Philips:

"What is logical about ignoring one’s sexuality?"

Which sexuality are you talking about? If you are talking about homosexuality then you presume it exists. I can't agree with you unless I see evidence that homosexual behaviour is logical. So your question has no meaning for me until I see that evidence. It is pretty basic scientific method. You do not advance an argument unless you can show proof of your first premise.

If homosexuality is logical then why can't you provide me with a concrete example that demonstrates it? Show me one homosexual act that is logical. Just one example - it can't be that hard.

And stop whinging about what I am doing or not doing. You sound like a spoilt brat. No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion.

Human sexuality in general, phanto.

<<Which sexuality are you talking about?>>

All of them. I made that clear.

<<If you are talking about homosexuality then you presume it exists.>>

No, there's enough evidence to not have to presume. The evidence for the evolution of homosexuality is a case in point:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=the+evolution+of+homosexuality

Unless, that is, you think it's possible to study and find evidence for the evolution of a non-existent trait?

<<I can't agree with you [that homosexuality exists] unless I see evidence that homosexual behaviour is logical.>>

“No-one who responds to their sexuality by forming intimate, romantic relationships is being illogical. Sexuality is innate to human beings ... therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240406)

<<So your question has no meaning for me until I see that evidence.>>

Which is exactly why you pretend you haven't.

<<If homosexuality is logical then why can't you provide me with a concrete example that demonstrates it?>>

I did:

“No-one who responds to their sexuality by forming intimate, romantic relationships is being illogical. Sexuality is innate to human beings (well, most of us at least), therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240406)

<<Show me one homosexual act that is logical.>>

Oh, so we're back to 'acts' now? Okay then: pairing off.

<<... it can't be that hard.>>

It hasn't been.

<<And stop whinging about what I am doing or not doing.>>

I will continue to hold you to account whenever you are dishonest or speak rubbish. That doesn’t make a “whinger”.

<<You sound like a spoilt brat.>>

Spoilt brats throw tantrums. I have not thrown a tantrum. You, on the other hand, sound like you are. What’s the matter? Is it frustrating when being obtuse doesn’t have the desired effect?

<<No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion.>>

Oh, I know. But I enjoy it, so...

Philips:

All that lovely theory and yet you are unable to present even one example of it at work in practice.

Um ...... what was the topic again ?

Get a room, you blokes :)

Oh, I'd certainly be able to do that for you, phanto.

<<All that lovely theory and yet you are unable to present even one example of it at work in practice.>>

But I don't think Graham would appreciate it. Try Googling 'Pornhub'.

I'm sure you'll find your way from there.

Just because they do it does not mean it is logical though does it? You think that sexual behaviour is always and everywhere logical?