The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Thoughts on the plebiscite > Comments

Thoughts on the plebiscite : Comments

By Michael Thompson, published 24/8/2016

Opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that the public will vote against gay marriage, so a plebiscite shouldn't be held because the public have no rights in this matter.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
Michael Thompson, bloody brilliant. I am so over these "Sexually deviant social stigmatists" , AKA homosexuals, and their constant in your face idiotic demands, to change our society completely around one hundred and eighty degrees, simply to suit the childish whims of a cohort of the two percent deviant!

I vote NO to their "stupid"!
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:08:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good, clear and eminently readable/understandable rebuttal to the arguments propounded by the good judge. Your post is a good example of the sought after 'hateful, spiteful homophobic bile' that we have been warned to expect.

Allow me a couple of Further plebiscitary thoughts.

When I was married in the 70's, my wife was resoundingly abused by her gay sister and friends for even considering joining such a patriarchal, system driven and obsolete organisation (marriage). It was very clear then where the gay community stood with regard to marriage as an institution. What changed?

It is my understanding that, given 'the Drum' and such sources, the vast majority of Australians are completely 'on board' with the whole thing, 85% of surveyed people ar in favour, the Poll results all say so. So why the objection to a plebiscite? It's a 'shoe in'. Is it just all about money with these folk?
Posted by Prompete, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:49:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Miss, Diver Dan is misbehaving again!
The sooner our elected representatives see the sense of our sex is what we say it is, hour by hour if need be. Paedophilia is natural and so is beastiality then Australia will be improved. Well that seems to be the current ABC consensus.
Whilst on the subject of saving money let us put the Public Servants onto retirees conditions i.e. reducing pensions year by year. Close the ABC and there is a billion dollars of saving plus a reducing debt!
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:53:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polls confirm that Australians overwhelmingly approve of gay marriage - over 70%, we are told, 80% of 16-24 year olds, even 60% of Christians. The majority of politicians reflect our view. Yet Cory Bernardi et al punch way above their weight and Malcolm has done the deal which will cost us $160 million. It is another example of the theocracy within our democracy. We are right to be afraid of a plebiscite - remember the Republic one where the waters were muddied and the result did not reflect the majority view. We are also right to fear the polarization and name-calling (see previous comment) that the lobbying prior to the vote will inevitably bring about.
Posted by estelles, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:57:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rather than having a plebiscite which the politicians can ignore, we should have a referendum. Although this is not an issue for which a referendum is constitutionally required, there is nothing in the constitution which prohibits legislation for a referendum on this issue.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:23:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article. And we must ignore activist judges like Mr. Kirby , a homosexual himself, who should know better than to talk such undemocratic nonsense. This article is a perfect rebuttle to activists. If these people are so sure that a majority of Australians support them, they have nothing to worry about. And, any changes to something as important as the marriage act just to suit a very small minority cannot be left to politicians. The government made it clear prior to the election that there would be a plebicite, and they must see that it is held.

I am offended that this sorry business has arisen; it is another blow to civilised society, and I will be voting no. But, at least, people should be able to decide whether or not they are willing to see society slip down another notch in a democratic manner. Those opposing a plebicite are not democratic in the slightest, and they are not really sure of their position. The ridiculous idea of same sex 'marriage" when, for all practical reasons, homsexuals can do as they please with no interference, is just another attempt to steer society along the road to a socialist utopia.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:29:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
twelve times the Parliament has voted against perverting the marriage act. Now the elite don't want the public to have a say. They hate democracy even more than stalinist.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:45:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree with Aidan here, and add, we need to remain vigilant on the language chosen to pose the question?

Which should remain a simple yes or no? Should two people who love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation, be permitted to marry?

Other examples like, do you approve of homosexual marriage/sex need to be weeded out, given they pose an entirely irrelevant/very different question or give the homophobes oxygen for their often devious discrimination or barely veiled hate speech.

We should put this question to the people and organise like the irish family and friend based activism so it can't be misrepresented or deliberately and disingenuously misinterpreted, the tactics used by some devious devotees to defeat the, do you want an Australian as head of state question!

And if we are to have an expensive referendum, why can't we also ask if our aboriginal brothers be included in the constitution as the recognized original inhabitants/occupants, And should Australians, like every other modern western civilization, have an irrevocable bill of rights? And should our head of state be an Australian? In a four for the price of one outcome?

With that done and dusted! The proposed mechanics can be separated out and then put as viable options later! To avoid the usual reasons (built in complexity; and or, too much information) referendums fail!

At the end of the day, the people need to answer the simply put questions and resoundingly!

Otherwise the anti gay activists, white supremacists, assorted control freaks, fruit loops and medieval homophobes, will never accept that a majority of Australians are in favour of equal rights/reasonable acceptance/recognition/a republic?

And may even use their patently mistaken belief to continue their fully imported persecution/risible rabble rousing/victorian subservance?

Nor do we need Brits and others, who've done nothing but every which way harm to their own country, coming here with a patently palpable toffee nosed superiority complex/obnoxious attitudes, trying to insist that caused action and opinion are one and the same thing! We really have tolerated far too much of this cleverly camouflaged, spanner in the spokes activism?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:42:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Should two people who love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation, be permitted to marry?"

Do they have to love each other? How would you test for this to make sure that people are not marrying for money, company or to bring someone into the country? Love has nothing to do with it. It is purely a civil arrangement which anyone is free to abuse however they like.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:49:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am calling Alan B out as a racist! What has he got against people from Britain.
This disgusting racist slur is an outrage. I will have to go and have a lie down. I am here referring to all the Britons who are black of course (There are many) because no white person is worthy of any sort of protection from Alan B's particular brand of fascist racism.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 12:50:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think about the plebiscite, what a complete waste of time and a fruitless distraction from the REAL problems facing Australia in coming years.

The yanks legislated it in at federal level, the Irish have done it too and numerous other countries that I don't care to mention, "Google it" I use that term loosely as there are other search engines, you'll see how many...

In my humble opinion, just legalise it so we can get to the more important matters at hand like creating more employment and at least maintaining our current standards of living..
Posted by Rojama, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 1:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Start you're article with a strawman, and you're bound to get the Rubes approval, but little else.

If the Author is suggesting that then PM Tony"Abort" came up with the plebiscite idea in the same way that the republican referendum was carefully constructed to get a no vote then you're in the wrong game.

You can see by the post on this site what the religious and right wing nuts would do and say during the led up to the plebiscite.

If little johnny could change the law to preclude gay marriage without a plebiscite, indeed without a public debate why can't the Parliament reverse it?

As for the cost of the plebiscite 160 million for a non-binding vote is not acceptable.

@ JBowyer are you serious given that Pedophilia is largely committed by heterosexuals and quite famously by the church and family members what exactly is your point. As for your comments about the ABC can you point to one instance where the ABC has suggested that Pedophilia or bestiality should be legal?

I think you need to wipe your mouth mate you're foaming
Posted by Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 2:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the false dichotomy, Mr. Thompson.

<<Either they retreat from their calls for same-sex marriage or they stop telling us that they are concerned.>>

There are three main fallacies committed by those against same-sex marriage: the Appeal to Nature, the Argumentum ad antiquitatem, and the Slippery Slope, the last of which JBowyer was quick to get in there. But I don’t think I’ve seen the false dichotomy committed in this debate before.

The main argument against a plebiscite (which you have failed to present accurately), is that the inevitable public debate in the lead up to the plebiscite will result in increased mental health problems for gay people (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682466), as has been the case in other countries that put the vote to the people, because it will give bigots and hate preachers a podium.

But no, conservatives will continue to assert that those for marriage equality are scared of a result that polling since 2004 consistently suggests will not eventuate.

<<If it is a concern then such concern can be easily placated by not pursuing the question of same-sex marriage.>>

Or they could just vote on it in parliament and avoid or greatly reduce the damage.

Suggesting that gay people just drop the issue as an option ignores the deleterious effects of inequality and is about as dumb as it gets.

--

ttbn,

How is same-sex marriage a “blow to civilised society”? You’ve never justified your claims along these lines before.

<<Those opposing a plebicite are not democratic in the slightest, and they are not really sure of their position.>>

Clearly you haven’t heard the arguments against a plebiscite then. That doesn’t surprise me. Michael Thompson’s article certainly wasn't going to be of much assistance in that regard. Moreover, I’m sure you don’t complain about all the other issues that parliament decides on without asking us to vote on it. What’s so different in this case?

What is undemocratic, however, is having the public vote on an issue, only for the government to be told that they can ignore it (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-24/election-2016-coalition-mps-can-vote-against-gay-marriage/7540988). I don’t recall you complaining much about that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 2:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The MPs promoting so-called same-sex marriage claimed that it should go to a conscience vote in parliament, as 'polls' allegedly show some 70% of voters are in favour of changing the marriage definition.

If the MPs are so confident of the level of support, they should have no problem with holding a plebiscite to test the veracity of the support.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 3:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see nothing in my post that is racist! Just over VIP English elitists, who believe that they and their opinions are God's gift to the antipodeans!

I'd be more encouraged to listen, if Britain had a better history and stood out as a beckon of eonomic and cultural harmonic success!

Gone are the shipbuilding yards of the Clyde and an automotive industry etc, that once exported motor cars to the world. Destroyed by the infamous British disease and the layabout lard asses, who personified it so well!

Gone is the bowler and brolly and fair minded, good natured tolerance? Replaced by ill mannered abusive beer swilling bullies and soccer hooligans, who seem unable to have a civilized discussion! And go ballistic and rattle the cage, when they're forced to see themselves through other eyes?

I draw your attention to the entirely unnecessary and uncalled for labeling from former posters, who had nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion! Just mouth froth and bile?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 24 August 2016 4:57:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The best way to have a plebiscite or referendum is to firstly form a citizen's assembly to decide if the plebiscite or referendum is necessary.

If the citizen's assembly decides that the plebiscite or referendum is necessary, then they, or another citizen's assembly decides on the question to be asked, and decides on what information is given to the public.

For example, a citizen's assembly decides what information is officially given to the public to help them decide Yea or Nay.

Running citizen's assemblies would be highly cost effective, and far more democratic than handing everything to politicians and political parties.

The derailing of the Australian republic referendum in 1999 by John Howard shows that a plebiscite or referendum could well be a waste of money if politicians and political parties are allowed to set the questions to be asked in the plebiscite or referendum.

Or if politicians and political parties are allowed any input in how a plebiscite or a referendum should be run.
Posted by interactive, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 5:12:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pompete: It is my understanding that, given 'the Drum' and such sources, the vast majority of Australians are completely 'on board' with the whole thing, 85% of surveyed people are in favour, the Poll results all say so. So why the objection to a plebiscite? It's a 'shoe in'.

Yes, the Gay Community have been banging on about 85% of Australian are in favour of Gay Marriage forever. What in Heavens name are they worried about. If they are correct the Gay Marriage dispute will be over in an instant & they will get their way.

Then again, just where have they been doing their Polls? Most likely in Gay Bars on a Friday & Saturday Night.

The most likely Question to be asked has been leaked already. Should Gay Marriage be legalized? or, Should Same-Sex Marriage be Legalized?

Now they are saying the Question put this way is divisive. Eh? How? It's straight forward. No double Dutch. Anything longer than one clear concise sentence is devises. I don't see anything devises in either of those two sentences.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 5:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've said it before and I'll say it again, and that's despite all the criticism and abuse that gets thrown my way ! Homosexual behaviour, notwithstanding how you cut it, is basically sodomy, and those who practice it, are sodomites ! When I first joined the job back in mid 1960's, Long Bay had an entire wing dedicated to housing these sodomites, and they were officially described as 'non associates'.

That said, I don't believe anyone whatever it is they practice in the privacy of their bedroom should suffer any overt discrimination. But it would now seem they're no longer content having their sexual practices deemed lawful and 'natural', they want the whole nine yards, proper marriage, with all the vows and other 'stuff' that comes with the union of an adult man and an adult woman.

Why not go the whole hog eh ? Lets lock up all the 'straight' people out there, and legislate to make natural sexual intercourse, between a man and a woman, a crime ! What a bloody good idea - do I have an aversion to homosexual behaviour ? Absolutely !
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 5:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

<<Homosexual behaviour, notwithstanding how you cut it, is basically sodomy, and those who practice it, are sodomites !>>

So what about lesbians? What about gay male couples who don’t practice anal sex (yes, they exist)? And why state that those who practice sodomy are sodomites? Isn’t that second part redundant? Or did you just add that last bit to express your contempt for gay people?

<<When I first joined the job back in mid 1960's, Long Bay had an entire wing dedicated to housing these sodomites, and they were officially described as 'non associates'.>>

Yes, people were very ignorant back then, weren’t they? There’s two islands in Moreton Bay here that they used to keep lepers on too.

<<That said, I don't believe anyone whatever it is they practice in the privacy of their bedroom should suffer any overt discrimination.>>

Just a little bit of discrimination then, eh? How do you determine what is and is not an acceptable level of discrimination?

<<But it would now seem they're no longer content having their sexual practices deemed lawful and 'natural', they want the whole nine yards, proper marriage, with all the vows and other 'stuff' that comes with the union of an adult man and an adult woman.>>

Is there a reason they should not?

