Jpw2040,

Again excuse my neanderthal slowness but there are three things I need explained:

1. Why respond like that when I have submitted reasons why it is relevant? Don't you consider Christians worthy of getting an explanation? I know less neanderthal participants consider you completely authoritative. You could even fling an insult about anal sex with dogs without being hateful if you tell them you aren't. Unfortunately I don't understand why something is a fact just because you say so. I'd appreciate an explanation.

2. Why should rule number 1 be pursued pedantically but not rule number 2? Examples:

If you think anal sex is filthy and unnatural, Jack, then maybe you should wash the dog first.
Dinosaurs like runner are simply dying out.
runner worships at the altar of intolerance, and I don’t see any hope that this will ever change. He can go on ranting, and I will attempt to ignore him as best I can
were you always this ditzy?
neanderthal indeed
your irrational animal reactions
knuckle-draggers
trolls
homophobes

Quotes are easier. But isn't it insulting to associate Philo with people who do violence to homosexuals? Doesn't it make him sound like a thug in an alley?

Philo disagrees with you but is it necessary for you use your unfortunately effective tactic of denigrating him in order to discredit him?

When people with a same sex attraction and people who interfere with children were juxtaposed in the analogy that neither are born that way you went to town on me. I believe it was for dialoging instead of condemning when people with a same sex attraction are lumped together with criminals. In that example the analogy emphasised the argument.

If you think that is wrong why are you lumping Philo with criminals? Your lumping wasn't even in the course of an analogy. You simply grouped him in there without any justificiation whatsoever.

3. If an off topic post can include a discussion of marriage does that mean you'll surprise me with the belief that you don't think marriage relates to civil rights and partnerships?

I believe what I have stated is very relavent to the social acceptance of what is a marriage. If homosexuals want marriage then let them prove they of themselevs can procreate and nurture their own children - the primary purpose of marriage. Our society tolerates homosexual activities but that does not mean we accept it as a normal sexual relationship. Our society already allows for property agreements etc of non-married relationships. What is the purpose of a same sex marriage - it will always be abnormal if the two are engageing exclusively in anal sex. Legalising same sex mariage will not make it normal. You may find a percentage of the population who wish to accomodate such behaviour at the moment. But such acts will never be normal social behaviour.

If you are expecting me to accept anal sex as normal behaviour - I'm sorry it will never happen. When men can procreate naturally from the anus then perhaps I might have to reconsider.

"If homosexuals want marriage then let them prove they of themselves can procreate and nurture their own children" - I've got friends in hetrosexual marriages who have not had children and who appear unlikely to have them, how many would support the removal of their legal protections as a couple because they have not had children?

"it will always be abnormal if the two are engageing exclusively in anal sex" - at a guess most would want more to their marriages than anal sex, they probably want companionship, support, various expressions of love and the legal protections that come with marriage. Philo there is much more to a relationship than the sex act.

R0bert

Then Robert let them totally abstain from anal sex. This is the anti-social behaviour that makes them abnormal. I have no objection for two persons of the same sex living in a shared dwelling. You see the objection is dependent upon their abnormal sexual acts.

I grew up in a family of seven [four brothers] and we did not all have seperate bedrooms. We were a very close emotional family. But we certainly did not think of, or engage in the disgusting practice of anal sex.

Here you go, mjpb, Philo:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/new-thread.asp

jpw2040, sorry but I disagree with you about Philo being off topic. While I strongly disagree with his views they do seem to be relevant. If I understand Philo's viewpoint correctly he is in part concerned about the difference between allowing something and appearing to endorse it. That while society may have decriminalised homosexual activity (I think over Philo's objections) that does not mean that we should give it a valid legal status. As a parallel, if we decriminalise certain drug usage would we then be OK to have those same drugs advertised on TV and sold at your local supermarket?

Philo has already stated that "Our society tolerates homosexual activities" and that "I have no objection for two persons of the same sex living in a shared dwelling." so it seems to me that his approach is to make it as difficult to be homosexual as possible in the hope of disuading some from living as homosexuals.

I think that Philo's approach increases the harm done to all concerned. Not only to homosexual people but also to straight partners who find themselves married to someone who has given in to the pressure to be straight but who don't cope with it.

R0bert