Philips:

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

Yes.

“Sex can enhance intimacy and companionship”

How does this work exactly? How does sex enhance intimacy? You can have the deepest levels of human intimacy with someone with whom you have no sexual relationship at all. If the ultimate levels of intimacy can be had without sex then how does sex enhance intimacy? How does it contribute to the levels of intimacy at all? Intimacy is one activity and sex is another. You may be having intimacy and sex at the same time but how does intimacy become enhanced? How can it be any better than what it is when you are not having sex?

How can sex enhance companionship? You have companionship when you are in the living room. How does the level of companionship increase or be enhanced when you go to the bedroom? It remains exactly the same level of companionship.

“The last time you did it, I became a raging, walking hard-on”

So I took you out of context and you deemed that to be a bad thing like having an erection. Why do you have such a negative attitude to your own erections? Are you afraid of being punished because of them or of losing control over your own body?

“How is discrimination logical when everyone suffers for it to some degree or another?”

What has discrimination got to do with anything? No one is being discriminated here unless you can prove that homosexuality is logical. If homosexual behaviour is illogical then homosexuality is illogical and so there is no one who is being discriminated. If your sexuality does not exist then you cannot be discriminated on its basis.

Philips:

“You’ve got yourself into a mighty mess here, so let me help you untangle some of it to get you back on track…”

Why not just do it or are you trying to convince yourself that I am in a mighty mess or that you are capable of helping?

“To justify this claim, you falsely limit sexuality to the act of having sex.”

What else is it about?

“then claim that homosexuality is therefore illogical because it cannot produce children.”

No I said it can be illogical and one of the ways that heterosexuality demonstrates logic is because it is logical to have sex if you want to have a baby. Homosexuality does not have any such demonstrable logic which is why it is always open to the possibility that it is never logical.

“When it is shown to you that there are other logical reasons to engage in sexual activity,”

I haven’t been shown at all. Just because you make an unsubstantiated claim that intimacy and companionship are enhanced by sexual activity does not mean I have been ‘shown’. You have given no reasons for this claim of yours.

“See what a mess you get yourself into”

What is wrong with being in a mess? I am not concerned with that. I am trying to find the truth. I do not presume to have all the answers and part of that search can be messy – it is called thinking. Why would you presume that I am uncomfortable with mess? Or perhaps you need to convince yourself that I am in a mess because it makes you feel superior in some way. Or perhaps you are afraid of being in a mess because you need to be in control of every argument.

“Conclusions are something which we arrive at, not something we presuppose and then defend at all costs.”

That is what you are doing. Your conclusion is that homosexual marriage is reasonable and logical and yet you cannot prove the most basic premise of your argument which declares homosexual behaviour to be logical.

That’s interesting, phanto.

<<Yes.>>

Because, in that very same post, you suggested that those other things COULD be attained through sexual activity, but that it was illogical to do so because they could be attained via other means.

See what I mean about tripping over your own contradictions and inconsistencies when make it up as you go?

<<How does sex enhance intimacy?>>

By being an act of intimacy.

<<If the ultimate levels of intimacy can be had without sex then how does sex enhance intimacy?>>

What are the ultimate levels of intimacy, and how are you measuring them? That aside for a moment, and assuming that we could determine when two people reached a supposed maximum level of intimacy together, how do you know that such a level can be achieved without sex? Furthermore, even if you were right, it does not then follow that sex can NEVER enhance intimacy. That’s illogical.

Your argument is dumb.

<<How does it contribute to the levels of intimacy at all?>>

By promoting closeness.

<<Intimacy is one activity and sex is another.>>

Intimacy isn’t an activity, it’s a state.

<<How can sex enhance companionship?>>

By promoting closeness.

<<So I took you out of context and you deemed that to be a bad thing like having an erection.>>

At no point did I suggest that having an erection was a bad thing. Nor did I compare having an erection to what you said.

<<What has discrimination got to do with anything?>>

Not allowing homosexual couple to marry is discriminatory.

<<No one is being discriminated here unless you can prove that homosexuality is logical.>>

I have, you are yet to counter it.

<<If homosexual behaviour is illogical then homosexuality is illogical and so there is no one who is being discriminated.>>

So now heterosexuality is illogical, too? You haven’t demonstrated that either one is “illogical”.

<<If your sexuality does not exist …>>

You are yet to demonstrate this.

Now that was one convoluted side-step to a very simple question.

Continued…

…Continued

<<What else is [sexuality] about?>>

Romance and romantic attraction. I’m sorry an asexual person like yourself doesn’t get that.

<<No I said it can be illogical and one of the ways that heterosexuality demonstrates logic is because it is logical to have sex if you want to have a baby.>>

Same thing. What I said still applies.

<<Homosexuality does not have any such demonstrable logic which is why it is always open to the possibility that it is never logical.>>

Again, you falsely limit sexuality to sex acts.

<<Just because you make an unsubstantiated claim that intimacy and companionship are enhanced by sexual activity does not mean I have been ‘shown’. You have given no reasons for this claim of yours.>>

Well, until your last two posts, I didn’t realise you were silly and/or obtuse enough to need it explained. But now I’ve explained it for the obtuse phanto.

<<I am trying to find the truth.>>

Oh, come now. People in search for the truth do not engage in mental gymnastics or change their argument every five minutes to favour only one conclusion

<<Why would you presume that I am uncomfortable with mess?>>

Because it suggests intellectual dishonesty.

<<Or perhaps you need to convince yourself that I am in a mess because it makes you feel superior in some way.>>

Or perhaps you need to convince yourself that I need to convince myself because you are not convinced of your own... self.

Ah-HA! Gotcha there!

Seriously, though, the amateur psychology is boring and doesn't work.

<<Your conclusion is that homosexual marriage is reasonable and logical and yet you cannot prove the most basic premise of your argument which declares homosexual behaviour to be logical.>>

That’s an unnecessary premise which you have invented and not yet justified the need for. Despite that, however, I have provided you with a satisfactory answer many times before: Because people are sexual beings, and some are attracted to the same sex. But since you don’t think that constitutes a logical reason to be homosexual, then tell me: what is logical about ignoring one’s sexuality?

Philips:

Unless you can show me an example of the logic of just one homosexual act then it remains possible that all homosexual acts are illogical. That it is fundamental logic.

So now we’re back to the acts, phanto?

<<Unless you can show me an example of the logic of just one homosexual act then it remains possible that all homosexual acts are illogical.>>

You keep switching back and forth between sexuality in general and sex acts (if I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were trying wear me down so that I give up and leave). We covered the ‘sex acts’ angle thoroughly in our last discussion. You keep returning to it because you forget that procreation is not a trump card.

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.

What.

Part.

Of.

This.

Do.

You.

Not.

Understand?

None of it, I suspect. You are simply ducking and weaving, and shifting the goal posts now. It’s all you have left.

<<That it is fundamental logic.>>

I’m not even sure you know what logic is, anymore. Logic, in the context of this discussion, is the quality of being justifiable by reason (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic).

You still haven’t answered my question, by the way. What is logical about ignoring one’s sexuality?