Dear Alan,

Thanks for that.

I'm looking forward to the day when we no longer
talk about being gay or straight. We just talk
about our shared humanity. And when we are all
treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Alan B, you have to be really, really careful with the genetic argument because many many things have a genetic element.

Eg: There is strong evidence that psychopathy has a strong genetic element- so should we just use your reasoning and allow psychopaths free reign to harm/hurt others because that's the way they're born? Same also for general physical violent male behaviour: male aggression is exceptionally common in mammals and definitely genetic so do we just allow males to destroy/injure whatever/whoever? Also what about behaviour where the person may harm themselves, such as depression, do we just say that we shouldn't interfere with suicide attempts because that is the way they're born? What about people with genetic disease that is curable or at least can be mitigated with treatment- do we refuse to treat them because it is just a genetic thing?

See how your argument isn't such a strong one by itself. You need to provide something else, like trying to provide justification for a moral imperative/directive that you live by and show that by supporting gay marriage you achieve this goal.

eg: If someone were are an a atheist maybe their foundation principle might be something like- "We should act in a way that provides the greatest good to the greatest number". Then they need to convince others why they should also live by this principle. So that now they can convince the others about the benefits/propriety of allowing SSM by demonstrating how it aligns with this.

Thinkabit! An oxymoron of a nomenclature if ever there was one?

As always with the nay Sayers. They cherry pick their science!

Be it credible and validated or just as fake as the forged credential adorning a bogus German professor's wall? Along with her anti vax fact free campaign?

There is a peer reviewed, validated genetic link for both left handedness and homosexuality! And archived in right here OLO, where it was reported by the contributing Professor of medicine, who it would seem, did or validated the research?

Try it, it'll make a useful change from the assumption and allegations that you seem to almost exclusively rely on?

With the latter being more than one gene and appearing down near the bottom of the double helix, DNA spiral!

Time to get off the endless gay bashing hobby horse!

And shamelessly linked conflated confected issues that invariably have no bearing whatsoever, ipso facto, with the relevant topic or question under discussion!

Try and undo some of the harm you've done or so obviously caused and try behaving like an empathetic human being for a change, even where that requires you to grit your teeth and hold your nose?

I don't have to be careful around genes! Given all I ever done is thoroughly research credible reports! Then as accurately as poss report factual findings!

As to your claim of a genetic link with insanity? I bow to your vast superior expertise/personal experience?
Alan B.

Alan B:

Where have I have made "gay bashing" statements. All I've done is shown you that the logical structure of your argument allows many, many other behaviours to be justified, behaviours that most deem not acceptable. The overall result is that if you wish to be considered consistently rational by other rational people then if you want them to accept you genetic bias argument than you MUST (to remain consistent) accept the consequences of the same form of argument applied to other issues.

To make a point to someone who is rational (like myself) you need to use a different logical argument if you don't want them accept these other behaviours as justified. I even went to the trouble of showing/giving you an example of how to set-up such a argument but you seem to not appreciate that.

By-the-way: for the record, I'm actually of the opinion that government should have nothing to do marriage (they should however regulate sex- it should be consensual between any number/gender of people who are old enough). The only half plausible reason to me that a government should have any interest in registering marriages is for reasons of inheritance when someone dies intestate, but this can easily be handled via other mechanisms without having a government defined institution of marriage.

(PS. If you had ever actually read a book or attended lectures on cellular biology you would know that there is no "bottom of the double helix", it doesn't have an up/down direction. It does however have a direction that it is read in- from distant memory it is the 8-5 direction on the main strand and it is read the opposite way on the complement stand. Also, there isn't just one single double helix in each cell but many, since you have 23 pairs of chromosomes.)

Dear Foxy,

«There will be no "new" definition of marriage. What there will be will be civil partnerships and contractual relationships»

This would indeed be an improvement, but the SSM survey did not mention anything like it, nor did I hear about it prior to your post.

Within the existing Marriage Act, since 2004, "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

Assuming that the survey results will be in the affirmative, do you believe that this definition will be kept?

If not, then couples who legally married between 2004 and the present, have consented to be married according to the definition at the time and possibly some of them wouldn't have consented to be married under a changed definition, thus should be able to annul their marriage on that ground.

«I'm looking forward to the day when we no longer talk about being gay or straight.»

Me too. Also to the day when government and personal relationships are kept completely separate.

---

Dear Raycom,

«It may come as a surprise that the unstated objective of homosexual activists is to destroy traditional marriage»

Not surprising at all, although the typical activists are not homosexual in their private life, nor is the typical homosexual person an activist.

Now why should you be concerned?
Yes, they WANT to destroy traditional marriage, but they are powerless and cannot harm it in any way. Changing the scope of that bad joke whereby a secular and illegitimate state declares "this is a marriage, this is not", would not have any affect whatsoever on real marriages before God.

Thinkabit: Find the written and published article by a Professor of medicine, right here on O.L.O some time ago. And archived? Down near the bottom and several rather than one. His words not mine! If you have a problem with that description?

I'm almost certain Graham could find and reprint the article? Particularly if you are courteous and gracious enough to reward his effort and valuable time? Given how well it dovetails into this very debate!

My bet is you'll do neither, given that would effectively counter most f your anti S.S.M argument!

I found far the published and peer reviewed Professor, more convincing, credible and cogent than a numbskull, who seems to think a bit/claims, that the double helix DNA molecule doesn't have discernible form or shape?

And therefore a top and bottom for descriptive rather than literal purposes! And a straw man argument to somehow justify your particular stance.

As for sex? Wadda mean? Thinking about it or talking about it?

I think I remember the physical biology?

Even so, I've always always argued it has to be consensual and guarded by responsible age limits!

So thinkabit, you should try thinking a bit and perhaps a novel new experience? Even if that requires you to have to tolerate that strange burning smell emanating from previously unused cerebral circuits?
Alan B.