surely there are lots of reasons for having sex. Things like excitement … etc.>>

Correct.

<<Could it be that we are attracted by those things rather than sexual pleasure?>>

‘As well as’, not ‘rather than’. If we were attracted to anything but the actual sex, then everyone would be behaving as bisexuals or not in a sexual way at all, and that’s not what we observe.

<<If we do not need sex with another person [to achieve sexual arousal] then why do we have it?>>

Intimacy, companionship. Most would agree that it’s better with someone else, too.

<<What is it about the desire for sex with another person that we truly seek?>>

Deep, but your premise was flawed as it assumed that masturbation and sex are the same. So, there’s no point in going any further, but let’s see what you’ve got anyway...

<<Of course it may simply be the sexual pleasure but very often it seems that people are prepared to take extreme risks in order to get pleasure which they can have without risk.>>

Well, firstly, as I’ve pointed out above, it’s not the same. Secondly, we’re not always rational beings. We have innate drives that can cause us to behave irrationally.

<<It would be true to say that these people are not attracted by sex but by something else and that they use sexual behaviour as a substitute for the other perceived value.>>

And if it weren’t for their sexuality, then they wouldn’t be using sex as a substitute so frequently, if at all.

<<Just because people have sex does not necessarily mean they are attracted to the sex or the person they are having sex with.>>

Sure, but as you can now see, that’s a straw man. Sexuality exists whether you like it or not, and even if it didn’t, your position on marriage equality would STILL be irrational and bigoted.

If people can have sex for reasons other than sexual pleasure how can we tell that they are attracted to any particular person for sexual pleasure?

It seems to me that according to you the existence of sexuality is based on the fact that we are sexually attracted to others - that we want sex with others. We indulge in sexual behaviour because it is reasonable to do so for its own sake. But that is not the only reason why we indulge in sexual behaviour. We also do it because we are lonely or we want to feel powerful or we want to be held or for many other motives.

The sexual behaviour looks exactly the same but the reasons for doing are not the same. Observing sexual behaviour tells us nothing about the reasons why any particular couple are having sex. So you could be attracted to having sex with someone because you hope it will relieve your loneliness, for example. But sexual behaviour cannot relieve loneliness or give you power or help your self-image – it can only give you sexual pleasure. You can try and use the sexual pleasure like a drug to numb the pain of your loneliness or other issues but in the end sex can only give you sexual pleasure.

Ultimately you are trying to get something from sex that it cannot give you. Unless you are having sex for the sake of sexual pleasure then you are acting unreasonably and yet it seems that many people do exactly that.

How can you claim that sexuality exists because we feel sexual attraction when in fact what we really feel is the desire to relieve some pain? How can you know what the real attraction is since the behaviour looks exactly the same whatever the motive? You may well be attracted to someone because they promise to relieve your pain even though sexual behaviour cannot relieve pain.

Where are the samples that allow your conclusion to be drawn with scientific certainty?

I'm quite happy to provide you with that information, phanto.

<<Where are the samples that allow your conclusion to be drawn with scientific certainty?>>

In fact, I've linked to it before for different reasons.

But it's your turn first. You made the claim that sexuality doesn't exist, and I know you would never deliberately want to fallaciously shift the burden of proof, now, would you? After all, relying on the inability of someone else to disprove one's claim is a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

It's time to stop playing dumb, phanto. Frustrating the discussion by being obtuse is not going to get me to go away, nor are you going to trick me into defending a position which I don't have to defend. The burden of proof still lies with you. I just have to hold you to it.

That being said, I will remind you that even if you can disprove the existence of sexuality, your position on marriage equality is still irrational and bigoted.

After all, equal rights don’t hinge on there being a scientific reason for a behaviour, only that the behaviour not be harmful. And sometimes not even then.

Oh, alright then, phanto.

I’ll respond to your silly, irrelevant points. Your position against same-sex marriage is still irrational and bigoted but, hey, it’ll be fun.

<<… according to you the existence of sexuality is based on the fact that we are sexually attracted to others>>

Correct.

<<We indulge in sexual behaviour because it is reasonable to do so for its own sake.>>

Correct.

