Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

There's nothing "natural" - and much less "rational" - about feeling a distaste for other people's affection

There is when it is an affection expressed sexually in a way that runs counter to the natural expression of the human sexual instinct - but I already know that you do not accept this premise.

 

[bilby]

You are defending something that has been around for 50 years

Well we have already done this but i would say marriage has been around a lot longer than that.

Not in its current legal form

I would also say changing it from being between a man and a woman to being between any 2 people is a fairly radical redefinition.

And I would disagree.

 

[bilby]

There's nothing "natural" - and much less "rational" - about feeling a distaste for other people's affection

There is when it is an affection expressed sexually in a way that runs counter to the natural expression of the human sexual instinct - but I already know that you do not accept this premise.

I don't. And while I do agree with what Jokodo said, I didn't say it.

If you don't know who you are quoting, it is better not to put any name in than it is to mis-attribute.

Given that homosexuality is demonstrably natural, your objection to Jokodo's argument is baseless.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think this is a moral issue. There is nothing morally wrong with being homosexual. This is a question politics. i.e. the disproportionately loud voice of the political agenda of the gay rights movement is forcing society to make major changes to its cultural institutions. I think this is wrong.

It's not just one moral issue. There are several moral issues involved. But my point is that you are making several moral claims and/or arguments (more on that in a moment), without separating them, and the result is quite unclear.
Granted, it's also a political issue - political issues are often moral issues.
However, some your moral claims and/or arguments seem to generalize beyond a specific political system (such as Australia's political system), which is why the other forum seems more suitable to me. But your call. Even in this forum, I would suggest different threads for your different moral arguments and/or claims.

As for some of your moral claims in this thread (in no particular order):

On that basis I don't think society is obliged to redefine marriage to accept relationships based on an erroneous expression of sexual attraction.

That's a moral claim about what society has a moral obligation to do (or doesn't).

Until that time I think people with homosexuality should be be treated humanely but I think redefining the cultural institution of marriage to humour them is going a little bit too far.

That involves first one explicit passive voice moral claim - namely, that people with homosexuality should be be treated humanely - (it's not specified who is the person or people with the obligation to so treat them), and probably one implicit moral claim "redefining the cultural institution of marriage to humor them is going a little bit too far", which seems to mean that it's morally wrong to (allegedly) redefine the "institution" of marriage.

No, I am arguing that they SHOULD not be allowed to build family units. I don't think homosexuality is a normal expression of the human sexual instinct. I don't think homosexuals should be victimised for this but I don't think it should be encouraged either.

Those are 3 explicit moral claims. They're all passive-voice moral claims, without specifying who should or should not allow them to do that, etc., but they're still clearly moral claims. Those shoulds are clearly moral shoulds, not means-to-end shoulds or some other sort of shoulds.

I could post more examples, but that's sufficient to establish that you are making several moral claims, and by reading the thread one can tell you're making a few arguments to back them up. But you're not making the claims or the arguments very clear I'm afraid. I can still consider options, etc., but it takes longer.

I will accept that in certain special cases, such as bonobos, sexual activity has been sugnificantly co-opted for other social reasons. e.g. social bonding, submissiveness displays, dispute resolution; however I do not believe that is the case in humans. Sexuality is primarily private in humans for good evolutionary reasons, I think. Heterosexual humans do not use sexuality for these purposes.

Here you seem to be conflating the purpose for which an agent does something and the function (which you called "purpose") that the organ may have, or the cause it some trait was favored by selection. Clarification would be of help.
But that aside, many humans (regardless of sexual orientation) use sexuality for several different purposes. Even when sexual relations are private (and there are plenty of other cases), that doesn't deny purposes other than reproduction.
That aside, the fact is that sex in humans is usually for non-reproductive purposes. The most common type of sex in humans almost certainly is (I don't have statistics at hand, but if you're going to challenge that, please let me know) masturbation, which is not for social purposes, but also not for reproduction.
As for sex between two or more humans, it's much more common than reproduction - reproduction seems to be an unusual purpose.
On that note, during most of our evolutionary past, our ancestors didn't know that sex resulted in reproduction, so when they had sex for some purpose, they didn't do it for reproduction. It would be expected that humans would be motivated to have sex usually for non-reproductive purposes - it's to be expected because for millions of years, human ancestors have been having sex for non-reproductive purposes, even if their sex often resulted in reproduction (but in most cases, it didn't).