<<Why not go the whole hog eh ? Lets lock up all the 'straight' people out there, and legislate to make natural sexual intercourse, between a man and a woman, a crime !>>

A non sequitur slippery slope. Two fallacies rolled in one. Now that takes some flawed thinking!

<<... do I have an aversion to homosexual behaviour ? Absolutely !>>

Interesting. So how do you justify this aversion? Or is it a purely irrational, emotional reaction?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 5:55:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, a referendum unlike a plebiscite, can't be ignored revised or rejected by the usual suspects; and is what the Irish settled for along with family and friends activism! Which is all that's needed to finally resolve this matter for once and for all!

Albeit, there are a few family members who ferociously hang on to an expressed belief, as if their life or sanity rested on it; that their ostracised estranged rallies "chose" their sexual bias!

[Probably round the same time as they themselves consiously "chose" to be straight hetrosexuals or chose a holden over a ford!? Hmm, decisions, decisions, ah the quandry!]

That said, acceptance of the biological realities, would not show them in a good light, but rather in very realistic comparison to the also homophobic and inhumane, gay persecuting Nazis!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 24 August 2016 6:04:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B thank you for proving my point. I do not know what the British have done to you mate but it is really festering isn't it.
You answer my call on you being racist by more racism, really?
I am sure if you went to Britain it would certainly widen your horizons young Alan and maybe you might even learn something.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 7:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we are folks A.J. PHILIPS our resident Criminologist, academic, and general know-all ! How's your 'chuckling' detective friend ? I thought you'd given our humble Forum a miss for something far more cerebral and without the existence of any of us ordinary pragmatists. And yes, you did win the prize for the most boring and banal of all those who seek to disabuse us on how talented and intelligent they are ? Have you given Stephen HAWKING the benefit of your wise counsel yet ? No doubt he's waiting by the phone.

AJP I really don't know why you even bother to question me ? You know I'm not very smart,left school in 1955 aged fifteen, with only a humble Intermediate Certificate ? Besides, I've told you so many times, I just don't like you, never have and never will, so why bother ? I've deferred to your opinion on everything you've stated on crime, criminals, and the police force. So what more can I say ? You're like a small annoying little dog for ever tugging at the cuff of my strides, simply annoying. So why don't you go and find another poor bugger to bore senseless, and give me a break, after all I'm closer to 80 than 70, so just go away and leave me alone, OK.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

The plebicite "will give bigots and hate preachers a podium".

This is just an assumption on your part; although you will probably continue your bigoted hate preaching right up to the plebicite and beyond. Your "increased mental problems for gay people" is also an assumption. "Increased" mental problems suggests that you think that homosexuals already have mental problems, and you could be right. Perhaps the whole thing is a mental problem.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you. You clearly reject a democratic means of dealing with the situation, preferring that everybody should bow down to politicians pandering to a very small minority, and ignoring the opinions of anyone who doesn't hold you views. Turnbull, for all his failts, has said that there will be a plebicite, and that's that. Good luck with your unrealistic attitudes. Just don't expect me to indulge you any longer. If you don't like my opinions, stiff cheese.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:40:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Estelles....you trot-out the ubiquitous survey results, part of which I'm interested to hear,are the age group 16 to 24 yo.
My partner teaches music 2 at a select Sydney school, to the lower end age group 16 to17yo. (Year 11 NSW).

During the afternoon, her students were requested to volunteer to play music for a group of homosexual students at a gathering on campus.
Surprisingly, the entire group stubbornly refused to volunteer.

Normally this group of very talented students, are eager to play at any venue when requested.

Effectively, their refusal was a snub. These students certainly do not remotely fit your survey profile. Not one of the group were supportive of the gay community on campus
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

When did I say I was giving this forum a miss?

<<I thought you'd given our humble Forum a miss for something far more cerebral and without the existence of any of us ordinary pragmatists.>>

My cousin is fine, though. Thanks for asking.

<<…I really don't know why you even bother to question me>>

Because you made some outrageous insinuations, and by questioning you, I get to expose that through either a lack of response or a personal attack from you.

<<Besides, I've told you so many times, I just don't like you, never have and never will…>>

Of course you don’t. When someone exposes our beliefs as baseless and fundamentally flawed, our first reaction is usually to interpret the feelings of discomfort that such a revelation produces as being the result of a problem inherent with the person that exposed the fact. It’s a common method of dealing with cognitive dissonance.

So I take it from your personal attacks that you have no rational basis for any of the offensive opinions that you expressed earlier? That doesn’t surprise me. I’ve heard similar sentiments expressed before and they can never be rationally justified.

--

ttbn,

No, none of those were assumptions. They’re based on the experiences in other countries.

<<Your "increased mental problems for gay people" is also an assumption.>>

I provided you with a link to the research demonstrating that one. Proper referenced stuff too. Not just the stuff you read in unreliable physical books.

<<"Increased" mental problems suggests that you think that homosexuals already have mental problems...>>

There’s bound to be mental health problems in any demographic. Which would mean it could “increase”.

<<Perhaps the whole thing is a mental problem.>>

There is no evidence for that, and it was removed from the DSM for that exact reason.

<<You clearly reject a democratic means of dealing with the situation…>>

And not because it’s democratic either.

<<Just don't expect me to indulge you any longer.>>

Oh, that’s fine with me. In fact, it’s probably more telling and easier on both of us if you don’t.

Agreed?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:09:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You'll all get used to our resident pest and know-all A.J. PHILLIPS, but despite this odd quality, he's just essentially boorish, and if you ignore him he'll go away a sulk for a month or two. It's thought he suffers from some unfulfillable aspiration that's made him awfully bitter, and causes him to 'hang around' many of these men and women in blue, in order he can derive some of the reflected glory, through association.

You see many are of the view that he really wanted to follow his cousin, (the 'chuckling' detective) into the Queensland wallopers. Unfortunately he suffered from some personality deficiency which destined him never to enter the ranks of the royal blues ?

Anyway because of this he's likely to pop again and we'll all have to once more, suffer from his ever monotnous hubris. It could be worse you know...he could've actually gotten into the job, and could you imagine, this little academic know-all, A.J. PHILLIPS roaming around the Brisbane CBD and frightening the 'bejesus' out of every man, woman and child ! What a positively frightening thought ?
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can you give an example of that, o sung wu?

<<...if you ignore him he'll go away a sulk for a month or two>>

I don't remember that happening. It sounds like you have me mixed up with someone else.

<<Unfortunately he suffered from some personality deficiency which destined him never to enter the ranks of the royal blues ?>>

No, I have never tried to join the police service. Although I do at least know the recruitment process and requirements here in Queensland intimately enough to know that I probably wouldn't have any problems getting in.

Why do you make such things up anyway? Is it the mental issues from prolonged stress as a cop that I once spotted (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310379) and you, quite heartbreakingly, confirmed?

Well at least you have an excuse for your total lack of appreciation for the fallaciousness of the ad hominem. Most others on OLO don't have that excuse. It's why I'm more forgiving of your personal attacks than I am of others'. They're more sad than they are offensive.

I'm not your enemy.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Michael Kirby has voiced concerns about the proposed plebiscite on same-sex marriage. He wants the elected representatives of parliament to make the decision.”

Michael Kirby apparently fears that he would be in the minority in a plebiscite vote. When serving on the High Court, he had the reputation of dissenting a lot more than any other serving judge on the court, and indeed, probably more than most of the members of the court over its entire history. See:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/the-great-dissenter/3218844

In any case, the elected representatives of parliament do not necessarily reflect the majority views of their respective constituents. These days even Labor has become undemocratic by binding its MPs to vote for the re-definition of marriage, even though the majority of their constituents may be opposed.

There is no evidence to substantiate Kirby’s assertion that the debate that would occur because of the plebiscite would cause pain for homosexual people. In fact, it would not surprise if the majority of homosexual people had no wish to support marriage re-definition.

Jayb: The most likely Question to be asked has been leaked already. Should Gay Marriage be legalized? or, Should Same-Sex Marriage be Legalized? … Now they are saying the Question put this way is divisive. Eh? How?

For a start, a homosexual union is not biologically or procreatively equivalent to marriage.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that the public will vote against gay marriage//

No, opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that it's pretty damn fiscally irresponsible of a government that is constantly banging on about how much debt we're in to suddenly 'find' a 'spare' $160 million just to placate a few far-right nuts within their own party.

The plebiscite is a huge waste of our money, being wasted because the Liberal party lack the discipline to effectively deal with dissent in their own ranks.

I wonder how much stuff you could buy which is actually of value like hospital beds you could get for that sort of money. But instead, we're going to spend it on a pointless, non-binding vote.

Because that's such great value for money.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 25 August 2016 8:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those who propose homosexual marriage should be taking the responsibility for proposing solutions to the aftermath of their social experimentation and yes, there are downsides and costs there too.

That is something they unreasonably refuse to do.

The leftist 'Progressive' elements in Labor and the lunar Greens have a deserved reputation for playing fast and loose where social changes are concerned and for botch-ups from unforeseen negative consequences. Idealism gets in the way. Here is a past example of many, this one relating to overseas adoption,

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/01/1086037757556.html

Remembering too the long-running sores from the ideologically-driven, far left rad feminist Nicola Roxon and others in Labor. Examples being family law and the changes to de facto definition. -Where even government departments can still disagree on 'partner' status and what about the additional costs that were never mentioned?

It is the publicly-funded ABC that has been taking most of the running keeping homosexual marriage activism alive. At the same time it is quite reprehensible that the many homosexuals (to divorce them from the attention-seeking gays) who oppose 'gay' marriage and who opposed Labor+Greens State regulation of their relationships (the de facto partnership changes) were NEVER heard on the ABC, nor in the Parliament (obvious why not), nor in the media generally. But why not?
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 25 August 2016 9:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Proponents of same-sex marriage haven’t won in the arena of ideas—they have won through manipulation and intimidation. Those who oppose them must speak up"

'I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage'
by Doug Mainwaring

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

"I’m Gay, And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 25 August 2016 10:23:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The cost objection of some people to the plebicite is just a blind used by anti-democrats who want Big Brother to tell us what to do. These Marxists don't have anything to say about the constant waste of money indulged in by politicians in other areas, nor the hundred million dollars per day going down the toilet in interest payments. Not to mention the absurd waste of our money on the Olympic Games. And, who is responsible for the expected expense of the plebicite? The activist homosexual community and the people using them (the anti-democrats and Marxists) to bring about a socialist tyranny, that's who. What will they want next? Probably an elaborate exhibition of the Governor General doing a Caligua in Kings Cross, marrying a horse! Anything to turn Australia into a freak show. This insidious nonense is more about power and bringing our society down than it is about people of the same sex playing silly games.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:30:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
what I want to know is when have the leftist ever been concerned about spending tax payer money. They were silent in the 7 years of economic vandalism and now pretend they are concerned about the cost of a plebiscite. THe billions wasted on the abc propaganda machine can give up some of aunties crumbs. No one would be worse off.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:37:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP to OSW: Of course you don’t. When someone exposes our beliefs as baseless and fundamentally flawed,

Errrr.... when did you do that? People, even you, are entitled to dislike someone for their own reasons. Personally, I don’t particularly like “Funny Peculiar People” either.

AJP: So I take it from your personal attacks that you have no rational basis for any of the offensive opinions that you expressed earlier?

I could never see why some other persons opinion would be “Offensive” you. Have you ever thought that your opinion is just as “Offensive” to them.

AJP: I provided you with a link to the research demonstrating that one. Proper referenced stuff too. Not just the stuff you read in unreliable physical books.

Of course you can. These books/references are written by people that are Gay & are supporting their chosen lifestyle.

When it comes to Mental Illness.

No in order to reproduce the World is mostly made up of Male & Female according to X & Y Chromosomes & the whole idea of Sex is to reproduce. Any variation from the norm in the way Genes are made up leads to illness. Therefore If it’s the Gene thing that the GLTB’s are saying make Homosexuality normal then there is a problem. They have recognised that something has gone wrong with the Gay Persons Genes. Therefore they have a type of illness. If it’s not the reason then being Gay is a “Chosen Lifestyle” & there definitely is something interfering with that persons Brains wiring, therefore they are Mentally Ill.

But, having said that Man has also included Entertainment & Control into the Equation. I think Control would have come first, as in One Bull & his Herd of Cows. Sex as Entertainment would have come much later in History. Most GLTB’s fall mostly into the Entertainment end of the Spectrum.

But that is “My” opinion for what it’s worth & it’s just a valid as your AJP.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:44:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that one of the sad truths is that the politicians find it simpler and more efficient to harness people, and thus their political support, by simply neglecting them and not bothering to educate them.

How many here fail the first rule of logic in that you truly do not even want to learn?

And thus their is a schism, between the Intelligentsia on the one hand, and the unsophisticated mob who demand their whim by majority on the other.

In that regard some of you should be grateful that AJ cares to share his expertise and Christian rules prevailing, the Higher must serve the Lower and thus we should all welcome those more knowledgeable and "Absorb what is useful" (sic Bruce Lee.)

And rest assured, there are those even among the troll population who seek knowledge. But the manner in which they prefer to uptake knowledge has to be on their terms, else futility may result.