<<But that is not the only reason why we indulge in sexual behaviour.>>

Correct.

<<We also do it because we are lonely or we want to feel powerful or we want to be held or for many other motives.>>

Correct.

<<The sexual behaviour looks exactly the same but the reasons for doing are not the same.>>

No, sexual behaviour isn’t just the act of sex.

<<Observing sexual behaviour tells us nothing about the reasons why any particular couple are having sex.>>

That depends on what you mean by “sexual behaviour”.

<<So you could be attracted to having sex with someone because you hope it will relieve your loneliness, for example.>>

Sometimes.

<<But sexual behaviour cannot relieve loneliness or give you power or help your self-image …>>

Ultimately? No. Momentarily? Yes. The behaviour is still sexual (i.e. sexuality) either way, though.

<<Ultimately you are trying to get something from sex that it cannot give you.>>

But it CAN give you those things momentarily.

<<Unless you are having sex for the sake of sexual pleasure then you are acting unreasonably …>>

Not necessarily, there is nothing unreasonable about, say, having sex to maintain or strengthen a long-term relationship.

<<How can you claim that sexuality exists because we feel sexual attraction when in fact what we really feel is the desire to relieve some pain?>>

Oh? So now you’re eliminating sexual pleasure as a motivating factor? That was sudden!

It wouldn’t be because a sexual attraction enhances the pleasure, would it?

<<How can you know what the real attraction is since the behaviour looks exactly the same whatever the motive?>>

Because sexual attraction is still a motive. It doesn’t have to be the only motive for sexuality to exist.

My apologies, phanto. You weren’t eliminating sexual pleasure as a motivating factor for engaging in sexual activity when you said:

“How can you claim that sexuality exists because we feel sexual attraction when in fact what we really feel is the desire to relieve some pain?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338923)

You were alleging that pain relief is the only possible motivation for seeking out that pleasure, while completely ignoring pleasure for pleasure’s sake (or any other number of possible reasons not related to alleviating pain).

Clearly the rest of us look very weird to you asexual folk. This is like trying to explain emotions to a robot.

Essentially, your evidence for the non-existence of sexuality is your assertion that sexual attraction is really just a desire to relieve pain that we mistake for being a desire to have sex, and to back this up, you fallaciously appeal to ignorance:

“How can you know what the real attraction is since the behaviour looks exactly the same whatever the motive? You may well be attracted to someone because they promise to relieve your pain …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338923)

Sorry, but the fact that they might look the same is not evidence of your assertion. You would still need to demonstrate that sexual attraction is actually just a desire to relieve pain.

But this really is all just one big distraction, though, isn’t it? Given that sexuality isn’t required to justify marriage equality, as I explained before, you still need to come up with a rational argument against same sex marriage.

If the argument for same-sex marriage is based on equality then it presumes there are at least two groups that need to be made equal in some respect.

One group is called heterosexual and the other is homosexual. You have to prove that both groups do indeed exist and that it is reasonable for them both to exist. Each ‘group’, as it is presently understood, is made up of millions of individual couples.

The couples are defined by the people to whom they are attracted sexually. They are defined as either being same-sex attracted or opposite-sex attracted. The presumption is that because they have sex that they are attracted by the desire for the pleasure of sex.

The reality is that people can have sex without actually wanting sex. Many people say that they have sex because their partner will leave them if they do not have sex. This is an example of having sex for illogical reasons. There are only two logical reasons for having sex. One is to enjoy the pleasure it brings and the other is because you wish to naturally conceive a child.

The sexual behaviour of those who have sex for logical reasons looks exactly the same as the sexual behaviour of those who are having it for illogical reasons. Only each individual truly knows their own motivation. You can even deceive your partner by ‘faking’ it.

It is impossible to discern the motives of any particular sexual behaviour and so it is impossible to judge whether or not the sexual behaviour is logical. It might be logical or it could just as readily be illogical (cont.)

(cont.)

You cannot presume that any act of sexual behaviour between same-sex couples is logical. Nor can you prove that any act of sexual behaviour between opposite-sex couples is logical unless their aim is to conceive a child.

It is very poor scientific method to deduce that sexual behaviour is logical simply because it exists.