One of your claims also entails that masturbation is one possible wrong expression of human sexuality.

That is arguably true but onanists are not demanding that society bends its traditions out of shape to accomodate them.

A few points:
1. It seems you are committed to the claim, since it's entailed by one of your claims, plus the reasoning that led from it to your conclusion.
More specifically, you claimed:
"I assert that heterosexuality is the right expression of sexuality since sex is evolved for a purpose. To reproduce.

Therefore homosexuality is one possible wrong expression of human sexuality."

Of course, by your assertion and the same reasoning, one conclusion is that masturbation is one possible wrong expression of human sexuality. So, as long as you do not withdraw your claims and/or arguments I just quoted, then "arguably true" is not enough. You're committed to the conclusion that it's true - unless, of course, you withdraw the claims and/or arguments I just quoted.

2. On that note, could you please address my question on the subject?
Saying that X is one possible wrong expression of human sexuality seems to entail that X is an illness, or a symptom of an illness.
So, I'm asking:
Are you using the expression "wrong expression of human sexuality" in a way that entails an illness, or a symptom of an illness?
If not, what do you mean by "wrong expression" in this context?

3. The point of that part of my reply was a reductio ad absurdum because it's absurd (even though Catholicism might insist on it) to imply that masturbation is, in humans, an illness or a symptom of an illness (and I mean always, not that it might sometimes result from some illness).
To be more precise if needed, by "absurd" I mean it's so improbable based on the info available to us that it's well beyond a reasonable doubt that that is not the case (you may disagree with that, of course; debates on the internet essentially never result in persuasion of one's opponent, but still, it's probably be a decisive point in the eyes of any readers who may have been on the fence).

4. If you prefer the word "disorder" instead of illness (just in case, since you seem to be going by the Catholic view, even if with modifications removing the specifically Christian or theistic stuff), I would ask what the difference between an illness and a disorder is, in your usage of the terms.

Sorry if I did not have time to respond to all points raised but I will come back later.

Okay, I'm listening.

 

[Jokodo]

You are defending something that has been around for 50 years

Well we have already done this but i would say marriage has been around a lot longer than that.

I would also say changing it from being between a man and a woman to being between any 2 people is a fairly radical redefinition.

More radical than changing it from a (male, duh) person acquiring property in the form of a female to a relationship between to equal persons?

 

[Jokodo]

There's nothing "natural" - and much less "rational" - about feeling a distaste for other people's affection

There is when it is an affection expressed sexually in a way that runs counter to the natural expression of the human sexual instinct - but I already know that you do not accept this premise.

If I misunderstood you, tell me where, but to me it appears that you equate "the natural expression of the human sexual instinct" roughly with something along the lines of "those activities that have the potential to lead to procreation, and no others".

It follows that you should be outraged by people kissing in public, but not by people performing penis-in-vagina sex in public.

The problem with your premise is not that I don't accept it, but that you apply it inconsistently, in a post-hoc fashion, to justify your irrationality. Any argument you bring up against homosexuality works just as fine as an argument against heterosexual pairings where the woman is past menopause, or where the man has undergone vasectomy, or where acts other than penis-in-vagina sex are performed. The fact that you're not rallying against those clearly shows that your professed reasons aren't the real ones.

 

[mojorising]

If I misunderstood you, tell me where, but to me it appears that you equate "the natural expression of the human sexual instinct" roughly with something along the lines of "those activities that have the potential to lead to procreation, and no others".

No I say 'the natural expression' is sexual attraction between a male and a female. Reproduction is the force that caused the attraction to evolve but the attraction itself is the natural result. I think homosexual attraction in humans is an aberration.

I can't see any reason why it would usefully evolve since we are not Bonobos. We don't enage casually in a homosexual fashion for social purposes. We don't know what causes homosexuality so it should be handled with care until we do.

 

[mojorising]

That involves first one explicit passive voice moral claim - namely, that people with homosexuality should be be treated humanely - (it's not specified who is the person or people with the obligation to so treat them)

I don't think my use of the passive voice renders my assertions as obscure as you are suggesting. I am implying 'by society in general' although that may be too vague a designation for you.

The idea of breaking the discussion into components is probably a good idea.