Thus we enter a world where it is not merely enough to be knowledgeable, but in order to be a skilled educator one must also be a skilled communicator, who can empathise with the elements within the audience, understand how they are able to reckon and then dish it up in a form and at a rate that is digestible to them. .. Easier said than done in some cases wouldn't you say?

..

I think they should hold off until the plebiscite can be done at a fraction of the cost by way of a cost and time effective digital mechanism. And I think the question should be broader, such as, "Shall we put an end to negative discrimination, across the board?"

With all of the money and resource put into digital security, the incident during the census makes the guvment look weak. Now, they need to do something strong like roll out digital democracy in a big way and defend it.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 25 August 2016 1:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DreamOn:

Knowledge is not wisdom. What we need in the same-sex marriage debate is wisdom. Wisdom can come from any quarter. The most unlearned person can offer something to the debate and it can be quite profound and cut to the heart of the issue.

Wisdom comes from the ability to reflect on life experience. It takes in information from a wide variety of sources and applies that information to the problem at hand. A wise person takes in not just what is found in books but also what is found in their own hearts and those of their brothers and sisters. A wise person respects that experience and listens to it with an open mind. A wise person does not deride or belittle or patronise or talk down to or lecture others. Nor do they flout their credentials like some kind of intellectual bully. Wise people are searching for truth and not for self aggrandisement.

Everyone on this forum should be treated with respect and listened to with attention because you just never know who is going to come up with something wise to add to the mix. You can have all the degrees in the world but still have nothing worthwhile to say.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 25 August 2016 1:55:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there RAYCOM...

You raised the spectre of Mr Justice Michael KIRBY, former High Court Justice and grand 'dissentient' extraordinaire ? A noted discordant, and objector from way back. A complete nonconformist.

I did a bit over 32 years as a copper rising to the rank of only a detective sergeant, a somewhat unremarkable career given my length of service ? If you understand what it is I'm trying hard to say to you ?
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 25 August 2016 2:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

What are these downsides and costs to same-sex marriage that you speak of?

<<Those who propose homosexual marriage should be taking the responsibility for proposing solutions to the aftermath of their social experimentation and yes, there are downsides and costs there too.>>

You’re not just talking about economic costs, are you? Whatever they would be, I’m sure they’d be dwarfed by the social and economic costs of the increased mental illness that comes with discrimination and inequality.

<<That is something they unreasonably refuse to do.>>

I’ve never heard anyone else suggest that advocates for marriage equality take responsibility for proposing solutions to some imagined aftermath of their “social experimentation”, let alone refuse to do it.

I like your use of the term “social experimentation” there too. It makes it sound so unknown and scary, when in fact there are plenty of real world examples and an abundance of research to suggest that the sky will not fall in. On the contrary, social contentment will likely improve as it always has in the past, continuing that inverse correlation that it enjoys with inequality and discrimination.

It makes no sense to hold back equality out of fear of what may happen when there is no reason to believe that something bad will happen. By that logic, the US would still own slaves and interracial marriage would still be illegal, and indigenous Australians would still not be recognised as citizens.

But perhaps I’m jumping ahead here. Please, let us all in on what these downsides and costs will be.

Nice article you’ve linked to there too, by the way. Unfortunately, however, it falls flat when the author commits the Equivocation fallacy by discussing equality in a different sense to how it is actually used in this debate. No-one is arguing that same-sex marriage is identical to opposite-sex marriage.

The author also says he “believes” that same-sex relationships are “suboptimal environments” to raise children. However, there is no evidence of this and much evidence to the contrary:

http://www.the7eye.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/lgbt-parents2.pdf
http://www.cyriltarquinio.com/app/download/5796122313/regnerus+2012.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp06.pdf
http://www.cyriltarquinio.com/app/download/5796122297/Patterson%2B1992.pdf
http://goo.gl/5aoBYr
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 25 August 2016 2:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A referendum is only used to alter the constitution. Those proposing a referendum might like to advise which part of the constitution they'd like to change since the only mention of marriage currently is to note that the Feds have the right to make laws in regards to marriage.

At first blush it seems strange that the same-sex marriage lobby oppose a plebiscite since the polls suggest its a shoe-in. The reason for that opposition is that they know the polls are ephemeral. Currently, we get a very one sided view of the issue. Popular culture presents gays as almost uniformly admirable. Very little is heard of the problems many have with same-sex marriage and when opposition is mentioned it is almost uniformly presented as coming from reactionary clergy.

What a plebiscite will do is provide the noes with a platform to make their case over the head of a censorious media. It was said in the last few days that one example of the distressing things that would be said by the noes (this occurred in Ireland) is that they'd point out that children raised in non-traditional families do, on average, worse than those raised by a father-mother. In other words, people would start to hear the truth and see that the opposition isn't just on religious grounds. Hence the desire to avoid what appears to be a plebiscite with a certain result.

At some point, when/if the plebiscite becomes a reality, we'll start to hear that the public funding of the yes/no cases should be curtailed. The rationale will be cost-saving but the reality will be to try to suppress the no case getting its message out.

A referendum however would require guaranteed funding for the noes. Hence the same-sex lobby aren't pushing that as an option.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 25 August 2016 3:32:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb,

I was referring to all our discussions. Note that o sung wu said, “… never have and never will”.

<<Errrr.... when did you do that?>>

In this thread, it was here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328235.

I demonstrated that his beliefs on this topic were ‘baseless’ (well he did, actually) through his personal attacks; that they were ‘fundamentally flawed’ was demonstrated right through my response (e.g. lesbians practicing sodomy?!).

<<People, even you, are entitled to dislike someone for their own reasons.>>

I don’t think I’ve suggested otherwise.

<<I could never see why some other persons opinion would be “Offensive” you.>>

I find any hateful remarks offensive. I would think most people do.

<<Have you ever thought that your opinion is just as “Offensive” to them.>>

All the time. The difference here, however, is that I can rationally justify mine.

<<These books/references are written by people that are Gay...>>

There’s far too much research, spanning multiple disciplines, for all the researchers to be gay. Being gay is not a choice either, and suggesting so contradicts your claim that they’re mentally ill.

Even if they were all gay, though, it would make no difference, as the sources I link to are peer-reviewed works that require evidence and include declarations of the limitations to the research and conflicting interests where relevant.

Your claim that homosexuality is a illness relies on a misunderstanding of what illness is, and the contestable notion of something having “gone wrong” in nature.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a perfectly normal evolved trait:
ttp://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+homosexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

<<But that is “My” opinion … & it’s just a valid as your AJP.>>

No, the more valid opinion is the one that is more rational and evidence-based.

--

phanto,

Knowledge is possible without wisdom but wisdom is not possible without knowledge. If you’re holding out for some uneducated homophobe to come up with a piece of wisdom that surpasses all facts, then you’ll be waiting for a very long time.

Otherwise, well said! You were the last person I expected to speak in my defence. You addressed it to the wrong person though.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 25 August 2016 5:57:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plebiscites are help for the sole purpose that if the people and states vote the right way, as far as the govt is concerned, then they can act on it on the basis that 'the people have spoken' but if they dont go the way govt wants then well, it was only a plebiscite anyway and plebiscites are not binding on the govt."

Questions

Why do referendums or plebiscites only happen when the govt wants one, bearing in mind, the govt is only the servant and we the people are the master?

Why do our servants not organize a referendum or a plebiscite to establish the number of signatures to be gathered for a referendum to be held, even when the govt wants us to have one.

Why not make referendums and plebiscites easy to have? After all we are the masters they are only the servants.

An Australian bloke invented the technology to make them cheap and easy.

From what I have read the "vote for your favorite dead brain xyz' phone app is the technology he developed.
Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Thursday, 25 August 2016 8:17:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your fervent support of homosexual men is understandable A.J. Philips, protecting your own is quite as expected, it's the way you go about it that gets up peoples nose. You can't confer, you lecture, always postulating from a superior position, then anyone else on this august Forum. Again, it's indicative of this serious character flaw that you possess, that goes well beyond your annoying hubris, I'd expect.

As I've mentioned to you previously, you'd be considered a real joke if you exhibited this superiority attitude among a bunch of coppers, notwithstanding all the diplomas you possess in criminology, scientology and any other ology you may wish to cite in your vast curriculum vitae ? I've told you before, a framed diploma in criminology, has never caught a crook ? It's hard and dogged police work, that does it !

For once in your life; listen. You never know there are many very smart people who frequent this Forum of Graham's, listen to them instead of 'holding court'. That's why God gave you two ears, to listen, two eyes to watch and learn, and only one mouth, in which to place your size 11; A.J. PHILIPS.
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 25 August 2016 9:52:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

That’s a very presumptuous and bigoted attempt at an insult.

<<...protecting your own is quite as expected>>

That’s not an insult nowadays, by the way. Besides, I have a wife and kids and am heterosexual.

<<...you'd be considered a real joke if you exhibited this superiority attitude among a bunch of coppers>>

As is the case with phanto, your perceptions of me are all in your head, and for the reasons I mentioned earlier regarding cognitive dissonance.

But since we’re rating each other, you wouldn’t make it into the service nowadays. Your emotional intelligence suggests that you’d score way too high in neuroticism, and you are unable to cope with stress. Your education levels are also too low, which may somewhat explain why being a cop had the effect on you that it has had. Police with higher education cope with stress better, are more tolerant, have better communication skills, and are less likely to need to use force (http://goo.gl/Hb817K).

<<I've told you before, a framed diploma in criminology, has never caught a crook ?>>

Actually, it has. Anyway, if criminologists had it all so wrong (as you often imply), then why don’t all the former/retired-cop PhD’s correct the rest of them? Police would be, and were, less effective without criminology.

<<For once in your life; listen.>>

I do. If you can point to one instance where I haven’t listened, then I will humbly apologise and seek to correct my ways. But the failed arguments of yourself and others are not indicative one way or the other of my ability listen.

--

DreamOn,

Thanks for the kind words. I find it fascinating to observe the different ways in which people will react to maintain a belief that they cannot rationally justify, and it almost invariably involves attacking the other person in some way. How people can so desperately want to hang on to such negative beliefs is beyond me. It requires so much more energy. You’d think it would be a relief to find that you no longer have to indiscriminately feel contempt for an entire demographic.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 25 August 2016 10:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "Marriage Equality" people know that the plebiscite could go against them so they are determined to stop it at all costs. How undemocratic of them. How dare they? Most of us want Marriage to stay as it is and if anyone wants to change something so fundamental the people should have a say.
Posted by Gadfly42, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto,

The point in me pretending to mistake you for having defended me was to highlight a gaping blind spot in your vision. You only interpret the motives of those with whom you disagree in the most negative possible light, just as you only want to keep the forum clean of people with supposedly insincere intentions when they disagree with you. Yet all the while, most of what you insinuated could actually have been more accurately applied to someone else here. However, you only interpreted my actions in such a way because…

“When someone exposes our beliefs as baseless and fundamentally flawed, our first reaction is usually to interpret the feelings of discomfort that such a revelation produces as being the result of a problem inherent with the person that exposed the fact. It’s a common method of dealing with cognitive dissonance.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328255)

Not one of your offensive observations were in the slightest bit accurate. I do what I do because I am staunchly against bigotry, whether it be racism or homophobia, and because I care about the truth. What I do only feels like “lecturing” and “belittling” to you because, by interpreting it that way, you don’t have to deal with the stress of holding an irrational prejudice.

It is interesting, though, to watch you attempt to rationalise what’s been happening and explain away the irrationality of your beliefs with disparaging comments and unfounded accusations (as my definitions in our last discussion demonstrated (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327733)) and a pseudo-wisdom that appeals to a New Age style of empty spiritual hokum that attempts to bypass rational thought.

Your homophobia is like a religion to you. Throughout history, gods have retreated to increasingly inaccessible regions as our ability to explore improved. First it was mountain tops, then the sky, then the stars, now it’s beyond space and time. You’re doing the same with a rational explanation against same-sex marriage. At first you tried arguing that homosexuality is not “reasonable”, now you insist that the answer against same-sex marriage lies beyond facts and in some mystical realm of pseudo-wisdom discoverable only through notoriously-unreliable emotions.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 26 August 2016 8:25:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 26 August 2016 4:16:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your levels of superiority are truly breathtaking A.J. Philips ! You strut about this Forum like an arrogant cock-sparrow lauding over everybody with your peceived immense knowledge about this 'n that without ever considering you may well be wrong. Actually it was my military service (including 12 months, Vietnam), and my thirty two years in the coppers, reminded me of one very important lesson, illustrated by an old Vietnamese proverb:-

'I hear and I forget,
I see and I remember,
I do and I understand'.

Sure, I've had very little formal education, no diplomas in which to proudly display, and always feel wholly uncomfortable whenever I have a need to attend a job at some University.

But when it comes to embracing stress; a key indicator of my alleged, 'neuroticism', you claim I would score way too high in terms of my neurotic sensitivity and ability to cope with stress ? And for this reason I wouldn't be accepted as a police recruit ? "...I do and I understand..." - I observed and learnt from the best, A J Philips.

Today you're probably right. At the risk of being identified as a whinger, when many of us came home, we copped heaps from many of the population. As a consequence of this, any 'baggage' we did bring home, was augmented exponentially, by a very hostile, unsympathetic and unwelcoming public.

