That’s true, phanto.

<<Just because they do it does not mean it is logical though does it?>>

What makes it logical is the fact that it is reasonable to respond such an innate and primal instinct as sexuality:

“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)

<<You think that sexual behaviour is always and everywhere logical?>>

I guess that would depend on what one considers to be reasonable. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made.

"What makes it logical is the fact that it is reasonable to respond such an innate and primal instinct as sexuality:"

But its not always logical or reasonable to do that - surely it is tempered by reason. That is what makes us distinct from animals. We think before we act. If we had sex every time we were aroused we would get arrested.

"Sexuality is innate to human beings ... therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings.”

Scroll up.

"Either way, it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made."

How do you know for certain that it is logical some of the time unless you can prove it to be so? Presumption is not good enough especially when you are talking about government legislation.

Like I said, phanto.

<<But its not always logical or reasonable to do that …>>

“... it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240427)

<<That is what makes us distinct from animals.>>

No, to equate what I said with just mounting anyone we like when we feel like it is a misrepresentation of what I said.

<<We think before we act. If we had sex every time we were aroused we would get arrested.>>

Like I was saying..

<<Scroll up.>>

Yeah, you missed the mark, sorry.

<<How do you know for certain that it is logical some of the time unless you can prove it to be so?>>

The reasoning I provided was good enough. You are yet to counter it.

<<Presumption is not good enough especially when you are talking about government legislation.>>

At no point have I presumed anything

"The reasoning I provided was good enough"

But it is just a theory. If it is true then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true by concrete examples.

You haven't done that. Why is it so difficult?

We can't change legislation just because you have a theory. We need to see proof that your theory is true.

You pointed to some pornography site but unless we know why people engage in pornography we can't really say whether or not it is logical. Are they forming intimate, romantic relationships?

If businesses are publicly involved in political decisions then it is divisive even as this subject, and it is better to keep the status quo.

The Roman Governments in the first century kept records of census of its citizens, and the Churches were the first to act to keep records of persons marrying for the Roman Government. Though marriage was celebrated by many cultures for thousands of years. It has always been between a man and a woman cohabiting for life, though divorce was permitted in some circumstances.

The purpose of records of citizens has been for national security, the purpose of marriage institution is for procreation, protection, nurture welfare of children, the most vulnerable of citizens.

Dear Josephus,

Given that:

1. Marriage is no longer required for procreation, even for the middle-class (the others did not bother to marry for procreation anyway).
2. Procreation is no longer desirable in our already overcrowded planet.
3. Homosexuals do procreate, they just do the fertilisation part with someone else (usually a homosexual of the opposite gender) then raise the children with their partner.
4. The welfare of children is already dealt with by other government agencies (not that I agree with governments' involvement with our children, but that's another story) regardless of the parents' marital status.
5. Records can be abused, for example to round up politically-unwanted people or of a certain race, religion or sexual orientation. Regimes can change and you can never tell what a different new regime can do with them. We just read in the news today that China is trying to take control over Australia.

The status quo whereby government knows about our private relationships needs to be changed, so marriages are no longer registered by the state or mentioned in any laws and all existing records of marriage and relationships should be erased and shredded.