I did not start this thread. I found it (and the forum) when googling 'Australia Gay Marriage' while looking for an active debate.

Of course, by your assertion and the same reasoning, one conclusion is that masturbation is one possible wrong expression of human sexuality.

Yes, I already conceded that that may be true but that onanists are not asking for major cultural redefinitions to accomodate their hobby.

Are you using the expression "wrong expression of human sexuality" in a way that entails an illness, or a symptom of an illness?
If not, what do you mean by "wrong expression" in this context?

I mean 'wrong' in several senses

1. I think that, in humans, sex has a function for reproduction by attracting men to women. Sexual attraction to anything else is aberrant. I think it is a recurring aberration in the manifestation of the human sexual urge and as such it should only be tolerated (by society) out of magnanimity and not elevated to a position of equality with heterosexuality.

2. I think it is harmful to the smooth running of society since it makes demands of the status quo that are unreasonable (radical changing of ancient tradition).

3. I think it is harmful to the smooth running of society since accomodating the acceptance of homosexual expression in public is an excessive imposition on the heterosexual majority, who, I maintain, are offended by aberrant public sexual expression.

4. I think until we understand the causes better that it has the potential to harm children brought up in a homosexual environment by predisposing them to aberrant sexual development


Maybe the way I am saying these things does not conform to the standards of debate and clarity in English expected on the forum but I don't think my points are hard to understand.

 

[Jokodo]

If I misunderstood you, tell me where, but to me it appears that you equate "the natural expression of the human sexual instinct" roughly with something along the lines of "those activities that have the potential to lead to procreation, and no others".

No I say 'the natural expression' is sexual attraction between a male and a female. Reproduction is the force that caused the attraction to evolve but the attraction itself is the natural result. I think homosexual attraction in humans is an aberration.

If reproduction is the only force involved in the evolution of human sexuality, any sexual activity that is not penis-in-vagina or that involves a woman who is not currently receptive is an aberration just as much as homosexual activity.

So you need to do either of these things:

1. Accept that reproduction is not the only evolved function of sexuality.

2. Start rallying against kissing and elderly couples.

3. Admit that you're being inconsistent and bigoted.

 

[dystopian]

I can't see any reason why it would usefully evolve since we are not Bonobos.

Bonobos are our closest living relatives. If you're going to talk about evolution, you can not dismiss them.

We don't enage casually in a homosexual fashion for social purposes.

Except for all the times that we do.

We don't know what causes homosexuality so it should be handled with care until we do.

We don't know what causes heterosexuality so it should be handled with care until we do.

 

[mojorising]

If reproduction is the only force involved in the evolution of human sexuality, any sexual activity that is not penis-in-vagina or that involves a woman who is not currently receptive is an aberration...

That is true but mostly minor aberrations. The key quality is that the sexual attraction is between male and a female.

...just as much as homosexual activity.

I don't think that is true.

 

[mojorising]

We don't know what causes heterosexuality so it should be handled with care until we do.

I think that is just being obtuse. The genetic causes of heterosexual attraction as as plain as day. Can there even be a more obvious connection between a trait and its selection by evolution.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We don't know what causes heterosexuality so it should be handled with care until we do.

I think that is just being obtuse. The genetic causes of heterosexual attraction as as plain as day. Can there even be a more obvious connection between a trait and its selection by evolution.

Then why are we at all capable of sex at times when women can´t conceive? Humans obviously have sex for other reasons than just to create progeny. Evolution is a lot "smarter" than you give it credit for. Useless traits are sensitive to selection pressure. This is especially true of stuff regarding sexuality. Yes, homosexuality is a mystery. But so is heterosexuality mostly. What´s the deal with getting horny about high-heeled shoes and garter belts? Very little about human sexuality seems to make any logical sense, unless you expand it to be about more than just procreation.

 

[dystopian]

We don't know what causes heterosexuality so it should be handled with care until we do.

I think that is just being obtuse. The genetic causes of heterosexual attraction as as plain as day. Can there even be a more obvious connection between a trait and its selection by evolution.

Again you seem incapable of using the quote feature properly. Jokodo didn't write that, I did. Either learn basic internet, or stop trying to quote people.