My time in the coppers, regardless of the emotionally 'baggage' and neuroses, you claim I needed to bear, I got through those three decades plus relatively unscathed I would say ! And you A J PHILLIPS, what emotional tests and stress, have you've confronted and had to bear, in your years at University ? I really couldn't imagine, though traversing a darkened campus is stressful ?

My delay was caused by a 'server problem' ?
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 26 August 2016 4:23:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

I think you'll find that my “levels of superiority” are directly proportionate to your levels of insecurity. If you know what I mean.

<<You strut about this Forum like an arrogant cock-sparrow lauding over everybody with your perceived immense knowledge about this 'n that without ever considering you may well be wrong.>>

Yes, I bet it feels that way to you. I have been shown to be wrong on these forums before and admitted to it when it happened, instead of redirecting attention to the people who pointed it out and making it about them. In fact, I went a step further that that even. I've have made the conscious effort not to repeat those claims, and that's more than I could say for most here on OLO.

Don't feel too bad about your levels of education either. I only point them out because you yourself make a big deal about them, and I (perhaps childishly) give back as good as I get. I would have preferred to keep it polite.

My apparent hubris is a direct response to the attacks and uncalled-for insults that you hurl. For what it's worth, I get no satisfaction from this type back and forth with you like I do with some of OLO’s real imbeciles.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 26 August 2016 5:19:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The quest for Marriage Equality by homosexuals is like the quest for the Holy Grail, the chasing of a myth.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 26 August 2016 8:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know what you mean, Is Mise. Even so-called “conservatives” nowadays believe in this myth about marriage being about love between one man and one woman.

Not according to my Bible!

Anyone who knew our Lord’s word would know that a marriage is between one man, one woman, and their murdering son (Genesis 4); one man, his sister, and his maid (Genesis 20:12, 16:3); one woman and her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29); one man and a kitchen condiment (Genesis 19:26); one man and a young girl he’s kidnapped and raped (Judges 21:7-23); one man, a bunch of women, an adulterer, and some whores (1 Chronicles 3:1-9); one man, 700 wives, and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1); one man, his daughter, and the servant had rape her (1 Chronicles 2:34); one man and as many wives as he pleases, so long as he has them all at once (Matthew 19:9).

But marriage cannot be between one man and another man, because that’s immoral and goes against nature!

The wets that pass for conservatives nowadays need to stop wishing they could be Christians and get a bit of Bible TRUTH back into them!
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 26 August 2016 9:33:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was recalling a friend telling me tales about what life inside prison was like. One of the stories was about how not to communicate with some of the LOW IQ (for want of a better term) fellow in mates. .. His view was that you had to avoid anything other than very simple things else there was a heightened risk of them misunderstanding and becoming enraged. .. An expression of cognitive dissonance, as you put it.

"Oh!" sung Wu, is fond of the Ad Hominem, or personal attacks isn't he? But still, I lost an old mate and Vietnam vet recently. He used to play footy for South Fremantle too. His ashes rest under the waves at a special part of the beach in Bali now where he wanted to be.

You know, when I was still a child growing up in Perth, I have it on good authority that some members of the W.A. Police used to "telephone book" those who failed the "attitude test?"

And another mate and one time Federal copper also couldn't take the "new politically correct" culture that was introduced and left. Bringing some members of the public service up to "best practice" has been an insurmountable challenge for some former members.

You can imagine then with how it is with some members of the public? In some cases, they are blissfully ignorant of what is involved in formal decision making processes and the rules of logic and reasoned debate are unfamiliar concepts to them.

Still, I accept that everyone needs to be heard and that new ideas can come from interesting quarters. However, as to how much weight is given to any contribution is a matter to be measured by peers on its merits.

In other forums, "sticky notices" are put up to give "newbies" an intro into "best practice," above and beyond just the "do's and don'ts."
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 27 August 2016 10:56:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
not only full of arrogance but more than happy to misrepresent Scripture eh AJ. Why am I surprised.No problem for AJ with no moral basis to draw from to misrepresent the bible. You are pathetic.

(Mat 19:4) And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",
(Mat 19:5) and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?
(Mat 19:6) Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 August 2016 11:10:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of imbeciles.

runner,

Yes, but that’s not TRADITIONAL marriage! That’s only the form of marriage which Baby Jesus invented after his father (who was also himself) had taken anger management classes between testaments.

Jokes aside, what your holy book says means absolutely nothing. Apparently, though, Is Mise wasn’t aware of this, nor the fact that there is no one objectively-defined form of marriage. To claim that a form of marriage is capable of being “myth” is an utterly absurd claim to make, and makes no sense at all.

But thanks for helping to highlight just how inconsistent the Bible is.

http://bibviz.com

As for moral bases, mine may not come in the form of a book, but at least it doesn’t condone slavery and rape.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 27 August 2016 11:59:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'But thanks for helping to highlight just how inconsistent the Bible is.'

no thanks for highlighting how deceitful you are aj. With no moral base to draw from its not surprising.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 August 2016 12:02:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 August 2016 11:10:57 AM

" ... Not only full of arrogance but more than happy to misrepresent Scripture eh AJ? Why am I not surprised. No problem for AJ with no moral basis to draw from to misrepresent the bible. ... "

AJ, I reckon you are so close now to being pronounced a Heretic. That's great work. A few more reasonable interpretations and that may just tip *Runner* over the edge.

Still, this place would be far less colourful without *Runner* and I have lost count of the times that some of his responses have left me in stitches.

..

I recall having a kretek and a yarn with the local Prayer Master some years ago in staunchly conservative Islamic East Jawa. He's passed on now. But I asked him, referring to scripture from the Al'Quoran, "Thinking about Nabi Isa (JC) and the other Prophets, is it true in Islam that they are all equal and to be equally respected?"

And he replied, "Yes, it is true, but you must undertand, that Nabi Mohammed was the one brought the Al'Quoran, and that is how we connect to this day, and that is why we love him the most."
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 27 August 2016 1:43:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well
Posted by o sung wu, Saturday, 27 August 2016 2:06:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,

You missed my meaning.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 27 August 2016 2:07:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry for this disjointed single word...'well' that's been (correctly) attributed to my epithet - I keep receiving a message - 'Server has Failed' ? Anyway I'll have another go;

I see DREAMON you're gleefully hoping to see RUNNER 'tipped over the edge'; The edge of what precisely ? Is it your intention, in collaboration with A.J PHILIPS, to devalue RUNNER'S opinion ? Adopting this supercilious and condescending posture of complete superiority, even some sort of eminence over everyone, who would dare have the temerity to disagree with ?

I suspect even A J Philips, labouring as it were, with the unified weight of all his diplomas, indubitably would never wish to 'tip' anyone over any edge, figuratively or in reality !

There are many things that I've disagreed with, that RUNNER has espoused over the many years he's contributed (magnificently), to this FORUM, nevertheless he has an opinion to which he's entitled, right or wrong, and some posturer like you, has no fundamental right to use derision or worse utter sarcasm to demolish his views by encouraging A J Philips to 'tip him over the edge' ! I wouldn't know the bloke if I fell over him, neither would you, but to employ language of a kind that may well 'tip' someone over the edge is neither clever nor educated.

Believe me 'sonny boy', over my time in the job I've attended the Glebe Coroner's Court sufficiently enough to realise it requires almost nothing to 'tip' some people over that allegorical edge', so wake up to yourself, pull your silly head in, and think before you open your big trap in future, perhaps you may do some poor soul a favour ?
Posted by o sung wu, Saturday, 27 August 2016 3:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tipped over the edge into pronouncing *AJ* a Heretic. <snicker, snicker> For I believe it wouldn't surprise *Runner* to know that I was baptised in an (arguably) Heretical Church.

I don't think that *Runner* ought to have interpreted any maliciousness on my part, as I also spoke fondly of him. But, there's only one way to be sure and that's to have *Runner* tell us himself. If he felt I was being gleefully nasty then I shall apologise, unreservedly. The gleeful part is true enough. <snicker, snicker>

If not, it may be that you are a bit highly strung and thus you did not appraise my post in its entirety and have rather over reacted to just part of it. You make it sound like I have a depraved criminal intent to see him mentally scarred.

No, it would not please me to mentally scar him. .. I would tease him, stir him, seek to illicit some colourful responses from him, quicken him, broaden him, give him a bit of "tickle" deep down .. yes, but scar no. *Runner* as said provides me with much mirth.
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 27 August 2016 4:01:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A J Philips:

Your reply to Is Mise shows how truly obsessed you are. The fact that you have gone to all that trouble to look up bible references just for the sake of making a sarcastic put down of a person who did nothing more than offer an opinion says so much about you as a person.

This is never about same-sex marriage for you. No one would go to the lengths that you do to drag up references. You try and tell us that you are concerned about the truth and that you are fighting for same-sex marriage and equality but same-sex marriage is not worth doing what you do. Even the most ardent advocates are not as obsessed as you are.

You are not fighting for equality - you are fighting against people. You are not trying to win a debate but to hurt people. If the opinion polls are so correct then it is hardly worth the bother to argue in favour of same-sex marriage. You would not need to hurt people when there is hardly any reason to bother arguing with them.

You like to think that you are educating people and that your references are somehow a service to mankind. Same-sex marriage is not an academic debate. It is about relationships, homosexuality and attraction to others. These are things of the heart and there are no courses in that. Most people bring their life experience to the debate on same-sex marriage but you bring a wad of books and try and bully people into making it all about things you know about but which are basically irrelevant to the issue.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 27 August 2016 4:25:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont.

It is not what you say that matters because most of what you do say is irrelevant to the discussion. It is why you say it - why you are utterly obsessed with the subject. Every post is full of bitterness and resentment. As I have said before you often tell us about your Christian background and how you have 'reformed'. You might have changed your mind but you have not changed your heart. I think you carry around a great deal of resentment about your time as a Christian and your opposition to same-sex marriage is really just a way of trying to hit back at those who forced you to behave like a Christian when you were younger.

Many have had to suffer as a result of being forced to behave that way but they have gotten over it. They have accepted it, left behind their resentment and moved on to do worthwhile things with their lives. You don't seem to have been able to do that and the level of bitterness that you exhibit in these forums is a sad thing to see.

The problem is that most of us come here to discuss issues which are important to us but you come here in order to try and solve the demons of your past. This is an abuse of the forums and the people who come here for the right reasons. All of us want to keep these forums on track but I think many a poster is afraid to offer their thoughts because of your aggression. You need to hurt people pure and simple and you are not satisfied until you do.

You do not like me psycho-analysing you but I am going to continue doing it whether you like it or not. I am going to expose every neurotic example of behaviour that I see from you until you act like a human being and stop using us and the issue of same-sex marriage to try and alleviate your bitterness.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 27 August 2016 4:26:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DreamOn:

"You can imagine then with how it is with some members of the public? In some cases, they are blissfully ignorant of what is involved in formal decision making processes and the rules of logic and reasoned debate are unfamiliar concepts to them.

Still, I accept that everyone needs to be heard and that new ideas can come from interesting quarters. However, as to how much weight is given to any contribution is a matter to be measured by peers on its merits."

What is wrong with blissful ignorance? Perhaps they are just not interested enough to want to find out. Maybe some people simply do not care about things like same-sex marriage. Are you saying that because they seem not to care that they are incapable of understanding and have no capacity to debate or have low IQ's? There are probably thousands of subjects in the world which you know absolutely nothing about. Could we make the same assumptions about you?

It is a very arrogant attitude to have when you make generalised judgments about people based on their disinterest in one or more subjects. It smacks of insecurity when you seem to need to make it about 'us and them' and automatically assume you are in the superior position.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 27 August 2016 4:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto,

I knew it wouldn’t take long for you to start with the amateur psychology again. And still you cannot appreciate the fallaciousness of the ad hominmen. How about you try addressing my arguments for once?

Fat chance, eh?

<<Your reply to Is Mise shows how truly obsessed you are.>>

Or that I have a cheeky streak. Or that I enjoy conversing with others. But, no. True to form, you had to present the most unflattering possibility as the only possibility.

<<The fact that you have gone to all that trouble to look up bible references…>>

What makes you think I had to look them all up? It couldn't have been too much effort given that I responded in less than an hour.

<<…just for the sake of making a sarcastic put down of a person who did nothing more than offer an opinion...>>

Oh, that’s rich. You’re quite selective and one-eyed when it comes to defending others from put downs now, aren’t you?

<<This is never about same-sex marriage for you. No one would go to the lengths that you do to drag up references.>>

You assume this is a big effort for me.

<<You are not fighting for equality - you are fighting against people.>>

Yes, I bet it feels like that to you. It’s quite normal for those experiencing cognitive dissonance to feel attacked.

<<If the opinion polls are so correct then it is hardly worth the bother...>>

I’ve already addressed a similar claim of yours before: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327498

<<Same-sex marriage is not an academic debate.>>

It is for so long as there are academic reasons for and/or against it.

<<You do not like me psycho-analysing you but I am going to continue doing it whether you like it or not.>>

That’s fine with me. I enjoy discrediting it. Moreover, that you and others continue to demonstrate the fact that you need to ignore my arguments and instead make the debate about me, only vindicates my position.

Look, clearly you’re angry or frustrated. That's fine, though. It’s a perfectly understandable response to cognitive dissonance.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 27 August 2016 5:03:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou for your kind words O sung wu. We may agree on some and disagree on others however you are always logical and polite (unlike myself at times).

