RObert:

An ‘orientation’ presumes that human beings are attracted by the desire for sex. There is no reason why they would be since no one needs another human being in order to be sexually satisfied.

We are attracted to people of both sexes for a whole host of reasons but mainly because we seek in others the human qualities which we cannot find in ourselves. These are qualities which we have the potential for but which have been suppressed for one reason or another. This is what attracts people and not sex.

There is no ‘sexual orientation’. This is just a rationalisation of homosexual behaviour.

//There is no reason why they would be since no one needs another human being in order to be sexually satisfied.//

Nah, but you'll go blind if you devote too much effort to conducting yourself in the solo symphony.

//We are attracted to people of both sexes for a whole host of reasons but mainly because we seek in others the human qualities which we cannot find in ourselves.//

Nah, this 'opposites attract' business is all well and good when it comes to electromagnetism, but it's bollocks when it applies to people. I want a woman with whom I have things in common.

//This is what attracts people and not sex.//

Nah, because as I said, I want a woman with whom I have things in common. A bloke wouldn't cut it because I don't fancy blokes.

Toni Lavis:

Why do you want a woman at all? Do you feel inadequate?

mememememememe,

Ultimately, where most opponents are concerned, you’re probably right about that.

<<The argument is over the word marriage being used by the gay community.>>

So, then, why do so many feign a concern for children?

<<Setting up strawmen arguments to knock them down is what propaganda is all about.>>

Indeed. But I was responding to NathanJ’s concern about the children involved, so there were no straw men harmed in the posting of my argument.

<<The other type of false argument being used by the yes campaign …>>

The other? We haven’t established one, yet.

<<... is to falsely accuse the no campaign of using the fallacy of the slippery slope argument.>>

No, no. That one’s legitimate, because arguing a slippery slope evades the issue at hand by leaping forward to other issues; some of which may never even eventuate.

<<[The slippery slope fallacy] only applies to relatively small initial steps.>>

No, it doesn’t. You made that up.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope

<<To try and argue that ssm is a relatively small step is high farce …>>

Relatively? In relation to what? Specify that, and I’ll know whether I agree with you regarding how small a step it is, and whether it's a farce.

<<Wake up and start protecting your kids...now!>>

Yeah, as I alluded to before, the concern for children is naive at best, and feigned at worst.

AJ Phillips,

My post, is in relation to a book that I am writing, the connection to family history and this discussion relates to the protection of an individuals personal family roots. Some stories, I don't have as all of my grandparents have now passed away, and so a lot of time, effort and interstate travel will be needed to complete any research. I am even considering going overseas.

Family and culture is important to preserve in terms of the ethnic and cultural origins of Australia. One only has to look at indigenous and other cultural stories that have lasted over many generations.

As I stated "If a person (who cannot have a child through birth) in principle believes love is important, they will much more appreciate a person's roots and connection to a biological family, not possession under a position of having a child in a loving environment".

To see where this can fit people can read many stories about the stolen generation online. Many still feel violated, even to this day. Whilst today, people see others who cannot have children (using surrogacy programs) as part of normal practice, many took the same view in the past, when children were taken away from their parents (or such a practice would simply have not occurred at the time).

How will people (born via surrogacy) be able to go back to their family roots? Many state governments are also taking Australian History out as a year 12 subject, and in my view are not respecting Australia's rich cultural heritage as a result. This is where Australians have an important role to play and not constantly be a policy vacuum to the United States.

People can view this to hopefully understand my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOwqoEgED1g

//Why do you want a woman at all?//

Because I'm not a robot, mate.

//Do you feel inadequate?/

Oh, yes. Deeply inadequate. I am but a weak, feeble shadow of a pathetic man. Please, please lecture me on how I might become a better and stronger person by following the phanto method, for you are surely the most insightful and erudite man who ever lived, and I do find your lectures so very enthralling.

You should write a book or something.