Secondly, it isn't being obtuse at all. We DON'T know the genetic mechanics underlying heterosexual attraction. We don't know what genes if any cause it. Just because it makes sense that the members of two reproductive genders of a species would tend develop an attraction to each other does NOT mean we understand the how of it. In the genetic/biological sense, we don't know what causes heterosexuality ANY MORE than we do homosexuality.

And of course, if you're going to argue that heterosexuality doesn't need to have its genetic mechanisms explained on the basis that it's obvious what caused its evolution, then we can say the exact same thing about homosexuality. It's already been demonstrated why homosexuality evolves as a behavior among species; you just don't *like* it and dismiss it as irrelevant for humans. Something you do without any basis other than the fact that it destroys your justification for believing homosexuality is unnatural.

 

[Jokodo]

That is true but mostly minor aberrations. The key quality is that the sexual attraction is between male and a female.

...just as much as homosexual activity.

I don't think that is true.

It obviously is true. From the procreation point of view (talking from a male perspective here), sex of a man with a barren woman or non-vaginal sex or sex with a condom or sex post-vasectomy is as futile as sex with another man, or with a hole in the ground for that matter. The key quality should be sexual attraction between a male and an ovulating female, and nothing more. Now of course you could say that it's easier for evolution to come up with a less specific instinct as a quick fix - say, being attracted to women is good enough because a fair fraction of them will be ovulating. But there's two glaring problems with that cop-out:

1. Being attracted to people is also good enough because a fair fraction of them will be ovulating women.

2. We know that being sexually attracted to ovulating females only isn't unachievable - most mammals do it, and there's a very good chance that our ancestors did it at some point too, and lost the ability to discriminate only later. Which in itself is alone to suggest that procreation isn't the only function of sex in humans, leaving your argument in shambles.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is true but mostly minor aberrations. The key quality is that the sexual attraction is between male and a female.



I don't think that is true.

It obviously is true. From the procreation point of view, sex of a man with a barren woman or non-vaginal sex or sex with a condom or sex post-vasectomy is as futile as sex man, or with a hole in the ground for that matter. The key quality should be sexual attraction between a male and an ovulating female, and nothing more. Now of course you could say that it's easier for evolution to come up with a less specific instinct as a quick fix - say, being attracted to women is good enough because a fair fraction of them will be ovulating. But there's two glaring problems with that cop-out:

1. Being attracted to people is also good enough because a fair fraction of them will be ovulating women.

2. We know that being sexually attracted to ovulating females only isn't unachievable - most mammals do it, and there's a very good chance that our ancestors did it at some point too, and lost the ability to discriminate only later. Which in itself is alone to suggest that procreation isn't the only function of sex in humans, leaving your argument in shambles.

According to Matt Ridley in his book Human Genome there´s an explanation for this. Since there was selection pressure for ever larger brains the female body had to adapt. But since we´re a bipedal species there was an upper limit to the width of the pelvis. So then babies were starting to be born more and more prematurely. That´s why human babies don´t acquire the strength and coordination all other mammals do at birth until they´re about two years old. Yes, it´s really all other mammals. No other mammal is this useless upon birth. This meant that human babies are so helpless that raising them alone is too difficult. So there developed an instinct for pair bonding.

Also... I should point out that homosexuality is stable about about 2-3% all over the world. Which is a strong indicator that it´s genetic (ie not a learned behaviour). But it´s also found in those proportions among other mammals and birds. The same stable ratio. This is baffling yet true. It clearly defies any simple explanation, whatever the real reason is.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I can't see any reason why it would usefully evolve since we are not Bonobos. We don't enage casually in a homosexual fashion for social purposes. We don't know what causes homosexuality so it should be handled with care until we do.

There is a possible link between increased female fecundity and an epigenetic influence contributing to a higher chance of homosexual male offspring. This has two advantages. The first is that higher fecundity means a greater chance of more offspring. The second is that gay sons are less likely to reproduce themselves, but can still contribute to the strength of the family and the survival of subsequent generations.

However, homosexuality as a biological phenomenon has not been well studied. It is grossly premature to conclude it was or was not useful to human survival and propagation. That said, there is absolutely no reason to handle with care. There is more evidence that homosexuality could have had benefits as mentioned above than there is evidence indicating any cause for concern. Certainly evidence thus far strongly indicates homosexuality is innocuous at worst. You cannot justifiably suspend equal consideration for a group of human beings based on unfounded and nonsensical suspicions.