As for tipping me over the edge I actually find that a little amusing. I would have severe character defects to allow someone as Christophobic to go anywhere near close to having that kind of power. AJ hides behind a false cloak of intellectualism but really is one of the most irrational posters on the forum. I think it was Phanto who said this was not about marriage for aj. He knows he is totally bereft of any moral base to draw from and hence deliberately misrepresents Christs teachings. People who reject Christ's teachings have far more credibility than sly hateful people who actually know the truth and yet deliberately mis represent it.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 August 2016 5:27:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How about you try addressing my arguments for once?"

Your aggressive behaviour here is much more relevant than your arguments.

"Or that I have a cheeky streak. Or that I enjoy conversing with others"

Well there would be no need to defend those things would there?

"What makes you think I had to look them all up? It couldn't have been too much effort given that I responded in less than an hour."

So you do admit to making some effort and you also need to tell us that you are so smart that you might have not needed to look them up. Why do you feel the need to tell us?

"You’re quite selective and one-eyed when it comes to defending others from put downs now, aren’t you?"

Yes, what is wrong with that? I am only interested in exposing your neuroses at the moment.

"You assume this is a big effort for me."

Yes I should have known. I sometimes forget how brilliant you truly are despite your constant reminders. No need to defend yourself or was your main purpose to remind us of you brilliance?

"It’s quite normal for those experiencing cognitive dissonance to feel attacked."

What have my feelings to do with anything? I am talking about you behaviour. There is no need to change the subject unless you feel guilty. If you have done nothing wrong then there is no need to defend yourself at all.

"you need to ignore my arguments and instead make the debate about me"

No I think we give your arguments the amount of attention they are worth but that doesn't mean we can't also talk about your behaviour. Do you have a problem with that? I mean you haven't done anything wrong have you?

"Look, clearly you’re angry or frustrated. That's fine, though. It’s a perfectly understandable response to cognitive dissonance."

Well that doesn't matter you shouldn't concern yourself about me. That is just changing the subject again and you would not need to do that unless the present issue about your behaviour is making you a little uncomfortable.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 27 August 2016 5:55:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Aggressive”? That’s cute, phanto.

<<Your aggressive behaviour here is much more relevant than your arguments.>>

I am not the topic of this thread, but I’d imagine it would feel that way to you when you have no arguments left. That is, after all, why ad hominem arguments occur.

<<Well there would be no need to defend those things would there?>>

There is when someone makes offensive accusations.

<<So you do admit to making some effort…>>

I would have to have. Posts don’t type themselves.

<<...and you also need to tell us that you are so smart that you might have not needed to look them up.>>

Or that they were already accessible in the one spot. Again, always with the most unflattering interpretation.

<<Yes, what is wrong with [defending people selectively]?>>

It demonstrates an insincerity.

<<I sometimes forget how brilliant you truly are despite your constant reminders.>>

Or I could just be very fluent on this topic now after having debated it for so long. Once again, always with the most unflattering interpretation.

<<What have my feelings to do with anything?>>

They explain your false accusations.

<<I am talking about you behaviour.>>

“Keep responses on topic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp)

<<There is no need to change the subject unless you feel guilty.>>

Um, you’re the one who has changed the subject.

<<If you have done nothing wrong then there is no need to defend yourself at all.>>

Addressed multiple times already:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7136#218946
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18217#323735
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227249

<<No I think we give your arguments the amount of attention they are worth…>>

Oh? Where did that happened?

<<…but that doesn't mean we can't also talk about your behaviour.>>

Also? You haven’t addressed my arguments yet.

<<Do you have a problem with that? I mean you haven't done anything wrong have you?>>

Like I said before, no problem at all. Ad hominems only help vindicate my position.

<<That is just changing the subject again…>>

Erm, you, o sung wu, and runner are the only ones who have changed the subject. Best you get back on topic before Graham rightfully starts issuing warnings about abuse and off-topic responses.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 27 August 2016 6:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back to the topic. A.J.PHILIPS would you agree, sexual intercourse between two males is completely unnatural, it's sodomy. You informed me you're married with children ? Would it bother you whether a child of yours (if male) engaged in homosexual behaviour ? Would you endeavour to counsel them to do otherwise, knowing it to be an unnatural sexual act, sodomy ?

Or would you be prepared to depart from the conventional approach and pursue a more enlightened, modernistic direction, and simply wish them all the happiness and luck you can muster. Telling them to seek their own emotional fulfillment from anywhere and with whom, they can find a suitable attachment ?

Could you perhaps imagine for a moment, whether you could possibly contain your inner rage if you found a recalcitrant young son of yours wilfully engaged in the unlawful act pederasty ? AJP I understand you're from Queensland ? There's a place in East Sydney, opposite St Vincents Hospital, called the 'Wall' (part of the old Darlinghurst Gaol), it's here where many young boys, ply their trade trawling for marauding pedophiles, earning up to $180 - $220 for 20 to 40 minutes riding around, in these pedophiles nice shiny luxury cars.

Unfortunately I've been intimately engaged in working this area, and it's not pretty, nor could I express the absolute revulsion I've felt, each and every time we've been tasked with interdicting offences hereabouts. AJP if ever one needed to witness the damage occasioned by males engaged in the act of sodomy, one need go no further, than the infamous 'Wall'. Albeit, many are still youths as young as 11 upwards to 17 years and beyond, but they mature with lightening speed. It's little wonder many go on to lead a life, literally in the shadows of normality - space and time expressly limit much of what it is that I can say. But much of this curse starts with mere experimentation and on it goes, without any parental interference whatsoever.

Obviously, not all homosexuals emerge from this awful type of environment. Many come upon it, quite naturally.
Posted by o sung wu, Saturday, 27 August 2016 6:39:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto seems to have become quite rabid in the aftermath of all of her clap trap being dismissed by reason.

Phanto, if you have something of merit to contribute, then some people at least will applaud it as such. If on the contrary you continue to spout inane drivel ad nauseum then you may expect people to throw eggs.

You lost the debate convincingly and now you want to appeal the decision on the grounds that AJ was allegedly mean and that most people don't care anyway.

I don't see that AJ is anyway consistently aggressive. I think you fail to understand most of what is being said and that thereafter you are a poor loser.

If you want to have a faith which has rules that's fine. But don't be wanting to inflict your narrow little conceptions and your little rules of morality on everyone else. You won't be thanked for it and are likely to be ridiculed, and deservedly so.
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 27 August 2016 6:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//AJ,

You missed my meaning.//

It's not actually a cardinal sin to say what you mean and mean what you say. I enjoy a good metaphor as much as the next man, but if the meaning gets lost in the metaphor then the metaphor should be dropped in favour of the meaning.

//that RUNNER has espoused over the many years he's contributed (magnificently), to this FORUM//

You appear to be mistaking 'magnificently' for 'prolifically'.

//would you agree, sexual intercourse between two males is completely unnatural//

No, I wouldn't.

//it's sodomy//

Well, is suppose that's one way to put it. But dreadfully tinny, old chap. I prefer the term buggery. It's got a nice woody quality, buggery. Gooorrrrn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T70-HTlKRX

Intercourse.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 27 August 2016 9:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

Thanks for getting back on topic. I must say, though, your questions are very loaded.

<<…would you agree, sexual intercourse between two males is completely unnatural, it's sodomy.>>

Firstly, not all gay males practice anal sex, so if that’s the standard by which you judge what is natural, then gay men who don’t practice anal sex are natural and so are lesbians. Moreover, by that logic, heterosexuality is not normal when the individual practices, or has practiced, anal sex. Secondly, as I said to Jayb, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a perfectly natural evolved trait (http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+homosexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=). Finally, this argument is the Appeal to Nature fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature).

<<Would it bother you whether a child of yours (if male) engaged in homosexual behaviour ?>>

Not so long as they were of age and took the proper precautions. I’d really prefer they were serious about the person. I would probably even try to talk them out of it if they were still youngish, but the same would go for any form of sex - daughters included.

<<Could you perhaps imagine for a moment, whether you could possibly contain your inner rage if you found a recalcitrant young son of yours wilfully engaged in the unlawful act pederasty ?>>

I’d be furious, but the same would go for my under-aged daughter and an older man (or woman). The genders are irrelevant. Statutory rape is the issue there.

The same goes of the rest of your post. Such crimes and dysfunctions are not unique to homosexuality, nor are they naturally or necessarily the end result of it.

As for the more legal, flamboyant homosexual subculture (most of which consists of people in their twenties) wouldn’t you think that having marriage as an option would help to settle these people down? There’s certainly evidence that the increased levels of smoking, drinking, and drug taking among the homosexual population would reduce if they were treated with less discrimination.

For the above reasons and many more, marriage equality is win-win. Directly or indirectly, we all stand to benefit to some degree.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 27 August 2016 9:33:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A J PHILIPS...

I must apologise for my delay in responding to your most recent thread. On the extremely rare occasion I would wish to be favoured as an 'academic' it would be one involved in the Computer Science disciplines I believe. This jolly computer of mine has been misbehaving quite badly to the point it was soon to be consigned to the nearest bloody window !

I'm not speaking of lesbians or the 'few' (much older) homosexual men who never commit the abominable act of sodomy. I was referring entirely to those who're sodomites. As a copper I cannot tell you the number of incidents I've attended involving violence and trouble, in or around homosexual men - and a few lesbian women. I can't quote statistics, I can only speak in terms of empirical evidence, that I and many of my former colleagues have encountered over time.

For reasons that are totally beyond me these sodomites seem to find or attract trouble without any apparent effort whatsoever. In parks at night, loitering in or near public toilets, trawling through certain entertainment precincts, seeking out like minded individuals, even while travelling on trains within the suburban network.

While it's true, some sodomites never involve themselves in traditional trouble spots; I know of a couple of parliamentarians who are gay, and are most discreet when searching for others of a similar persuasion, even asking advice from one of my old (straight) bosses ! Particular on how to avoid the dreaded,'The Bash a Poofter Gang' and their territory.

Surely A J P you would 'never wish' nor condone any son of yours, to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, whether or not they 'loved' their partner, and he was an exemplary person ? Everything around homosexual behaviour (sodomy) spells trouble for most of those under 25 years. Very few go on to lead deep fulfilling lives, despite their claims. Why ? It's against the laws of nature ! As is anal sex unnatural, with heterosexual couples ? It's simply unnatural.
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 29 August 2016 3:16:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 August 2016 5:27:24 PM

" ... As for tipping me over the edge I actually find that a little amusing. I would have severe character defects to allow someone as Christophobic to go anywhere near close to having that kind of power. ... "

Really? But if not a pronouncement of "Heretic" we do have the "Christophobic" label.

" ... AJ hides behind a false cloak of intellectualism but really is one of the most irrational posters on the forum. ... "

Perhaps you can provide us with an example of that *Runner?*

" ... I think it was Phanto who said this was not about marriage for aj. He knows he is totally bereft of any moral base to draw from and hence deliberately misrepresents Christs teachings. ... "

Oh come now, he made an eloquent response asserting that his moral basis may not come from the Bible, but ...

" ... People who reject Christ's teachings have far more credibility than sly hateful people who actually know the truth and yet deliberately misrepresent it. ... "

Ooo! That sounds like the hiss of "Apostate" under your breath *Runner*

HaHaHa
Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 29 August 2016 4:29:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved

I note the following from Wikipedia:

" ... Homoeroticism:

Some scholars have suggested a homoerotic interpretation of Christ's relationship with the Beloved Disciple, although the majority of mainstream Biblical scholars argue against any scriptural evidence to this effect.[28][29] Tilborg suggests that the portrait in John is "positively attuned to the development of possibly homosexual behaviour". However, he cautions that "in the code... such imaginary homosexual behaviour is not an expression of homosexuality." Meanwhile, Dunderberg has also explored the issue and argues that the absence of accepted Greek terms for "lover" and "beloved" discounts a purely erotic reading.[30]

That the relationship was interpreted as a physical erotic relationship as early as the 16th century (albeit in a "heretical" context) which is documented, for example, in the trial for blasphemy of Christopher Marlowe, who was accused of claiming that "St. John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in his bosom, that he used him as the sinners of Sodoma".[31] In accusing Marlowe of the "sinful nature" of homosexual acts, James I of England inevitably invited comparisons to his own erotic relationship with the Duke of Buckingham which he also compared to that of the Beloved Disciple.[32] Finally, Calcagno, a monk of Venice[33] faced trial and was executed in 1550 for claiming that "St. John was Christ's catamite".[29]

Dynes also makes a link to the modern day where in 1970s New York a popular religious group was established called the "Church of the Beloved Disciple", with the intention of giving a positive reading of the relationship to support respect for same-sex love. [29]

So who was the Beloved disciple and did that person share intimate relations with the Nazarene?
Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 29 August 2016 4:35:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

That’s not the way it sounded in your first post.

<<I’m not speaking of lesbians or the 'few' (much older) homosexual men who never commit the abominable act of sodomy.>>

In your first post, you just referred to homosexuality in general.

<<I was referring entirely to those who're sodomites.>>

So are you saying, then, that marriage should not be extended to those who practice anal sex? Because that would rule out an increasing number of heterosexual couples who practice it. Would it then mean that marriages should be automatically annulled if a couple decides to experiment?

