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.