 

[mojorising]

1. Being attracted to people is also good enough because a fair fraction of them will be ovulating women.

But homosexuals are not attracted to 'people' they are attracted to men. That is not good enough.

2. We know that being sexually attracted to ovulating females only isn't unachievable

OK, off the top of my head. Being attracted to ovulating females requires a good sense of smell. We lost that when we teamed up with dogs and our olfactory sense was deprecated.

We DON'T know the genetic mechanics underlying heterosexual attraction.

My argument is that the WHY makes sense. Do we understand the HOW? I am not sure, I have not researched that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can't see any reason why it would usefully evolve since we are not Bonobos. We don't enage casually in a homosexual fashion for social purposes. We don't know what causes homosexuality so it should be handled with care until we do.

There is a possible link between increased female fecundity and an epigenetic influence contributing to a higher chance of homosexual male offspring. This has two advantages. The first is that higher fecundity means a greater chance of more offspring. The second is that gay sons are less likely to reproduce themselves, but can still contribute to the strength of the family and the survival of subsequent generations.

This only works with group selection. Which is largely dismissed. We´re not ants. Genetic traits incapable of being passed on are worthless, evolutionarily speaking. Yes, it is interesting that the more older siblings you have the more likely you´re gay. But I have a hard time seeing how this, in any way, could be beneficial to the gay guy. It´s just placing more eggs in fewer baskets. That´s not how to make a species survive.

Also, doesn´t explain homosexuality in non-social species. Cats are gay to the exact same proportion as humans. What possible use could a gay cat have to the offspring of anybody? Non-mother cats do NOT give a shit about anybody´s offspring.

I like the theory that the "gay gene" sits on a gene that does something very basic and useful. Most genes code for several things at once, and these can vary greatly. Removing/mutating it would kill the individual. So it stays in the genome, without actually being useful. BTW, this is not an argument for treating gays badly. No matter the reason they can´t help it and deserve our respect.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think my use of the passive voice renders my assertions as obscure as you are suggesting. I am implying 'by society in general' although that may be too vague a designation for you.

If that means by everyone, okay, that one is clear enough. But in any case, I wasn't suggesting that your arguments were obscure because of that only.

The idea of breaking the discussion into components is probably a good idea.

I did not start this thread. I found it (and the forum) when googling 'Australia Gay Marriage' while looking for an active debate.

I know you didn't start it. It was a suggestion so that the arguments could be debated more clearly. But it's your call. I can still debate here.

Yes, I already conceded that that may be true but that onanists are not asking for major cultural redefinitions to accomodate their hobby.

The "may be true" is not clear enough, since by your assertion and the same reasoning, one conclusion is that masturbation is one possible wrong expression of human sexuality. In other words, that is entailed by your assertion.

Incidentally, when you say "onanists" and "hobby", are you aware that you're referring to the vast majority of humans?
For example:
http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/graph.html

(I'd say it's also the most common human sexual act, though I would need other pieces of evidence to back that up).

Regardless of what nearly everyone asks for, your argument entails for masturbation everything it entails for homosexual sex, in terms of being "wrong".

I mean 'wrong' in several senses

1. I think that, in humans, sex has a function for reproduction by attracting men to women. Sexual attraction to anything else is aberrant. I think it is a recurring aberration in the manifestation of the human sexual urge and as such it should only be tolerated (by society) out of magnanimity and not elevated to a position of equality with heterosexuality.

2. I think it is harmful to the smooth running of society since it makes demands of the status quo that are unreasonable (radical changing of ancient tradition).

3. I think it is harmful to the smooth running of society since accomodating the acceptance of homosexual expression in public is an excessive imposition on the heterosexual majority, who, I maintain, are offended by aberrant public sexual expression.

4. I think until we understand the causes better that it has the potential to harm children brought up in a homosexual environment by predisposing them to aberrant sexual development

But again, the same applies to masturbation per your argument.

So, let me address your points one by one:

1. I think that, in humans, sex has a function for reproduction by attracting men to women. Sexual attraction to anything else is aberrant. I think it is a recurring aberration in the manifestation of the human sexual urge and as such it should only be tolerated (by society) out of magnanimity and not elevated to a position of equality with heterosexuality.