<<For reasons that are totally beyond me these sodomites seem to find or attract trouble without any apparent effort whatsoever.>>

The proximal reasons are drug and alcohol abuse, and mental illness; which are ultimately caused by social stigmatisation and rejection. Anxiety and depressive illnesses often develop in gay people as a result of spending most of their developmental years in a constant state of fear of being rejected when they let their sexuality be known. This is turn leads to higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, which only exacerbates the problem.

<<Surely AJP you would 'never wish' nor condone any son of yours, to pursue a homosexual lifestyle…?>>

I wouldn’t ‘wish’ it, but only because we live in a society that still stigmatises gay people. But if it turned out that that’s who they were, then I would encourage it because living a life in which one was not true to oneself would be utterly miserable, and I would never wish that on them.

<<Very few go on to lead deep fulfilling lives, despite their claims.>>

I know quite a few gay people, and most are quite successful and seem to live very fulfilling lives.

<<It's against the laws of nature !... It's simply unnatural.>>

I’ve provided quite a few links now discrediting this claim. Again, this is the Appeal to Nature fallacy. Rape is natural, but that doesn’t make it good. Whether or not something is natural says nothing about whether it is good or right. Hence the fallacy.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 29 August 2016 4:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A J Philips:

"I am not the topic of this thread"

No you are not but that does not mean we cannot address your aggression. You think you should be able to bully and intimidate people and everyone just sit by and watch you?

Thanks for the links to the forum rules. If you think I am breaking the rules then the best thing to do would be to report me. That has a much better chance of success than to just providing a link to rules that even one of your 'imbeciles' would assume to be the case.

Then you warn me as well as runner and o sung wu that the moderator might step in. I am not intent on staying on topic unless I choose to. I am intent on focusing on your bullying and intimidation. The other two have also focused on those things. Perhaps the moderator agrees with us that the best way to deal with your behaviour is to let the members of the forum expose your behaviour for what it is in the hope that you might become less aggressive. It is not your so-called knowledge that frightens people away but your need to hurt others. Allowing that to go unchallenged is not very healthy for the forum. People will just drift away or new people will not stay long after being attacked by you.

Who would want to be in a forum where you feel the need to describe members as imbeciles?

"Rape is natural, but that doesn’t make it good. Whether or not something is natural says nothing about whether it is good or right. Hence the fallacy."

How do you know that rape is natural? Is homosexual behaviour natural? How do we decide if it is good or right ?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 29 August 2016 5:03:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//How do you know that rape is natural?//

Everything that we know exists is natural. If something occurs in nature (i.e. known existence) then it is natural.

//Is homosexual behaviour natural?//

Does it occur in nature? Yes.

So it's natural. Getting the hang of it now, phanto?

//How do we decide if it is good or right ?//

I use philosophy. Other people use religion. Some people rely on arguments from authority and prefer others to think for them. And some people prefer not to think at all and rely on raw emotion. There are probably other approaches that I haven't covered. Whatever works for you.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 29 August 2016 5:21:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto,

Yes, Im sure what I say feels very aggressive to you. We all feel attacked when dearly held beliefs are shown to be unjustified.

<<No you are not but that does not mean we cannot address your aggression.>>

How about you try addressing my arguments first? o sung wu is. Why can’t you?

<<You think you should be able to bully and intimidate people and everyone just sit by and watch you?>>

Certainly not. If I were doing that then your actions would be a little more justified, and you should probably report me too. So far, however, you have not provided any evidence that I have used strength or influence to intimidate those who are weaker than me. Good luck with that, given that I’m out-numbered here.

You, on the other hand, are just heckling. It’s very petulant of you. Clearly your homophobia is something that is very dear to you and your inability to mount a rational argument to justify it has you very upset. But it’s okay, phanto. You are welcome to take that out on me, if that’s what you need to do.

<<How do you know that rape is natural?>>

Because some people do it, and we are a part of nature. Sadly, our species possibly would have become extinct without it. Domestic violence, too, is natural. It was how primitive male humans ensured that they did not spend energy raising children that weren’t their own.

I know, I know. It sounds horrible. But nature is cruel, and we are a part of it.

<<Is homosexual behaviour natural?>>

Yes, and, once again, I have provided multiple links demonstrating this.

<<How do we decide if it is good or right?>>

By weighing up the harms and benefits that result from it, or the harms and benefits that would result from forcibly removing it. The same as we would do for anything else. If the bene
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 29 August 2016 5:39:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A J PHILIPS be assured there are many things you assert in your threads that can be taken either way - vaginal 'rape' is a natural act, but it's neither good nor lawful. But if the victim is sodomised against his or her will, then it's a crime. It's all to do with the age of the victim and their consent at the time of the event.

Anal sex between a married man and woman ? In a heterosexual marriage A J P, I guess it's whatever 'floats your boat' ?

Duck or weave to your heart's content A J P, sodomy or buggery is wholly unnatural. This is despite all the links and academic invalidation you've sought to introduce into the discussion, in some vain attempt to demolish this basic principle ? And all the justification and vindication you care to introduce, will never change it, nor rebut this basic truth forever and a day.

This 'Appeal to Nature' fallacy - It's no delusion, none at all. Just because some scientific whizz loudly exclaims to everyone who'll listen; '...nature is all a fundamental nonsense, sodomy is now quite 'natural' therefore it can be practiced with gay abandon...', does it make it right ? I think not.

You know A J P, for someone who lays claim to be a true 'champion for knowledge', a 'righter of wrongs', I must despair at the lack of commonsense someone with your educated antecedents should really possess. Given that you probably have, a Bachelors Degree or two, tucked away safely in the confines of your trusty brief case.

Moreover I've found without doubt, you're definitely, a Purveyor of Words. Which at my time of life gives me a headache. With nightmares, and visions of 'Roget's', and the 'Concise Oxford English Dictionary', backed up with, 'Wharton's Law Lexicon' ninth ed. as a reliable reserve. In which to systematically beat me about the head nightly I fear. I voluntarily relinquish to you everything that you've said herein, as being fundamentally right The only real difficulty is, you're wrong, absolutely !
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 29 August 2016 6:26:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A J Philips:

"Yes, Im sure what I say feels very aggressive to you."

No it does not feel aggressive - there is no such feeling. It is my opinion that you are aggressive.

"We all feel attacked when dearly held beliefs are shown to be unjustified."

No we don't feel attacked. We might feel fear but not all people feel fear all of the time when that happens. So in this particular instance there is no evidence to support your claim. I am not defending any beliefs though. I am just expressing an opinion about your behaviour.

"How about you try addressing my arguments first?"

Why? I am perfectly entitled to address your aggression if I want and ignore your arguments as I see fit and there is nothing you can do about it so why bother appealing to me? That will never make me stop.

"you should probably report me too."

But I don't need to you. Those of us who want to deal with your aggression are already doing exactly what we need to do.

" given that I’m out-numbered here."

What does it matter if you feel no guilt? Wouldn't you want to maintain your dignity and just carry on behaving the way you do? The numbers are irrelevant if you are in the right.

"Clearly your homophobia is something that is very dear to you and your inability to mount a rational argument to justify it has you very upset."

You keep changing the subject. This is about your aggression. It is irrelevant what my arguments about the topic of the thread are. This is about YOU. Not your arguments or mine but your behaviour.

"You are welcome to take that out on me, if that’s what you need to do."

I don't need your permission. I already have the right to what I am doing.

"By weighing up the harms and benefits that result from it."

Who decides what are harms and what are benefits?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 29 August 2016 6:42:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis:

"Does it occur in nature? Yes.

So it's natural. Getting the hang of it now, phanto"

No, not really. If everything that occurs in nature is natural then it must mean that nothing is unnatural right? Unless there is somewhere other than nature where we can go. So why do we have a word 'natural'? It does not mean anything. Words are meant to describe something to distinguish one thing from another. So what does the word natural mean? Can you point me to something which is unnatural perhaps?

o sung wu:

Why should anal sex be called sex? How do we define sex exactly? What is wrong with the word sodomy or buggery? Is vaginal sex really sex or is vaginal sex the only thing that should be called sex? Should vaginal sex be forced to change its name?

These are interesting questions that you have touched on.

A J Philips:

"Yes, and, once again, I have provided multiple links demonstrating this."

I know, I know but I haven't been paying attention. You are right to scold me so. I apologise for asking a question to which links have already been provided. You have the patience of a saint when it comes to me. If only you were not so arrogant you might become a saint.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 29 August 2016 7:06:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*AJP*

"How about you try addressing my arguments first?"

phanto:

" ... Why? I am perfectly entitled to address your aggression if I want and ignore your arguments as I see fit and there is nothing you can do about it so why bother appealing to me? That will never make me stop. ... "

How to define yourself as a half wit by phanto. LOL

Seriously, I don't think a cup of tea alone will do the job. phanto has clearly long since gone over the edge and is still thrashing about.

..

I think Jesus was most likely bi-sexual (as he Loves everyone equally) and had it off with not only John, but Mary and others as well.
Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 29 August 2016 7:24:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

I'm trying to keep this civil but your tone is slowly worsening and you are creeping back into ad hominem territory.

<<...vaginal 'rape' is a natural act, but it's neither good nor lawful.>>

Agreed.

<<But if the victim is sodomised against his or her will, then it's a crime.>>

Agreed. So far you have not contradicted anything I have said.

<<In a heterosexual marriage AJP, I guess it's whatever 'floats your boat'>>

So why is it alright for heterosexual couples but not homosexual?

<<Duck or weave to your heart's content…>>

Huh? I haven't ducked or weaved. I have tackled everything you have said head on.

<<...sodomy or buggery is wholly unnatural.>>

This is the Appeal to Nature fallacy again. We have always been a party of nature. Again, though this reasoning is fallacious.

You need to decide what you're arguing against too. Homosexuality or sodomy? Currently you're switching between and conflating the two and when it’s convenient.

<<This is despite all the links and academic invalidation you've sought to introduce into the discussion…>>

So how does a fallacy trump the fact that homosexuality is an evolved trait?

<<...in some vain attempt to demolish this basic principle>>

You haven't yet justified this principle with a sound basis.

<<This 'Appeal to Nature' fallacy - It's no delusion…>>

At no point have I claimed that it’s a delusion.

<<Just because some scientific whizz loudly exclaims to everyone who'll listen; '...nature is all a fundamental nonsense, sodomy is now quite 'natural' therefore it can be practiced with gay abandon...', does it make it right ?>>

When did that happen?

The rest of your post is ad hominem - which is also fallacious. Most of it rather flattering ad hominem too.

<<The only real difficulty is, you're wrong, absolutely>>

You are yet to demonstrate this.

--

phanto,

Thanks for that change of tone in your second post to me. Hopefully we can keep things civil from here on in.

<<Who decides what are harms and what are benefits?>>

Society collectively. We do the same with questions of morality. It's not difficult.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 29 August 2016 7:54:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there PHANTO...

Anal penetration is not sex in the true sense of the word, though many people I'm sure would disagree ? In reality it's a practice adopted by homosexual men and it's referred to a sodomy or buggery. In law those who penetrate the anal cavity they're referred to as sodomites. Again, many will most fervently disagree with me, and I can live with that.

It's an unnatural act, one if not careful can injure and transmit diseases if those who practice this abominable act aren't careful and hygienic. We're all aware of the true purpose of the anal cavity ? To assist in voiding one's waste material from the body, nothing else. However homosexual men find other users for it, other than it's natural functions ? Well there you go I suppose ? As I said in an earlier thread, whatever floats your boat !
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 29 August 2016 8:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Humans have two holes below the waist (disregarding the uniary functions) one is designed for excretion of bodily wastes and the other for procreation,
Hens have one hole that is designed for both purposes,
humans may act like chooks if they want to but it ain't what nature intended.
Homosexuality is common among hens but only when they are deprived of a male and it's not natural, put a rooster in the equation and beheaviour reverts to normal; to what nature intended.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 29 August 2016 8:44:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anal Sex. I've only got one thing to say. Gerbils. ;-)
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 29 August 2016 8:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The trouble is A J Philips you revert to the old A J P the annoying 'know all' ! You are neither the moderator, nor the convener of this Forum or this specific Topic. Nor are you the appointed aficionado, who sets and arbitrates on what's 'truth' - what you are in reality A.J.PHILIPS is a complete study in 'Narcissistic Personality Disorders' - precisely that, which deals with; aberrant diagnostic features of this cursed narcissism which apparently has you, well and truly in its grip !

Every time you open your mouth you present with this social disorder in spades my friend. You have this grandiose sense of self- importance. You always seem to overestimate your abilities and inflate your accomplishments, as this important criminologists, thus appearing boastful and pretentious. You have this perception you're superior or unique to everybody else, and expect us all on the Forum, to recognise that superiority ? Problem is the only feature we do recognise and accept about you A J P, is your pronounced hubris, which is a real worry for you of course, as it confounds your credibility significantly.

Oh yeah I know, another tragic example of ad hominen behaviour
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 29 August 2016 9:56:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems some of us here are having a strangely difficult time understanding why appealing to nature is a fallacious and an invalid argument. o sung wu finally got it, but then attacked a straw man by informing me that the fallacy isn’t a delusion. Now that that has all fallen through, he’s back to attacking me personally.

