So now you’re going to fallaciously shift the goalposts, phanto?

<<But it is just a theory.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy

Logic, in the context of this discussion, is that which conforms to reason. I have provided you with ample reasoning as to why conforming to one’s sexuality is reasonable. It is now your turn to explain why my reasoning is unsound. Instead, you ask for concrete examples…

<<If it is true then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true by concrete examples.>>

How to you define a “concrete” example? You need to clarify that. I suspect you haven’t done so yet because not even you know what you mean, you’re just foundering now.

Do you mean tangible? Because providing a tangible example of human behaviour is not possible (especially on a forum) so asking for it is unreasonable.

<<We can't change legislation just because you have a theory.>>

It’s not just me, phanto. That aside, there is no such rule. You are making this up.

At this point, I think you need to define what you mean by “theory”, too, because legislation certainly has been based on it (e.g. &#145;No jab, no pay’ is based on several theories).

<<We need to see proof that your theory is true.>>

You mean YOU do. I think everyone else is either laughing at you, or wincing because they too are opposed to marriage equality and realise your arguments are absurd.

<<… unless we know why people engage in pornography we can't really say whether or not it is logical.>>

That will change from person to person. In the US, where support for those in need is minimal, it may be reasonable for someone to do a few scenes, if it gets them out of a rut.

But porn isn’t an example of what I’ve been talking about. I only referred you to it to highlight the poor wording of your request; poor wording which reflects how muddled your thinking has become trying to rationally justify an irrational position.

<<Are they forming intimate, romantic relationships?>>

In pornographic videos? Not usually, although it has happened.

Gosh, this is fun, isn't it AJ ?

Just to get back to the original topic: I'm a bit more confused than usual about homosexual 'marriage' if Tom and Jerry forbid any customers from having the same sort of ice-cream in both scoops, everybody has to have two different flavours.

I would have thought that this is what any company opposed to homosexual 'marriage' would do: that it would anathema to them to allow same-scoop servings, that all double-cones had to have - for want of better terms - a 'male' scoop and a 'female' scoop ?

Or am I just being thick as usual ?

Joe

'Female scoop'? Well it is about time!

Lesbians are fuming, raging and lesbians excel at both, about cartoonists only depicting 'Gays', which is men. 'Gay' is exclusively male where they want it to be, or otherwise, where it suits their purpose.

Now, about those scoops, they are strap-ons of course. Huge and 'diverse' too?

All that is left is for OLO's 'anal-sex-is-so-good-and-empowering-for-girls' advocates to leap into the flavours - dipping chocolate before pink is so hip, teacher says so.

Simplifying the world: there are other ice cream suppliers. Where ice cream is just ice cream.

Philips:

“I have provided you with ample reasoning as to why conforming to one’s sexuality is reasonable.”

But people do not always conform to their sexuality when having sex. They do not always conform to the reasons you give such as a desire for intimacy or romance. They sometimes have sex for other reasons don’t you agree? Are all these other reasons logical? What is wrong with a one night stand where no romance or intimacy is expected or desired?

Is every sexual act between two people always and everywhere reasonable? That is all that I am asking? If it is not then how can we be certain that any particular act between two people is reasonable?

For example when Prince William and Kate decided they were going to have children they had sex in order to bring about children. It was logical for that couple to have sex in order to produce children.

Is there such an example you can point to where a particular act of homosexual sex turned out to be reasonable?

They do to the extent that they are sexual beings, phanto.

<<But people do not always conform to their sexuality when having sex.>>

Who cares if, say, alcohol might cause them to stray from their usual boundaries?

<<They do not always conform to the reasons you give such as a desire for intimacy or romance.>>

“... 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)

Do you even know what it is that you’re arguing anymore?

<<They sometimes have sex for other reasons don’t you agree?>>

Agreed.

<<Are all these other reasons logical?>>

“... 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)

<<What is wrong with a one night stand where no romance or intimacy is expected or desired?>>

Depends on the situation. Probably nothing, most of the time.

<<Is every sexual act between two people always and everywhere reasonable?

Probably not. What does it matter if it’s not?

<<If it is not then how can we be certain that any particular act between two people is reasonable?>>

“... 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)

<<For example when Prince William and Kate decided they were going to have children they had sex in order to bring about children. It was logical for that couple to have sex in order to produce children.>>

Yes.

<<Is there such an example you can point to where a particular act of homosexual sex turned out to be reasonable?>>

Intimacy, companionship, sexual release, pleasure, etc.

“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)

And remember...

"Achieving intimacy and companionship through sex is not illogical just because they can be attained in other ways. Homosexuality and marriage aren't just about sex, either." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240358)

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

But how do you know for certain that it is logical some of the time?

"<<Is there such an example you can point to where a particular act of homosexual sex turned out to be reasonable?>>

Intimacy, companionship, sexual release, pleasure, etc."

That is just generalising. I have given you an example of a particular couple with a particular outcome consistent with their stated reason. Why can't you do that?