You mean by attracting women to men as well?
At any rate, your argument in support of the claim that it's "wrong", also applies to masturbation.
So, going by the same argument, one might conclude (I leave aside the "I think", since it only shows less certainty on your part, which is good but not central to the claims).

1'. Masturbation (and/or the propensity to masturbate) is a recurring aberration in the manifestation of the human sexual urge and as such it should only be tolerated out of magnanimity.

But that's an absurd claim, so that's a reductio. You're making a claim against homosexuality, but your argument in support of it, fails, because it has premises that lead to absurd conclusions (even if you were right about homosexuality, your argument to your conclusion would fail).

That aside, you're saying homosexuality should not be elevated to a position of equality, and in context, this means equality before the law. As I pointed out, it's not about homosexuality only, since the discrimination banning same-sex marriage is a discrimination based on sex (not sexual orientation), and while gay people will be harmed more often than others in proportion to their numbers, bisexual people will also be directly harmed (and others will be harmed indirectly).

But also, there is the problem of the "as such". Even assuming homosexuality is an illness, that would provide no good reason to not allow gay couples to marry. It would harm them. And heterosexual people are not in general harmed by same-sex marriage.

2. I think it is harmful to the smooth running of society since it makes demands of the status quo that are unreasonable (radical changing of ancient tradition).

What is now legally called "marriage" in Australia is not at all ancient. And that is the change those who support same-sex marriage demand, legally. A legal change of a certainly not ancient legal concept. No one is trying to keep straight people from engaging in any ancient traditions that are not already illegal.
But that aside, ancient or not, there is nothing unreasonable in demanding that their relationships be accepted before the law. Why shouldn't they be?

Other than that, there is no harmful effect in the way society is run in those countries or sub-national jurisdictions in which same sex marriage has already been legalized - not even in those with majorities against same sex marriage. So, why would you think Australia would be different?

3. I think it is harmful to the smooth running of society since accomodating the acceptance of homosexual expression in public is an excessive imposition on the heterosexual majority, who, I maintain, are offended by aberrant public sexual expression.

Two points:
a. The acceptance of homosexual expression in public is already a given in Australia, by most people. No new laws are required for that. What is not generally accepted is the public moral condemnation of people just because they have gay sex. So, this is not a matter of same-sex marriage.
b. Your claim about the heterosexual majority requires evidence to back it up. In fact, when you say "offended", that is a moral claim, so you're implying that most people find two people of the same sex kissing in public, or otherwise behaving in ways in which opposite sex couples behave in public in Australia, morally wrong. I don't see any good evidence for that, and the fact that public opinion polls show that the vast majority of people are in favor of same-sex marriage strongly suggests otherwise. But if you have evidence to back up your claim, please present it (if they did find it offensive, then that would be their own moral fault - for morally condemning gay or bisexual people for doing something that is not immoral -, but let's leave that for later).

4. I think until we understand the causes better that it has the potential to harm children brought up in a homosexual environment by predisposing them to aberrant sexual development

But what about the potential of harming children by not allowing their two mothers from getting married, by promoting the view that their behavior is immoral if they kiss in public, etc.?
That would definitely has serious harm potential. It's not as if gay people will stop raising children if they're not allowed to legally marry, or to legally adopt them. It's only that their life will in some cases be made more difficult, and it will be even more so for children, especially if joint adoption is not allowed (e.g., one of the parents die; the other is not legally recognized as a parent; the children are separated from her and/or from her siblings, etc.)

On the other hand, the harm that you're talking about (is it a harm? Even assuming it were) is not based on good evidence, as far as I can tell. I would expect, however, that people raised by gay parents would overall be more likely to publicly recognize if they're gay or bi, because they're more likely to have been raised in an environment in which that would not be seen as negative, and would be less likely to face social retaliation from it, even if in Australia, such retaliation has become the exception in the case of heterosexual parents as well.

Maybe the way I am saying these things does not conform to the standards of debate and clarity in English expected on the forum but I don't think my points are hard to understand.

Actually, I don't expect much clarity in on-line moral debates outside philosophy blogs. But I offer to address your points clearly. I'm actually doing that already to the extent your points permit it, but sometimes you're talking about marriage, sometimes you're talking about expressions and public, sometimes you're not addressing my reductio, etc. I'm afraid some of your arguments are actually not easy to understand, even when your claims are.