Philips:

“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.”

If you want intimacy and companionship with members of your own sex then you should pursue those things. Many people have those things without a sexual relationship so it is not logical to have sex to get what you can get without sex. Sex can only give you sexual pleasure or babies. Everything else you can have without sex.

There is nothing logical about depriving yourself of intimacy and companionship. No one said there was but it is illogical to do one thing when in fact your stated aim is to have something quite different. You want intimacy and companionship but go after sex which can only give you pleasure or babies. That is very illogical.

“Or do intimacy and companionship no longer matter to you?”

That is a very stunted view of human intimacy and companionship to suggest that they only exist in a sexual situation. So if you wanted to express your anger towards your partner, which is an example of intimacy, you could only do so whilst having sex? This seems a little like fetishism.

“So you want to return yet again to your argument that marriage shouldn’t exist at all?”

I don’t care if it exists as long as it is logical but I cannot see how homosexuality can be logical and therefore it stands to reason I cannot see how same-sex marriage is logical.

That's a non sequitur, phanto.

<<... it is not logical to have sex to get what you can get without sex.>>

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.

<<Sex can only give you sexual pleasure or babies. Everything else you can have without sex.>>

This statement is contradictory, and a non sequitur to any extent that it makes sense. Furthermore, none of the confused logic here necessitates that those things which can be found elsewhere must be sought elsewhere.

<<… it is illogical to do one thing when in fact your stated aim is to have something quite different.>>

Oh? So now you’re suggesting that one cannot get those other things from sex?

Improvise your reasoning long enough, phanto, and you will eventually get yourself tangled up in it, just as you have done now. It's what you're famous for:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7315#225289

<<You want intimacy and companionship but go after sex which can only give you pleasure or babies.>>

Sex can enhance intimacy and companionship. The two are not mutually exclusive. This is a false dichotomy.

<<That is a very stunted view of human intimacy and companionship to suggest that they only exist in a sexual situation.>>

This is the danger of taking what people say out of context. The last time you did it, I became a raging, walking hard-on:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338882

<<So if you wanted to express your anger towards your partner, which is an example of intimacy, you could only do so whilst having sex?>>

No.

<<I don’t care if [marriage] exists as long as it is logical but I cannot see how homosexuality can be logical and therefore it stands to reason I cannot see how same-sex marriage is logical.>>

Scroll up.

But since you're so concerned with what is and is not logical, tell me: How is discrimination logical when everyone suffers for it to some degree or another? And if it's just a matter of priorities, how do you determine what should be prioritised?

This'll be interesting.

Ice cream is a highly competitive business. With a rapidly growing proportion of the population being concerned about obesity, diabetes, heart and stroke risks, cancer too, this idiotic ice cream franchise should be considering their very first priority to be helping their customers with healthier choices such as Stevia, or way less sugar at the very least.

How 'socially conscious' is it to be loading already over-loaded pancreases with more sugar?

That is a far, far bigger issue than trying to trash the Marriage Act for the very few of the few who might prefer that and are bullying society to get it , and then would be getting a divorce soon after.

Time for Government to legislate for ice cream sellers to put kilojoules on those sugar loaded waffle cones and ice cream? That has already happened with some fast foods.

Frightening,
http://www.fatsecret.com.au/calories-nutrition/generic/ice-cream

Leo, does your group have any plans to place "stormtroopers" outside these gay ice cream parlors, thus preventing the "good folk" from frequenting such unclean establishments? Just asking.

Two roosters do not lay fertile eggs. Two hens do not lay fertile eggs to hatch chickens. A rooster and a hen is the only logical conclusion to lay eggs from which to hatch chickens. The combinations are not equal and never will be equal. If equality is to be achieved then it cannot be on gender basis. Thus the push to annul gender from society.

Our society is only aware of battery hens for eggs, and battery roosters for meat. Same gender has become normal practise in their psyche. They fail to see the huge breeding going on behind the scenes to give both laying hens and roosters from chickens; otherwise the breeds dies out.