--

Is Mise,

Nature doesn’t “intend” anything. Did it intend rape? Your argument is invalid.

--

o sung wu,

That wouldn’t be an excuse for personal attacks even if it were true.

<<The trouble is A J Philips you revert to the old AJP the annoying 'know all'>>

Revert? Nothing's changed. All I’m doing is explaining why I think you’re wrong and providing evidence and reasoning for that.

<<You are neither the moderator, nor the convener of this Forum or this specific Topic.>>

Nothing I have said should suggest that I think I am.

<<Nor are you the appointed aficionado, who sets and arbitrates on what's 'truth'...>>

Well then it should be easy enough to discredit what I say.

<<Every time you open your mouth you present with this social disorder [Narcissistic Personality Disorder] in spades my friend.>>

Apparently not: http://www.bpdcentral.com/narcissistic-disorder/hallmarks-of-npd

<<You have this grandiose sense of self- importance. You always seem to overestimate your abilities and inflate your accomplishments…>>

I’m sure it feel's that way when your arguments keep collapsing. It is, after all, a classic way of avoiding the stress and discomfort of cognitive dissonance. But you need to provide specific examples.

<<Oh yeah I know, another tragic example of ad hominen behaviour>>

You guessed it. So why do it? Wouldn’t it be better to discredit my position and send me packing? There is no need to attack me personally if my position is flawed.

You seem fond of words like ‘sodomy’ and ‘buggery’. Your use of these words are not only emotive, but sound as though they’re employed with the intent of inspiring disgust, and perhaps even hatred, in others.

Remember what I was saying about mental health issues in the gay community and what causes them?

Yeah…
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 29 August 2016 10:29:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O sung wu:

“Your fervent support of homosexual men is understandable A.J. Philips, protecting your own is quite as expected, it's the way you go about it that gets up peoples nose. You can't confer, you lecture, always postulating from a superior position ... “

It is a good point you make. Given what has happened in Canada, changing the marriage definition would result in homosexuals “always postulating from a superior position”, regardless of whether they engage in so-called same-sex marriage or not. The Australian human rights machinery would see that marriage between a man and a woman could no longer be judged superior. It would be pointless looking to the minister responsible, Senator Brandis, to ensure fair play – after all Brandis and the HR agencies are in favour of changing the marriage definition.

In effect, we would have a situation where 2% of the population comprising homosexuals would be looking down on the rest who are not.

Sadly, unless they have studied what transpired in countries such as Canada, virtually all Australians including MPs would have little idea of the Australian implications. The MPs coerced by the homosexual lobby into accepting same-sex marriage would have been told only half of the story.
Posted by Raycom, Monday, 29 August 2016 10:53:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A J Philips:

"Thanks for that change of tone in your second post to me. Hopefully we can keep things civil from here on in."

Who's "we". Have you been uncivil? Which behaviour of yours do you consider was uncivil? I certainly don't consider my behaviour towards you as uncivil. Exposing your aggression and arrogance is a most civil quest. The less aggression and arrogance we have on the forum the more civil it becomes don't you agree?

Or perhaps you have changed your weapon of choice to sarcasm?

"Remember what I was saying about mental health issues in the gay community and what causes them?"

There is one thing they all have in common and that is homosexual behaviour. So maybe that is the reason for their mental health issues. If someone was looking at why they have mental health issues they would look for common factors wouldn't they. That would seem the scientific approach. If you do not take into consideration homosexual behaviour you would be very unprofessional in your research. Not looking where you do not want to look for fear of finding what you do not want to find could be a fear of cognitive dissonance couldn't it?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 29 August 2016 11:43:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Outside of recent queer activism where all manner of claims are made without corroborating evidence I have never heard of a woman who prefers and initiates sodomy of her body (or anyone else's).

Women find it uncomfortable to hurtful, risky, dangerous and degrading. The back passage has evolved for the unique purpose of eliminating waste.

If feminists really cared about women and especially the young girls who are being pushed by force and emotional blackmail into complying with anal sex because it is being promoted by porn sites, Hollywood and the media as a fait accompli, they would be 'outing' it as partner disrespect, highly risky and likely violence.

No woman wants to have a leaky bottom.

But no, the educated middle-class women who are the big hitters of feminism are more concerned about playing cynical political games to protect and hopefully extend their own privilege. It is time they were called out themselves for their greed and cynicism.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 2:09:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,

"Is Mise,

Nature doesn’t “intend” anything. Did it intend rape? Your argument is invalid."

Of course nature intends rape, rape is common in nature and is one of the mechanisms that ensures the continuation of a species and its diverse DNA.

So the argument is valid as is the common use of "intended" with reference to the 'laws of nature'.

Therefore those who take it like a chook but are not akin to chooks are acting unnaturally.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 1:36:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//No, not really.//

Christ you're slow...

//If everything that occurs in nature is natural then it must mean that nothing is unnatural right?//

Aye. See, not that hard after all, was it?

//So why do we have a word 'natural'?//

Buggered if I know.

//Can you point me to something which is unnatural perhaps?//

Unicorns. Unicorns are a meaningful concept; they appear in the dictionary and we all know what they look like. But they don't occur in nature, as far as we know. So they're unnatural. Dragons, peanut allergy-inducing vaccines (ask Armchair Critic) and gods are also unnatural.

//Of course nature intends rape, rape is common in nature and is one of the mechanisms that ensures the continuation of a species and its diverse DNA.

So the argument is valid as is the common use of "intended" with reference to the 'laws of nature'.//

So physical laws have intentions now? This is a new one.

Let us consider a simple form of a physical law we should all be familiar with: Newton's second law, F = ma. Where is the intention? All I can see are force, mass and acceleration. If intention is inbuilt into the laws of nature, why isn't there a term for it in any equation I've ever looked at? And why do the equations still seem to work despite the omission of this apparently crucial intention term?

Your hypothesis seems weak.

In what units do we measure intentions? How do we express these units in terms of the base S.I. units?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 3:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by OntheBeach, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 2:09:08 AM

" ... Outside of recent queer activism where all manner of claims are made without corroborating evidence I have never heard of a woman who prefers and initiates sodomy of her body (or anyone else's). ... "

OH, some people consider it a delicacy I believe. And whilst its fair to say that no one wants a novice thrashing around in there that does not go to say that there aren't plenty of people who indulge, just because it is outside your own limited personal experience.

But see here again, there is a divide. Because this debate has gone on for a long time. Some people plainly choose not to want to engage in reasoned argument but rather clang on like the sound of a rubbish bin lid being beaten.

And something more deeply offensive is that to me it seems that some people find non-hetero people to be the object of scorn. That for example, homosexuals themselves are unnatural. Because the plain truth is that when it comes to sexuality there are those who are physiologically very male, and those that are very female, and also those who are blended, part male and part female. To look upon them it is quite plain in some cases. As for those inner parts of us that we cannot see, it is for us merely to accept the not unreasonable wishes of others in relation to their sexualtiy and for muggles not to want to maintain a regime of disrespect and discrimination.

The homophobes in the guvment have lost the reasoned debate, and lost it a long time ago, so they turn to sh!t heads and trolls to promote the hatred, fear and loathing of the "other."

And long have they maintained an underclass of others to be scorned, for the mentality of the average Australian is such that they are mostly easily led by their prejudice.
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 4:28:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It makes no sense (which is what you would expect from the parliament) that we are having all this agonising about a storm in a teacup when the man who is supposedly leading the country can decide to invade another country with no debate and cause enormous death and destruction.
Posted by Robert LePage, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 4:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for why some homosexuals do not care for marriage anyway, I would like to hear a little more from others about why that is.

I would say that one reason is a reason that they share in common with everyone. And that is we wish to freely co-habitate without the noose of property loss on account of the legal implications of a recognised de-facto or married relationship.

It is not, I believe, that the majority of them object to those members of their community who wish to have their relationships consecrated by way of some religious sacrament and for that sacrament to have equal legal recognition with all others.

And of course giving legal recognition to the sacraments of some religious organisations and not to others is a joke in this day and age.

Australia has a long way to go before the reality of the legal framework reflects the best of Australians' hopes and aspirations for one another.
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 4:41:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was just trying to be conciliatory, phanto.

<<Who's "we". Have you been uncivil?>>

Although I'm sure there has been the odd moment here or there where I could have been more polite.

<<Which behaviour of yours do you consider was uncivil?>>

None that I can think off the top of my head. Your last few posts to me have been particularly nasty, however. With nothing left to argue, you are interested now only in character assassination.

<<Exposing your aggression and arrogance is a most civil quest.>>

You have merely asserted it. Can you point to some specific examples?

<<The less aggression and arrogance we have on the forum the more civil it becomes don't you agree?>>

Absolutely! It’s just a pity that you only care about the aggression and arrogance that comes from one side, and that your interpretation of what constitutes aggression and arrogance is guided only by emotional responses rather than what is actually being said or done. Which places a question mark over your sincerity.

<<There is one thing they all have in common and that is homosexual behaviour.>>

There's also stigmatisation and the effects that result from it.

<<So maybe [homosexual behaviour] is the reason for their mental health issues.>>

You would need to be more specific about what behaviour it is exactly that you have in mind.

<<If someone was looking at why they have mental health issues they would look for common factors wouldn't they.>>

As a starting point, yes.

<<If you do not take into consideration homosexual behaviour you would be very unprofessional in your research.>>

Again, it depends on what you mean by “homosexual behaviour”. If what you’re referring to is debunked from the outset by what is already known, then no.

<<Not looking where you do not want to look for fear of finding what you do not want to find could be a fear of cognitive dissonance couldn't it?>>

Yes, but there’s a difference between not looking out of fear of the answer, and not looking because the evidence strongly suggests that there is no point in looking there.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 4:56:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The purpose of a 'plebiscite' is to give the current government a clear message detailing 'the will of the people'. A government may then choose to ignore or assent to that message.

On this particular issue, much the same as in 'military conscription' for example, I think it is wise for the government to seek a publicly funded 'survey' (a plebiscite), as opposed to the many privately funded surveys held to date.

It is my understanding that the only time that 'marriage' is documented in the constitution is with respect that only the commonwealth government is empowered to make laws with regard to the institution. Further, it is my understanding that 'marriage', as defined in the constitution, is the Union of one man and one woman, for life and to the exclusion of all others.

To change the 'definition' of that word within the constitution, requires a referendum.

Hence; a plebiscite on 'marriage' would indicate to the government whether or not a referendum is required to change the meaning of the word as stated in the constitution.
Posted by Prompete, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 5:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where are we now A J PHILIPS - what gems of wisdom do you intend bestowing upon your faithful devotees at this hour ?

Anyway, ask any working copper what these sodomites or queers do exactly, in Public Parks during hours of darkness ? Besides loitering in or near the public toilets. Why are they skulking and lingering around in the dark, for what mysterious assignation would you suppose, 'hanging around' in or near some (often) smelly public loo ?

Would it be perhaps, they are trying to meet other sodomites, if so why meet in a public toilet ? Do they realise by them engaging in this protracted 'loitering', they're inhibiting legitimate people from using those toilets for the purpose they were original designed. Certainly not as a convenient rendezvous to meet like minded sodomites. Surely they could find somewhere more appropriate, and much more hygienic, than a public bog !

In an earlier Email you claimed that I was keen to use such emotive terms as 'sodomy' and 'buggery' as something calculated to inspire 'disgust' and 'hatred' ? Some folk describe anal sex, that's practiced by sodomites, as revolting even dirty, some have termed it positively filthy.

I'm sure your delicate sensibilities wouldn't want that ? Anyway I would've thought their very practices alone would inspire disgust in many ordinary people, and with some, even hatred ? What words or terminology would you prefer I use, 'Alpha Juliet Papa' ? Gay, homosexual, queer, 'bouncie boy', what precisely prey tell me A J P ? After all, sodomy is the correct term for males engaged in anal penetration together, you'll note I didn't use the noun 'sex'.
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 6:10:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, you can't have been a very astute copper otherwise you would have read what's written inside public dunnies on the walls and backs of doors.

Thereafter, some of these people have been scarred, bullied and worse so they are understandably afraid to meet openly and in public. That's what you are supposed to protect them from without fear or favour "Oh!" sung Wu.

As for sodomy being filthy, again, it is something I haven't personally indulged in but I have been led to believe that in advance of the delicacy, at least some practitioners take careful preparatory measures. Perhaps not as extreme as preparing for a colonoscopy, but you get the idea.

..

AJ, I still think that the problem here with O Sung Wu is that he thinks that you have offended him. But, I suspect that he failed to comprehend what you were saying and misinterpreted. And now, he feels insecure and threatened and his prior training has led him to conclude that the best response to his cognitive dissonance is a sustained ad-hominem attack.

Sometimes I think that advanced vocab and phraseology is best avoided in favor of simple plain english. Phanto could even use with ComPics I reckon.

As for Prompete, whilst constitutionally it is the commonwealth's role to make rules regarding marriage, it is not the constitution which defines marriage. The commonwealth marriage act defines marriage and was made by Parliament and can be changed by Parliament. It does not require a referendum.
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 6:49:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe we could call it FAM?
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 6:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

The snide remarks are really unbecoming. I don’t know where wisdom comes into the mix either. I don’t remember trying to offer anyone pearls of wisdom.

