Philips:

“It never does end well for you.”

How very patronising of you! How do you know what ‘well’ is for me? Or are you just trying to convince yourself that it doesn’t end well for me?

“There’s equality.”

Equality of what? You have already assumed that homosexual relationships are logical and refuse to even debate the issue. In order for equality to be an issue at least two entities need to exist and you have presumed, rather than proved, there are two entities that need to be equalised. You just avoid the possibility that there is only one logical entity. Why not just present an argument in favour of homosexual relationships before you make the next logical point that they should be treated equally with heterosexual relationships. What have you got to lose? What are you afraid of?

“Either way, the onus is on those who are against same-sex marriage to explain why it should not be legislated for”

It shouldn’t be legislated for because it is illogical to legislate for relationships that are illogical in themselves.

“Equality is a logical reason.”

Only when there are at least two things that logically exist and you haven’t proven that there are in this case.

“it is determined by weighing up the risks and benefits of passing legislation to allow for same-sex marriage.”

If it is illogical then it should not be ‘weighed up’ on any terms at all. Governments should only consider legislation that is logical.

My god, who cares ?!

I thought you’d like that, phanto.

<<How very patronising of you! How do you know what ‘well’ is for me?>>

I don’t. But, generally speaking (and correct me if this does not apply to you), people would consider a debate to have gone well for them if they were to emerge from it having substantiated one of their claims, or at least learned something from it. For you, neither of these ever seems to be the case.

<<Equality of what?>>

Opportunity, recognition, legitimacy, etc.

Think back REALLY hard to our past discussions before you bother to ask why they should matter, because we’ve covered them all to varying degrees.

<<You have already assumed that homosexual relationships are logical and refuse to even debate the issue.>>

Refuse?! We went through it all in great detail in our last discussion. That link again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

Either way, I’ve already explained why it doesn’t matter, so even if I had refused, that would have been perfectly reasonable.

<<In order for equality to be an issue at least two entities need to exist …>>

Sounds logical.

<<… and you have presumed, rather than proved, there are two entities that need to be equalised.>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

<<You just avoid the possibility that there is only one logical entity.>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

<<Why not just present an argument in favour of homosexual relationships before you make the next logical point that they should be treated equally … What are you afraid of?>>

Why do you lie about what I have and have not done? What are you afraid of?

<<It shouldn’t be legislated for because it is illogical to legislate for relationships that are illogical in themselves.>>

You haven’t demonstrated that they’re illogical. I’ve already provided a link to a discussion where we both came to the conclusion that they were logical.

<<If it is illogical then it should not be ‘weighed up’ on any terms at all.>>

Just as well we both established in our discussion that it was logical then, eh? That link once again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

Philips:

“I don’t. ......be the case.”

Either you presumed I did not know that things could end badly for me and you were concerned or you presumed I did know and you just felt like rubbing it in. In the first case you are being patronising because I am an adult quite capable of looking after my own feelings and in the second case you were trying to be aggressive.

You presented links that just show that homosexual behaviour exists but just because behaviour exists it does not mean that such behaviour is logical. In fact none of those studies questioned whether homosexual behaviour is logical and that is my question. None of your links answered the question I asked and so I stopped reading them.

I don’t see why it is so hard to answer. Heterosexuality is relatively easy and simple to be shown as logical. If you want to have a baby then one of the accepted methods is to have sex. It is logical to do what is necessary in order to create a child. You do not have to Google it. Heterosexuality can be proven to be logical at least some of the time whereas homosexuality cannot be proven to be logical any of the time. It might be logical but it cannot be demonstrated to be logical. We need to be able to demonstrate that a behaviour is logical before we jump to conclusions such as the logic of homosexual relationships and homosexual marriage.

People have sex for a great variety of reasons. Anyone who does not agree with this does not know much about sex. Heterosexuals often have sex for illogical reasons and homosexuals do as well. It is not always about babies and sexual pleasure. It can be about money, loneliness, fear of rejection, the need to appropriate the qualities of their sexual partner and many other things. If sex can be used for illogical reasons then you cannot prove that any particular sexual act is ever logical and we need proof in order to legislate.

Butch,
"Of cause the gays cound just find another word, couldn't they Paul."

They could Butch, they could, if the vast majority of Austrians were in favor of gay unions, but were opposed to the use of the term marriage, and demanded gay couples refer to their new union as, say being "carbuncled". Then we would have to accept the wishes of the vast majority and hence refer to gay unions as "carbuncling" and drop any reference to the word marriage. But since there is no such objection from the vast majority, gays can appropriately and rightfully refer to their unions as marriage!
The only ones in society who are bemoaning gays using the word marriage and gay marriage per se, are a handful of unrepresentative religious fruits.

p/s Ex tennis player Margret Court is opposed to gay marriage, and said so in the public arena, so what. No one is demanding Court marry Martina Navratilova, besides Navratilova is already married to her long-term partner Julia Lemigova, We don't want anyone committing bigamy now do we. Seems bigamy is not a problem for some religious fruits they actually are right into it. So what was old Margie banging on about?

But we covered that too, phanto.

<<… just because behaviour exists it does not mean that such behaviour is logical.>>

That link yet again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

Here’s another post where I addressed that point:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338907

Long story short: homosexual behaviour is logical because it provides intimacy and companionship to people who have no desire for it from the opposite sex, and there is nothing logical about depriving oneself of intimacy and companionship. I pointed this out (for a second time) after you said:

“There are only two logical reasons for having sex. One is to enjoy the pleasure it brings and the other is because you wish to naturally conceive a child.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338959)

<<In fact none of those studies questioned whether homosexual behaviour is logical and that is my question.>>

I wasn’t referring to the studies I linked to. I linked to those because you claimed homosexuality didn’t exist at all.

*Snigger*

<<I don’t see why it is so hard to answer.>>

It’s not. You’re just pretending that I didn’t answer it.

<<If you want to have a baby then one of the accepted methods is to have sex. It is logical to do what is necessary in order to create a child … whereas homosexuality cannot be proven to be logical any of the time.>>

Apparently it can. See above. Or do intimacy and companionship no longer matter to you?

<<If sex can be used for illogical reasons then you cannot prove that any particular sexual act is ever logical and we need proof in order to legislate.>>

So you want to return yet again to your argument that marriage shouldn’t exist at all? Fine. But equality should for so long as it does.