If you cannot prove that any particular homosexual act is logical then it stands to reason that you cannot prove that homosexuality is logical. You cannot prove that it is reasonable for a group to delineate themselves as homosexuals since there may not be any individuals to make up the group.
You cannot prove that there are indeed two groups. There may only be one group and so there is no need for equality and no case for discrimination.

If you want legislation to change then there must be good reasons – logical reasons. This means that there should be proof. To change legislation without logical reasons based on proof flies in the face of all good government.

You have to prove that homosexual behaviour is logical before you accept the existence of homosexuality or a homosexual group to which you can attribute legislative rights.

The existence of homosexual behaviour does not prove that such behaviour is logical

Not ‘made equal’, phanto,

<<[An argument for marriage equality] presumes there are at least two groups that need to be made equal in some respect.>>

‘Given equal opportunities’. There’s a difference.

<<You have to prove that both groups do indeed exist and that it is reasonable for them both to exist.>>

No, you’re attempting to shift the burden of proof again. Once again, the behaviours need only exist and not be harmful. They don’t need to be scientifically explainable or logical.

<<… people can have sex without actually wanting sex.>>

Correct.

<<[Having sex for one’s partner’s sake] is an example of having sex for illogical reasons.>>

Not if one values the relationship enough.

<<[Pleasure and conception are the] only two logical reasons for having sex.>>

There are more than that: to experience intimacy, to demonstrate feelings, it may even save one’s life.

<<[Logical and illogical sexual behaviour look the same.]>>

Again, not always. Either way, so what?

<<… and so it is impossible to judge whether or not the sexual behaviour is logical.>>

You’re yet to establish why doing so is necessary.

<<It is very poor scientific method to deduce that sexual behaviour is logical simply because it exists.>>

Well, luckily they don’t need to.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=genetic+evidence+for+human+sexuality&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

<<If you cannot prove that any particular homosexual act is logical then it stands to reason that you cannot prove that homosexuality is logical.>>

You provided a “logical” reason yourself before: to experience pleasure.

Incidentally, where does romantic attraction fit into your denialism and bizarre application of the rules of logic?

<<You cannot prove that there are indeed two groups.>>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5286516
http://goo.gl/uA7Z0H

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

<<If you want legislation to change then there must be good [and logical] reasons ...>>

Equality.

Either way, the onus is on those who want to withhold a right to explain why it should be withheld. Rights are granted until it can be argued why they should be withheld, not the other way around.

There was nothing new at all in that entire double post of yours, phanto. We’d been through it all before. Do you have any new material?

phanto,

I have a degree in law and criminology (with criminology being a combination of psychology and sociology). I’m always reluctant to point this out because people get precious about it and accuse me of bragging, but pointing it out could save us a lot of time if it emphasises to you the futility in trying to pull the wool over my eyes on this topic.

For example, when you say things like:

“If you want legislation to change then there must be good reasons – logical reasons. This means that there should be proof. To change legislation without logical reasons based on proof flies in the face of all good government.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338960)

You just look like an idiot. You clearly nothing about the law, and I am aware of this. The same goes for your denial of sexuality, which touches on sociology. Your amateur psychology, too, looks equally stupid.

(I’d also note here that we have come full circle. This is where your arguments against marriage equality first started in our debates on the topic. You ditched it because it didn’t work, and now you’ve resurrected it.)

This is why every point you make - whether it be an amateur attempt at psychology, a denial that sexuality exists, or a false assertion of what makes for good legislation - fails immediately. It’s not because I’m the “most clever” person on OLO and am using tricks to trip you up, as you once claimed (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229225). It’s because I know what I’m talking about, and you don’t.

There is no doctrine of law or principle to support your above irrational assertion. Nor is it you who decides what constitutes good and logical reasons to change laws. You don’t get to dictate what is ‘good’ and ‘logical’ just to exclude equality as a justification for change.

Now, please, enough with the bogus, contrived, and improvised reasoning. It’s not fooling anyone.

P.S. Your self-defeating argument for not legislating for marriage equality could be used to repeal the change that the Howard government made to the Marriage Act in the first place.