<<…ask any working copper what these sodomites or queers do exactly, in Public Parks during hours of darkness>>

A small percentage of them, yes. Such is life for those who are forced into unhappy marriages and then underground like that because of a stigmatisation. But you can do your part to change that.

<<Would it be perhaps, they are trying to meet other sodomites, if so why meet in a public toilet ?>>

Perhaps they can’t be seen at gay clubs because they’re married or high profile individuals (as is sometimes the case)? None of the openly gay men that I know would ever be caught in a public toilet. They’re all very educated, successful and respectable people.

Here’s something that’ll really make your head spin. Are you sitting down?

Some cops are gay.

That’s right. Big, burly, 6’2” blokes built like brick shithouses protecting the public. But you can call them “pansies”, if you like. Most won’t mind.

<<In an earlier Email you claimed that I was keen to use such emotive terms as 'sodomy' and 'buggery' as something calculated to inspire 'disgust' and 'hatred' ?>>

Yes, your arguments are so emotive and vacuous that you apparently feel you have no choice but to use such adjectives. Sodomite, bugger, queer, faggot, poofter. You’ll use the most offensive possible word to describe an entire demographic for which you have no rational reason to hate indiscriminately.

<<What words or terminology would you prefer I use, 'Alpha Juliet Papa' ?>>

It's not about what I would prefer. Still, why can’t you just say “homosexual”, “gay people” and “anal penetration”?

--

DreamOn,

You’re right. For some reason o sung wu has always taken opposing views as a personal attack on who he is. Even when they’re not communicated to him. I can respond to him with a demeanour that is almost sickeningly sweet but it makes no difference, so I don’t usually bother anymore.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 8:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is, and always has been A J PHILIPS, I simply don't respect you, and for other reasons altogether, I don't like you !

Why, well think about it for a moment ? I dedicated a good part of my working life as a police officer, both in GD'S and in plain clothes. At the very beginning I, and several other contributors herein were in the process of discussing some matter that touched upon the criminal law, and up popped A J PHILIPS and waded in without any thought to what others had contributed on the matter. Wisely I should've simply ignored you and followed the sage advice of an old uniformed sergeant of mine, who used to say '...son, never argue with a mug...' !

Recklessly, I engaged with you in order to explore a more pragmatic approach to the issue, much as a 'case officer' might do when first allocated a job and job number. What happened next I forget, but ever since that first encounter, you've quoted this text, and that text and what some eminent Social Scientist had stated, and so on.

Interestingly, much of what you said was from a theoretical point of you, and it was probably quite right. Whereas, I was speaking from a pragmatic position, and I too was right. We were both right coming at the right conclusion, from two entirely different angles.

In ordinary (daily policing) practices, one follows very much the well worn procedural trail. Diverging neither left nor right. Never needing to digress as our practices are generally very well proven, rarely ever needing to seek a theoretical opinion, only in matters of violence occasioned against the person, and then only that, of a forensic medical officer. Even then we follow precisely, this proven path which generally gives us the results we seek.

So when an unknown theoretician appears and starts lecturing a former Squad Sergeant on how to do his job, well he'll naturally 'arc up' and get real dark with this bloke; see what I'm alluding to here A J P ?
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 9:34:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

Yes, I’m aware that you don’t like me. You remind me often enough. I don’t have much of a problem with you, though.

Thanks for explaining why you don’t like me:

<<At the very beginning I, and several other contributors herein were in the process of discussing some matter that touched upon the criminal law, and up popped A J PHILIPS and waded in without any thought to what others had contributed on the matter.>>

In what way was my wading in thoughtless or uncouth, as you have implied it was? You make it sound like I rudely barged in.

There are no exclusive discussions on OLO. Everyone is entitled to wade in on a public forum such as this whenever they wish, so long as they remain reasonably polite, and I was exceptionally polite in that instance.

Here was my comment: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6635&page=0#200254

Doesn’t exactly resemble the picture you painted now, does it? Your recollection of that fateful day is as inaccurate and defamatory as the re-enactment of Homer Simpson’s alleged sexual assault was:

http://youtu.be/m-vuVjiF8Jk?t=88

You become highly emotional when someone counters your opinion, which causes you to then interpret a situation very differently to how it’s actually playing out in reality.

<<Recklessly, I engaged with you in order to explore a more pragmatic approach to the issue...>>

Oh please. Don’t make out now as if you sincerely and naively tried to converse the big bad AJ who, unbeknownst to yourself, had more sinister plans in mind.

<<What happened next I forget…>>

See the above link. Now everyone can know.

<<…but ever since that first encounter, you've quoted this text, and that text and what some eminent Social Scientist had stated, and so on.>>

What is wrong with that? Can you point to an occasion in which my doing so was inadequate or inappropriate?

<<So when an unknown theoretician appears and starts lecturing a former Squad Sergeant on how to do his job…>>

At no point have I lectured you on how you should have done your job.

You too are simply engaging in character assassination here.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 10:26:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A J PHILIPS your last sentence says it all ! And every time you stick your silly theoretical chin up, you'll feel that venom of my intense dislike of you !
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 1:29:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Um, o sung wu, most people wouldn’t admit to trying to engage in character assassination.

<<A J PHILIPS your last sentence says it all !>>

It’s a nasty, childish, and fallacious form of response.

<<And every time you stick your silly theoretical chin up, you'll feel that venom of my intense dislike of you !>>

Charming. I’ll look forward to it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 1:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In addition to allowing himself to become all upset, O SUNG WU, presents as a candidate in need of a chemical straight jacket.

And if his claims of being a former police person are true, then he is also demonstrating why he never got that promotion.

AJ's manner of providing studies to back up his assertions is a pleasure to read. It is the way of logic, the way of reasoned debate and the way of the decision making process as it is practiced in the West.

If you calm down O SUNG WU you may find that you are able to learn from AJ, and others, as we all learn from one another through this form of interaction. It may be that some of the core learning that you failed to grasp in your earlier career which in turn held you back then can still be learnt and mastered now, if you maintain an open mind, and cause the stormy seas of your emotions to be still.

Consider going back to the beginning, and when you encounter something that your not certain how to interpret, just ask people to qualify. Sometimes, the person in question may may well assist by taking the time and the thought to reply ans so it goes on.
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 3:06:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh DREAMON perhaps I can learn from you ? Now you've got me, I've been outed, I never was a copper, so it would be ridiculous to seek promotion in an occupation that I was never in, now wouldn't it ?

Do you think it was some long held aspiration of mine to be a real policemen that caused me to 'unravel' as it were ? A sort of unfulfilled desire perhaps ? Help me out here please DREAMON, what would be the point of me sitting at the knee of A J PHILIPS in order that I might learn from him ? Learn what precisely ? Humility, modesty, diffidence perhaps ? Sorry, none of these qualities form any fragment of A J PHILIPS's character, nor any part of his vocabulary either I'd suggest.

And I don't believe for a minute DREAMON, 'The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrist', are dedicating their entire programme at their annual conference, featuring A J PHILIPS and his bizarre hubris as their (key note) topic, surely they'd not have sufficient time, now would they ?

My first question of you, oh masterful sensei ? Why is it do you suppose, A J PHILIPS is such a committed supporter and apologist of those males who prefer to engage in anal sex with other males ? I await your wise counsel DREAMON.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 4:12:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Maybe we could call it FAM?//

OK.. how it is expressed in terms of S.I. base units? You know: meters, seconds, amperes, kelvins... that sort of thing.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 5:02:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the new parliamentary term, the Left has been reduced to two arguments against the government’s proposed same-sex marriage (SSM) plebiscite: hate speech and cost.

The anti-democratic Bill Shorten, responsible for making all Labor MPs/senators vote for SSM, has the impudence to label all SSM opponents as haters.

if the Left really thinks that a plebiscite would result in a hate speech wave, what does it think forcing a law through on a parliamentary vote will do? Leave everyone pacified?

Re the plebiscite staging cost of $160 million, if a Gillard/Swan-type ‘same-sex marriage levy’ were introduced, it would cost Australians only 1.8 cents per day for the next year to pay for the plebiscite. This is chicken feed compared with the billions of dollars wasted by Labor when in government.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 5:54:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do any of us advocate for this or that? And no, I do not automatically assume that AJ is a closet homosexual just because he advocates for them.

Do we assume that a lawyer representing a murderer must also be a murderer? No, generally speaking we don't do we and for good reason.

In the alternative, it wouldn't matter to me even if he were. The reasons for that are many but here essentially we gather to debate issues, not the people personally, even if we do intensely dislike what it is that they are saying, and or the way that they are saying it, or both. You get no points for ad hominem attacks unless you really can prove that the person or people in question are really beyond the pale.

AJ's challenge is to flaw the logic in his reasoning that concludes that it is unreasonable to persecute, discriminate, vilify and treat unequally and unfairly people who are other than hetero.

By my judgment (and I do not believe that I am alone in that) none of the contributors on this thread and similar ones has yet been able to do that.

What we are left with is the mental disorders and cognitive dissonance of some heteros and some celibates.
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 7:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dreamon: What we are left with is the mental disorders and cognitive dissonance of some heteros and some celibates.

& the same for the GLTB's.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 7:41:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And that's the thing O SUNG WU, there is no reason to treat these people with any less respect and any less dignity than anyone else.

There is no reason for the senseless assaults, is there?

And you would know wouldn't you, how much of the violence and the mayhem is truly senseless and unreasonable?

Do these people disgust you so much that you do not believe that they are entitled to the protection of the state just the same as everyone else? And that regardless of whether they are in a school yard, home or public dunny.
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 7:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom. A clear and well stated post, I think you have reduced the argument to the essentials. The Irish vote would appea to allay the 'fear mongering' cannard forwarded by the opponents camp. What I do not like is the obvious disrespect opponents hold for the Australian national character and all previous examples of how we have dealt with contentious issues.
Di Natales' comments threatening deaths and suicides is probably as low a level of debate I have heard. Truly disgraceful.
Posted by Prompete, Thursday, 1 September 2016 8:00:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article makes no logical sense.

"Opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that the public will vote against gay marriage, so a plebiscite shouldn't be held because the public have no rights in this matter."

That's false, untrue, incorrect.

"How important is marriage that they are prepared to spend 160 million dollars to have it?"

Who is "they"? The one's prepared to spend $160 Million was Abbott and his gang of conservative religious loonies. No one asked them to do that, they decided all by themselves.

"When the lobbying began for a change to the Marriage Act ....." Whoa steady on. It was the Howard Government that introduced Legislation to CHANGE the Marriage Act in the 90s.

Who were 'lobbying' then? The same "they" who decided to launch a Plebiscite now - the socially conservative neanderthals, Luddites, and religious freak show and also Gillard/Rudd et al.

It is that 'THEY' who inserted SEX into the Law not the LGBTI folks.

And do please get this right - it is not 'same-sex marriage' - it is 'marriage equality for all people'

SEX has got nothing to do with it - treat all people equally under the Law. It's a positive issue for equal rights, and that's it. SEX is irrelevant.

Neither sexuality or physiology is purely Binary. Genital surgery 'reassignment' has been getting performed on babies and young children for a century. Genetically females would end up boys, and vice versa and they also got that very wrong - so what is a female vs a male when the doctors can't work it out?

Marriage Equality goes way beyond 'having sex' - get your noses out of other people's beds.

It's none of your business what consenting adults do, and if two want to get married that is their Right to have the exact same privileges and rights as others.

This Rights issue could be fixed overnight by a Vote in parliament, the very same kind of Vote that Howard pulled on in order to FORCE his personal beliefs upon the entire nation.

Wake up, it's 2016 already, not 1066.
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Sunday, 11 September 2016 2:03:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem for me Thomas O'Reilly is that when this is enacted there will be law suits against the Christian Churches for "Equality". Of course the ABC will defend to the death the right of Islam to follow it's own path and deride Christians.
You do not want equality you want admiration, you do not want agreement you want subservience and most of all you want/need admiration. Or else it's off to 18c and $250k in damages.
personally I think gender is inherently part of us and to change to this loony toons nonsense is just a nice little earner for all the usual parasites that infest our country.
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 11 September 2016 8:21:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//The problem for me Thomas O'Reilly is that when this is enacted there will be law suits against the Christian Churches for "Equality".//

Wow, check it out guys: we have a modern-day Nostradamus in our midst. JBowyer is psychic! Or something starting with psych, anyway.

May I ask what method you used to obtain your certain knowledge of the future, oh great seer? Did you see it in the liver of a sacrificed sheep? Did you heat up a piece of turtle shell and interpret the resulting cracks? Did you read it in some tea leaves or coffee grounds?

Did you just make it up?

On the whole, it doesn't seem very probable. The likelihood of the Government not writing exemptions into the act for religions is precisely bugger all. It's a bit like the Catholic church having clearly discriminatory employment policies, but being able to get away with it because they're exempt under the sex discrimination act.

Also, the Government is unable to legislate a requirement that anybody admire anybody else: that is nonsense on stilts.

//Or else it's off to 18c//

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act? The one that prohibits certain actions on the basis of race, colour or national or ethnic origin? What does that have to do with same sex marriage?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 11 September 2016 10:26:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy