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 > Time for compromise on same-sex marriage > Comments

Time for compromise on same-sex marriage : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 22/6/2017

The lull in the debate over recognition of same-sex marriage provides a valuable opportunity to consider the ‘end game’ to this long-running controversy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
That's a good idea but doesn't get at the problem of low birth rates, and how secular values aren't universally supported at all and are hardly even supported amongst citizens themselves.
Posted by progressive pat, Thursday, 22 June 2017 9:58:09 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
Why is it that traditional values have to be 'compromised' for weirdos and wreckers of society?
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 22 June 2017 10:34:24 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
Compromise, back flipping, now is it?

Don't see the point!

Some folk will never ever compromise and resist to the last dyed in the wool tin eared, recalcitrant, conservative/dinosaur/troglodyte!

Wriggle room is running out and another election is as little as eighteen months away!

And sure to be a binding if proxy referendum on marriage equality? And given this is so, the Labor party has no reason whatsoever, to compromise at this late hour! The time for stealing the Labor party's clothes on this is past!?

You argued quite vehemently and repeatedly, as I recall John, against marriage equality. As have those, who will never ever accept the growing body of evidence that homosexuality is a completely natural aberration, with an underlying genetic cause.

And that's why I say, bring on the next election, even if I have to hold my nose and spit, as I vote for almost any party actually and genuinely, except the anti development greens, supporting the end of mindless discrimination and marriage equality!

And limited in application to consenting clergy, civil celebrants and cake decorators etc, according to their beliefs/religious principles/prejudices/ideology/dogma!
Alan B
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 22 June 2017 10:52:24 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 couldn't see a short summary of the point the author is making, so I'll get to the nub of the issue.

If you want a compromise stop calling it "same sex" and call it by the correct term "homosexual" . And don't use the term "marriage". Marriage means between an adult male and an adult female. Find another acceptable term such as "homosexual relationship". If you did that there'd be little opposition.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 22 June 2017 11:50:49 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
John de Meyrick,

A nice attempt to find a compromise, but when we’re talking about issues of equality, a compromise should only be necessary if both sides have reasonable concerns, and, contrary to what you claim, those against marriage equality do not have reasonable concerns. Take your list of arguments against same-sex marriage, for example:

1. Naturalistic fallacy which ignores the fact that marriage is a social construct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

2. Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

3. Appeal to Nature fallacy which asserts some apparently important differences between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage that are never mentioned. Also asserts that the actual ceremony is the only legal similarly, failing to account for the fact that children are also often involved in both relationship types.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

4. Irrelevant until it can be demonstrated how same-sex marriage will adversely affect opponents. Discrimination is still discrimination, it wouldn’t even matter if they were only 0.001% of the population.

5. Slippery Slope fallacy. If other harmful marriage arrangements are proposed, then one should save one’s energy for them if and when they are proposed. This is no excuse to discriminate now, and an unfounded moral panic now only weakens any future arguments, that may actually be legitimate, against change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

6. So what if genuine support may not be attained from up to 48% of the population? It’s not an excuse to discriminate and that will inevitably change over time anyway. The younger generations seem genuinely baffled by the objection to marriage equality from many of the older generations, just as older generations now were once baffled by the objection of some of their elders to interracial marriage. Homophobia is merely today’s racism.

7. Pure sophistry. For so long as marriage is not an option for same-sex couples, there is reason for them to feel stigmatised.

8. What constitutes a marriage has always changed. If some privately hold a different view to what they openly express, then that is their problem. This is not a reason to discriminate.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 22 June 2017 11:52:24 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
In 2007 The Greens voted down the ETS, and in 2016 with labor voted down the marriage equality plebiscite.

It is clear that they vote according to politics and not according to conscience.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 22 June 2017 2:39:32 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
oh-oh, AJP is back on his fallacy train.

This is where you assert that someone is wrong because, in the seemingly unending list of 'fallcies' one such can be made to fit the argument made.

eg he writes:

"2. Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition "

ie..you raised tradition -> there's an 'Appeal to tradition' fallacy -> therefore you're wrong. No argument or reasoning, it seems, is required.

You know, there's such a things as the Fallacy Fallacy - the fallacious use of the fallacy meme. AJ commits this fallcy as a matter of coarse.
_____________________________________________

We aren't going to get a plebiscite because the powers that be are too afraid that the deplorables might not vote the way their betters dictate. So next election, or the one after that or the one after that, we'll get a left wing government,(or should I say a more left wing government) and parliament will give effect to what the homosexual community wants.

Sticking fingers in the dyke :) sometimes works, but not this time. Once the change is made, whole careers and libraries of books will be made telling us how the assault on marriage didn't really have deleterious effects the same way as we are told that previous assaults on marriage (single parents payments, no fault divorce) didn't have, we are told, deleterious effects on society
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 22 June 2017 2:52:21 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
You’ve got that right, mhaze.

<<oh-oh, AJP is back on his fallacy train.>>

And why “Uh oh”, too? You make it sound like it’s something to be ashamed of. But, as you learned the hard way a few weeks ago (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734#238221), understanding the common fallacies is a useful tool in critical thinking.

There’s a really easy way to avoid having me get on “my” fallacy train (How is it mine, by the way?), though, and that is to not commit the fallacies in the first place. But, for so long as people do, I will continue to point them out.

<<This is where you assert that someone is wrong because, in the seemingly unending list of 'fallcies' one such can be made to fit the argument made.>>

No, it’s where I DEMONSTRATE that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed. That person may still accidentally be right, but they haven’t yet demonstrated that they are until they can present sound reasoning for their argument.

<<ie..you raised tradition -> there's an 'Appeal to tradition' fallacy -> therefore you're wrong. No argument or reasoning, it seems, is required.>>

No, that’s not it at all. I only point out the fallacy (in this case, the Appeal to Tradition) when an argument relies on tradition alone as the entire reasoning for the position. The link should have highlighted that. Obviously, you never clicked it.

<<You know, there's such a things as the Fallacy Fallacy - the fallacious use of the fallacy meme.>>

Yes, I’m aware of that.

To be precise, it is the assumption that a conclusion is necessarily wrong simply because it was arrived at through fallacious reasoning. Which is why I never assert that someone is necessarily wrong because they have committed a fallacy. I only point out fallacies to demonstrate that a position has not yet been rationally supported.

<<AJ commits this fallcy as a matter of coarse.>>

Do you have an example of that?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 22 June 2017 6:21:32 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
the bigoted violent regressives shouting threats at 70 year old Margaret Court in Melbourne today. What pathetic cowards they are who hate free speech.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 22 June 2017 7:56:05 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
Is the author looking for a job on the public payroll?

He is asking for yet more clerks working on yet more forms, sucking more of our tax money.

Government should have nothing to do with marriage and all references to 'marriage' and its grammatical derivatives must be kicked out from all legislation.

Marriage is a personal matter and so it should stay. Let every one interpret what it means for themselves.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 23 June 2017 10:38:45 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
AJ

"No, it’s where I DEMONSTRATE that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed. "

Well that might be what you think you do. But in regards to the example I mentioned you're entire point was that there was a fallacy that was about tradition. That's it. No attempts to define or discuss why tradition might not be a valid argument.

Now I can see why you'd want to avoid such a discussion given how badly you handled that point last time around and how foolish you came across. But just linking to the fallacy bible as your sole argument doesn't cut it. Perhaps to avoid further embarrassment, whenever you see someone mention tradition as a reason to question SSM you ought to look the other way and walk away from the keyboard...you know for your own self-esteem,

"But, as you learned the hard way a few weeks ago..."

I must say I'm in awe of your chutzpah here. I've seen you often assert that your merely asserting something is the equivilent of proving it. Such high self-worth. Perhaps that's why you can't bring yourself to admit or even acknowledge error.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 23 June 2017 11:52:21 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 quite, mhaze.

<<… in regards to the example I mentioned you're entire point was that there was a fallacy that was about tradition.>>

My point was that the argument the author presented fallaciously appeals to tradition because it doesn’t explain why tradition is important in this instance.

<<No attempts to define or discuss why tradition might not be a valid argument.>>

The link explained that.

<<Now I can see why you'd want to avoid such a discussion …>>

You haven’t yet provided an example of me ever avoiding discussion.

<<… given how badly you handled that point last time around and how foolish you came across.>>

Really? Do tell. Again, you’re rather lacking in the quotes and links department.

You wouldn’t be talking about the time you fallaciously appealed to authority and tradition, would you?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734&page=0#238221

Who knows? You seem to prefer to keep these things a mystery.

<<But just linking to the fallacy bible as your sole argument doesn't cut it.>>

Why not? Do you need me to explain it to you like a child? It’s really quite simple:

If someone claims that tradition is a reason to not legislate for same-sex marriage, without explaining why tradition is important in that instance, then they have fallaciously appealed to tradition, as tradition on its own is not a reason. The link I provided explains this and expands on why.

<<I've seen you often assert that your merely asserting something is the equivilent of proving it.>>

Really? Do you have an example of this? Feel free to disprove my claims in this instance if you think this is the case. I use such language and tone to goad others into challenging my claims. You should take up the challenge sometime, instead of your usual assertions and slander.

<<Perhaps that's why you can't bring yourself to admit or even acknowledge error.>>

Really, now? Again, with no examples.

Speaking of examples, how’s finding an example of me committing the Fallacy fallacy going? Surely it shouldn’t be too hard to find one since I supposedly commit this fallacy “as a matter of coarse.”
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 23 June 2017 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
Runner. Your observation is the very reason I would vote against a 'homosexual marriage' act (hat-tip Peter Lang) were it put to a referendum. Personally, I don't really give a damn but, the behaviour I have witnessed by the anti homophobe, cake decorator condemning anti free speech and thought crowd leads me to vote against ANYTHING this mob is in favour of.
Posted by Prompete, Friday, 23 June 2017 7:33:27 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 warn against "a begrudged victory ... a sore defeat". When marriage equality arrives in Australia - as it must - its opponents will be sore losers; within a few short years, however, no one will likely admit that they ever opposed it. Society evolves, and the trend is generally towards enlightenment.

You comflate marriage and procreation as " intended by nature" whereas nature has no conscious intent. Bruce Baghemi, ("Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", 1999) provides evidence for biosphere Earth as a "polysexual, polygendered world". Monogamous heterosexual union is simply one variant within the human experience. Marriage has never been solely about procreation: couples are not vetted for fertility.

Marriage is a secular, civil institution, enacted and regulated by the state. Marriage equality opponents within Abrahamic religions claim Biblical authority, but ignore their marriage traditions which subjugated women. John Boswell ("The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe", 1995) provides historic evidence of same sex marriage within early Christian societies. Marriage has evolved to reflect its parent societies, and will continue to do so.

It is problematic to estimate percentages of gay people within society, as these vary wildly and often overlook gender and sexual fluidity. Actual percentages are irrelevant because equality should always apply to 100% of the population.

Australian Parliament needed no plebiscite in 2004 to change the Marriage Act to exclude same sex couples, nor does it need a plebiscite today to change the Act once again. Australia is the only English-speaking western nation to remain opposed to marriage equality.

You assume a false equivalence regarding people on both sides of the debate. The continued denial of marriage to same-sex couples, like historic opposition to interracial and interfaith marriages, is based upon oppression and inequality. What opponents of marriage equality see as a call for polite debate is, for same sex couples, a degrading reinforcement of human rights violation.

This leads to your final compromise, which perpetuates heterosexual privilege - a form of marriage apartheid, where different marriages are separate but equal. Such a compromise is unacceptable in any reasoned nation.
Posted by AussieGeoff, Friday, 23 June 2017 9:51:13 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
Very well said, AussieGeoff.

Opponents of marriage equality need to understand that they need to come to the debate armed with a little more than just a conservative worldview and a fist full of logically fallacious arguments.

While John de Meyrick makes a spirited attempt at presenting a neutral viewpoint, his opposition to marriage equality is revealed in two ways: firstly, in his claim that the arguments from those opposed to marriage equality are reasonable, and; secondly, the weak arguments (most of which I have never heard) that he presents on the behalf of those who support marriage equality.

The only argument that those in favour of marriage equality need to present (thus far, at least) is equality. Given the immense and demonstrable benefits that greater equality brings to societies, and the detrimental effects which discrimination has, that sets the bar pretty damn high for the opponents of marriage equality.

A bar height whcih none have yet risen above, too, I might add.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 24 June 2017 12:50:04 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
There is nothing to compromise.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and a same sex relationship has nothing to do with marriage. Because such relationships are between perverts and were , until recently, criminal in nature, they do not even have a name. They are certainly not marriage. A name should be assigned to them, one that recognises their nature, and makes clear their distinction from marriage. “Perviage” is an appropriate suggestion.
The perverts political wing shoud then seek legal recognition of relationships of perverts, and cease lying about non-existent marriage inequality, and the nonsense of same sex marriage, which is a contradiction in terms.
There is then nothing to compromise, because the perverts would cease their attempts , if necessary by legislative restraint,to interfere with the institution of marriage which is nothing to do with them.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 24 June 2017 4:46:55 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 long to go now bigots. You are going to lose this one very soon.
Your heroes in the liars party are lining up for oblivion and after the next election same sex marriage will be law.
Nothing you grubs can do about it.
Suck it up losers.

Maybe you can emigrate.
The US is a virtual xian theocracy these days maybe they would suit you better. But oh wait they legalised gay marriage a while back didnt they.
Maybe Europe or the UK? Nope they are queer lovers too.
Maybe Iran would suit you better.
I think the saudis still kill poofs dont they. Just your type.
Im sure Nth Korea hates fags just as much as you lot do.
You might get to actually physically persecute a few if you move to Africa. Like that wouldnt you.

You have no argument, no compromise, no logic, just bigotry and hate.
Keep you insane beliefs to yourself and keep out of other peoples private lives.
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 24 June 2017 12:08:13 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
Would someone please advise just what compromise there can be between not permitted & permitted. Obviously none does or can exist, so the lefty homosexual argument is disingenuous as usual.

It is interesting that our homos want to get married, when so few in society still do, or take the commitment at all seriously when they do. There has to be a quid in it somewhere for them. If they just had the same legal & financial laws as hetros with de facto relationships they probably wouldn't bother.

The last 2 weddings I have attended lasted less than 3 years. It appears weddings today are just an excuse to dress up, drink a lot, & eat some food.

It really doesn't matter much. After the Muslim take over, all homosexuals will be eliminated, married or not.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 24 June 2017 2:10:29 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
Your waffling again AJPhillips.

Your playing from a scale the rest of life's musicians, (IE the 98% of the other), have never heard of, and it does not follow the mathematical formulas of the music of the mind!

The scale of equality? Or you may mean, the scales of justice?
Homosexuals are part of the "C" Major scale, the whole seven of them, and more, all the sharps and flats possible, all on board. But the scale of equality? It's (appropriately) a scale with a couple of missing notes by deliberate intent; a Country scale! Or a Blues scale a third flat down.
Ya see, if you mess with the scales, then all that unique music of the Blues and Country disappear.
Down the gurgler with Dorris Day.

Well let's have a court case and apply to have equality restored to the Blues scale. Please your honour, we demand all those poor little Blues songs from hundreds of years, those tunes left out in the cold for so long neglected, we want their two and six notes, restored for equality sake...look the test of the world is now celebrating the return of those two lost blues notes...we want them too.

Get off the "grass" AJP. Some things can't change and shouldn't change for OBVIOUS reasons.
Posted by diver dan, Saturday, 24 June 2017 9:56:33 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
Dear Geoff,

«Marriage is a secular, civil institution, enacted and regulated by the state.»

Is that all? No real substance whatsoever?

If that's indeed the case, then there should be no marriages.

Divorce the state!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 24 June 2017 11:32:04 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
“My waffling again”, diver dan?

<<Your waffling again AJPhillips.>>

Oh, you mean “I am” waffling.

No, I’m not. To waffle means to speak at length in a trivial manner, and at no point have I done that. But I’ve noticed that many around here quick to write off arguments as “waffle” when they are unable to counter them.

<<[You’re] playing from a scale the rest of life's musicians, (IE the 98% of the other), have never heard of, and it does not follow the mathematical formulas of the music of the mind!>>

Sounds deep. I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, though.

<<The scale of equality? Or you may mean, the scales of justice?>>

Either nether, or both. I’m not sure. But guess who is waffling now?

It sounds to me like your analogy, using musical scales, is supposed convey the idea that marriage equality will result in the collapse of civilisation. I’ve heard that one before. But if that IS what you are claiming, then you need to explain why. A creative analogy doesn’t cut it.

You also appear to be alluding to the small percentage of people being gay as a reason to reject marriage equality, but don’t explain why that is a reason.

You should go back to cheering on the throwing of poofters off the rooftops of buildings. This poetic stuff just doesn’t suit you.

<<Some things can't change and shouldn't change for OBVIOUS reasons.>>

You are yet to explain why marriage, which as always changed, can no longer be one of these things. It shouldn't be too hard if it's so obvious. Typing in capitals isn't a substitute for sound reasoning.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 25 June 2017 7:56:29 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
Quote AJP.

**The only argument that those in favour of marriage equality need to present (thus far, at least) is equality.**

This premise is patently "bogus". This is the lie from which all other lies emanate that support gay marriage. (Keep in mind, all marriages are invariably "Gay" until the divorce).
You've run out of runway before take off!

My explanation of the equality "bogus" argument, uses a musical analogy as to why something's in life can never, and should never be equal...suggest you allow the simplicity of the description to sink in!
Posted by diver dan, Sunday, 25 June 2017 2:22:45 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
diver dan,

Okay, so you don't think equality is a valid justification for same-sex marriage. But you never actually explain why. The closest you come to doing so is to refer back to your bizarre analogy.

<<My explanation of the equality "bogus" argument, uses a musical analogy as to why something's in life can never, and should never be equal...>>

Your “analogy” wasn't an analogy at all because there was nothing analogous about it. In no way does it explain why same-sex marriage can or should never happen. For mhaze’s benefit (because I know how much he likes fallacies), that's the False Analogy fallacy, a fallacy of irrelevance.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

The closest you come to explaining your analogy's relevance is to appeal to its simplicity. Which proves nothing.

Try again.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 25 June 2017 4:06:52 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
"«Marriage is a secular, civil institution, enacted and regulated by the state.»

Is that all? No real substance whatsoever?

If that's indeed the case, then there should be no marriages.

Divorce the state!"

I agree!!
Posted by mrug, Monday, 26 June 2017 10:46:34 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
The rectophobe’s pathetic statement:” . What constitutes a marriage has always changed.”, reminds us how bereft of substance his assertions are.
They are also uniformly dishonest. There is no honesty to be found in any of his assertions in support of the small minority attacking the institution of marriage.
In our society , there has been no change in the meaning of the term and its meaning was codified and confirmed by legislation. It means, and has always meant, the union of a man and a woman. It does not mean, and has never meant, a relationship between people of the same sex.
AJPhillips term, “same sex marriage”, is an unsustainable nonsense.
Another of his lies is “marriage inequality”. No one is treated unequally by the law in respect of marriage.
Marriage between persons of the same sex is not possible, because marriage is, and always has been a union entered into between a man, and a woman.
The rectophobe’s lies do not affect the fact that there is no valid basis for the pervert’s claims, which consist, as I have shown, of nonsense, based on lies.
There is nothing to compromise.
Marriage supporters have full justification for their position, the perverts have none.
The rectophobe's nonsense about fallacies, does not rate a mention.
cont
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 3:25:29 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
cont
Let us remember what the perverts say about their desire to access the institution of marriage.
The lesbian activist Gessen says:”” Gay marriage is a lie.”
• “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
• “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
“Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen's candid sentiments: "Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it," he once wrote. "James Dobson was right about our evil intentions," he quipped. "We just plan to be quicker than he thought."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/matt-barber/2015/08/17/the-gay-marriage-gauntlet-time-to-choose

This is from an address by John Murphy MP in 2012
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (12:11): I rise to speak against the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012. …… Supporting Altman's call to remove the words 'a man and a woman' as a first step to abolishing the Marriage Act, prominent gay writer Masha Gessen attacked those who claim that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will not diminish the importance of traditional marriage, saying: 'It is a lie to say the institution of marriage won't change … We want to abolish marriage.' Her words confirm my previous speech in this House, when I said redefining marriage would change the meaning of marriage for all Australians. Effectively, it would make marriage meaningless.
http://australianmarriage.org/parliament-gay-marriage-debate-opens-we-want-to-abolish-marriage/
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 3:28:06 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
Leo Lane,

Are you capable of communicating with anyone without the use of abuse and name calling? And what’s this nonsense about me being a rectophobe? Unlike some on OLO, I don’t oppose same-sex marriage just because I might be a bit squeamish about the anal region.

You first claim that I’m being dishonest in pointing out the fact that what constitutes a marriage has always changed. Then you narrow the state of marriage to our young 229-year-old society here in Australia to exclude other cultures and eras and prove that it has not changed.

Now THAT is dishonest.

<<It does not mean, and has never meant, a relationship between people of the same sex.>>

Not in Australian at least, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

But so what, unless you’re fallaciously appealing to tradition here?

<<AJPhillips term, “same sex marriage”, is an unsustainable nonsense.>>

Firstly, it’s not just my term:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=same+sex+marriage

(Oh, would you look at that! Forty-five million hits.)

Secondly, you haven’t explained why it’s “unsustainable”.

<<Another of his lies is “marriage inequality”.>>

You have not demonstrated that what I said was intentionally dishonest.

<<No one is treated unequally by the law in respect of marriage.>>

Erm, yeah, they are. Same-sex couples aren’t allow to marry. That is, by definition, inequality.

<<Marriage between persons of the same sex is not possible, because marriage is, and always has been a union entered into between a man, and a woman.>>

Not only is this the Appeal to Tradition fallacy, but it takes the fallaciousness a step further by claiming that marriage equality is not even possible (as opposed to just ‘preferable’).

As for your referring to gay people as “perverts”, I discredited that at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333515.

<<The rectophobe's nonsense about fallacies, does not rate a mention.>>

“Does not rate a mention”, “cannot be countered”… What’s the difference, eh?

<<Let us remember what the perverts say about their desire to access the institution of marriage.>>

This is the Cherry Picking fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking).

The “evil intentions” quote was satire, you dill. Who actually refers to their intentions as “evil”?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/12/892597/-

Don't we feel stupid now?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 8:54:44 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
While realizing the import of the blog title OLO; that posts here are "opinions", it never fails to disappoint, amaze, frustrate and deter frequent visits to read or interact with the posts.

Other than AJ Philips and AussieGeoff, not one other poster has a cogent argument for their opinions;nothing but sophistry, diatribe, waffle (to quote one of the offenders) and certainly zero interest in having a thoughtful dialog.

All posters, save AJP and AussieG, FAIL, SAD, BIGGEST LOSERS
Posted by Peter King, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 10:27:02 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
You are out of your legue here Peter king.
Go somewhere that does not require the ability, which you lack, to tell the difference between nonsense and lies, supplied by the rectophobe, and cogent argument, which you are incapable of recognising.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 3:22:09 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
Still resorting to personal abuse and name-calling, are you Leo Lane? And with that bizarre and nonsensical insult, too, I see.

You must have quite a thing for backsides.

I also note you have no actual rebuttal, just more assertions of supposed ‘lies’ and ‘nonsense’ that you apparently cannot identify.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 5:03:14 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
The rectophobe reminds us of his confusion and ignorance. He thinks that “ rectophobe” has something to do with rectum. What a sad mess his illiterate mind must be.
Recte means “right”, phobe means "hates or fears".
A rectophobe hates or fears what is right. You had the gall to call me a homophobe, without cause. I accurately call you a rectophobe. You wanted name-calling, so now you have it. You have no aptitude for it, but you practise it and you invited it, so do not complain.
I showed clearly that your assertions are nonsense or lies. Your whining about name-calling does not change that. There is no substance to your assertions, and you have no answer.
Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. There is no inequality in the law of marriage, and there is no such thing as same sex marriage. You have no answer to that.Whining about name-calling is not an answer, just an evasion from the situation in which you have cornered yourself, with your nonsense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 11:13:52 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
Wrong...again LL

Marriage has never been exclusively between men and women until the 12th century when the Roman Church got involved and as was their wont, declared it subject to God's sanctity.

Long before that emperor Nero was married to not one man but two. The practice of homosexuality and marriage was "de rigueur" throughout the Roman empire.

Polygamy was the most common form of early man and women marriage and is even mentioned in your guide book the Bible. It was also possible "in tradition" to marry someone who was actually deceased as this tied families together for political purposes.

So as AJ has said numerous times come up with a coherent and viable argument as to why marriage should not evolve as all other customs in society have and we might listen.
Posted by Peter King, Thursday, 29 June 2017 9:42:55 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
Yes, Leo Lane, and it was a reasonable assumption, too, given what rectophobia is.

<<He thinks that “ rectophobe” has something to do with rectum.>>

http://www.phobiasource.com/rectophobia-fear-of-rectum-or-rectal-diseases

There was no literary failing on my behalf.

<<You had the gall to call me a homophobe, …>>

You’ve got that right, and with good cause, too. No gall required.

You see, if you call gay people “perverts”, without rationally justifying such an offensive term, this indicates that you have a fear or hatred of homosexual people.

Again, you are a homophobe.

<<I accurately call you a rectophobe.>>

No, you are yet to demonstrate how I am wrong, let alone how I fear what is right.

<<You wanted name-calling, so now you have it ... you invited it, so do not complain.>>

No, I didn’t want or invite name-calling. I simply stated a demonstrable fact (albeit in a direct tone). What you do, on the other hand, is mere name-calling.

<<I showed clearly that your assertions are nonsense or lies.>>

No, I countered them. You are yet to show how my rebuttal is incorrect or invalid

<<There is no substance to your assertions, and you have no answer.>>

Says the person who cannot respond to my rebuttal, but merely assert now that he is the one who is right.

<<Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.>>

Currently, yes, but there is no reason why that should not or cannot change. You are yet to present one.

<<There is no inequality in the law of marriage, and there is no such thing as same sex marriage.>>

Yes, there is inequality for so long as same-sex couples cannot marry. Your claim, that same-sex marriage is not even possible, is something you are yet to justify.

<<You have no answer to that.>>

Yes, I have. See above.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 29 June 2017 10:47:06 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
Phillips’ knowledge of the rectum is superior to mine, and my use of “rectophobe” is inapplicable. A better term is “pervertophile, a lover of perversion.
His claim that he countered my assertion that there is no such thing as same sex marriage is nonsense. He says:” , yes, but there is no reason why that should not or cannot change. You are yet to present one.”
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The falsely termed “rebuttal” has no substance. We are talking about current circumstances, not imaginary ones. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and no valid reason for change has been put forward. “Inequality” is a baseless lie. You have given no basis on which the law of marriage can have any application to same sex relationships.
. A relationship between same sex couples was until recently a criminal offence, and you can give no reason why it will not in the future become a criminal offence, but I do not dishonestly raise that as an argument, as you dishonestly raise a non existent possibility.
I gave a definition, and showed that homosexuals are perverts. Your response was to post a different definition and assert a blatant lie that it was the definition that I had posted. I showed that homosexuals are perverts, which is self evident anyway. You did not counter it, and have no basis to do so.This is not denying that it is possible, as you falsely assert I said, but currently, the perverts are devoting their efforts to avoiding a plebiscite, which it seems they would lose.
As to calling me a homophobe, I object to your use of the pejorative term, directed by the perverts to someone who tells the truth about them
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 1 July 2017 11:40:10 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
You’re damn right I do, Leo Lane?

<<He says:”, yes, but there is no reason why [marriage] should not or cannot change. You are yet to present one.”>>

Every reason you have presented thus far, including in our past discussions, has been discredited.

<<Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.>>

Currently it is, yes.

<<The falsely termed “rebuttal” has no substance.>>

Well, it shouldn’t be too hard to counter then, should it? We’re full of assertions at the moment, aren’t we?

<<We are talking about current circumstances, not imaginary ones.>>

Are we? What about possibilities? You know, the possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated for? That is, after all, what the discussion is about.

This statement from you highlights your problem in this debate: you switch back and forth willy-nilly between ‘There is currently no such thing as same-sex marriage’ (presumably you’re only talking about Australia) and ‘There can never be any such thing as same-sex marriage.’

<<Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and no valid reason for change has been put forward.>>

Equality.

<<“Inequality” is a baseless lie.>>

Really? Do tell.

<<You have given no basis on which the law of marriage can have any application to same sex relationships.>>

It’s simple. They go through a little ritual and then sign documents.

<<A relationship between same sex couples was until recently a criminal offence, and you can give no reason why it will not in the future become a criminal offence, …>>

How presumptuous of you. Actually, I can. If we continue to promote equality and become a more educated society, then we are unlikely to revert to our past discriminatory, supersticious ways. It would likely take a catastrophic event, plunging us into another Dark Age, for homosexuality to be criminalised again.

<<... but I do not dishonestly raise that as an argument, as you dishonestly raise a non existent possibility.>>

You have not yet explained why the possibility is non-existent. How have all the other countries with marriage equality managed it?

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 3 July 2017 1:25:36 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
…Continued

<<I gave a definition, and showed that homosexuals are perverts.>>

No, you didn’t. You gave a definition suggesting that people who engage in anal sex are perverts. Your definition didn’t account for lesbians or male homosexuals who don’t engage in anal sex.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333352

I suppose people who engage in oral sex are perverts, too, going by your standards?

<<Your response was to post a different definition and assert a blatant lie that it was the definition that I had posted.>>

No, it wasn’t a “blatant lie”. It was an honest mistake that I cleared up at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333491, and went on to explain how your chosen definition still didn’t help didn’t help your case anyway.

It seems we forgot about that part. Is it any wonder why you don’t like back to these comments?

<<I showed that homosexuals are perverts, which is self evident anyway.>>

No, you didn’t. And if it’s so self-evident, why can’t you just explain it now instead of ducking and weaving?

<<... the perverts are devoting their efforts to avoiding a plebiscite, which it seems they would lose.>>

All polling suggests otherwise.

<<As to calling me a homophobe, I object to your use of the pejorative term, directed by the perverts to someone who tells the truth about them>>

You have not yet demonstrated the truth of anything that you have said. So, until you do, you’re a homophobe.

Put up or shut up.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 3 July 2017 1:25:40 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
Crikey philips, you really are a phallus see!
Posted by FireballXL5, Monday, 3 July 2017 7:35:39 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
Really, FireballXL5? So, who's sock puppet or reincarnation are you, anyway?

The butthurt must be thick around here if you can go to the effort of logging on and posting just to insult me.

That's all you lot have left, isn't it?
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 3 July 2017 8:04:50 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 position AJP, is that there is inequality before the law because perverts cannot marry.
Earlier in this thread, you responded to the statement:” <<In Australia Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman.>>” with the response :”Correct”
The law of marriage concerns men and women, and the law treats them equally. The law of marriage is nothing to do with people, men or women, in their capacity as perverts, wanting a union with a person of the same sex , so the law of marriage does not deal with such unions in any way, since there is no basis for any treatment of them, or reference to them, in relation to marriage.
Relationships between persons of the same sex do not constitute marriage, as you have acknowledged, so the law of marriage has no application, and cannot be unequal in its treatment of them, because it does not apply to their relationships, and thus does not treat them in any way at all.
Your assertion of unequal treatment is a blatant lie, and is the untruthful basis of your assertion of “inequality. Your only basis for your position is a falsehood.
The perverts who claim inequality, are falsely claiming that their relationships are “marriage”. They have avoided naming their relationship, and have sought no legal basis for such a relationship, no doubt believing that this ploy assists their baseless and scurrilous claim that such a relationship is a marriage.
As I have pointed out before, Phillips relies on nonsense, the non-existent “same sex marriage”, and the blatant lie of inequality in the law of marriage. His nonsense about “fallacies” is of no effect, because he has no case to defend, just lies and nonsense, of no force or effect. He has nothing
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 6 July 2017 12:05:31 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
That’s correct, Leo Lane.

<<Your position AJP, is that there is inequality before the law because perverts cannot marry.>>

And that you have not yet demonstrated that they are perverts.

<<The law of marriage concerns men and women, and the law treats them equally.>>

Correct, and correct. The law discriminates equally between lesbian and gay-male couples.

<<The law of marriage is nothing to do with people, men or women, in their capacity as perverts, … since there is no basis for any treatment of them, or reference to them, in relation to marriage.>>

Correct, only you are yet to demonstrate that they are perverts and that there is no basis for marriage equality.

<<Relationships between persons of the same sex do not constitute marriage, …>>

Not legally in Australia yet, no.

<<… so the law of marriage has no application, and cannot be unequal in its treatment of them, …>>

Yes, is can. By not including them at all.

<<… it does not apply to their relationships, and thus does not treat them in any way at all.>>

That fact that it does not apply to their relationships is what is discriminatory. It does not have to actively treat them in any way, in order to discriminate.

You’re not going to fool me with BS lawyer-speak. I’m quite used to it.

<<Your assertion of unequal treatment is a blatant lie, and is the untruthful basis of your assertion of “inequality.>>

Well, apparently not. See above.

<<The [gay people] who claim inequality, are falsely claiming that their relationships are “marriage”.>>

That they are marriage, or that they should be allowed to be called marriage?

<<They have avoided naming their relationship, …>>

Have they? Deliberately? Why do they need to do that, and why have they avoided it?

<<… and have sought no legal basis for such a relationship …>>

So, they need a legal basis to attain a legal basis? If that were the case, then no one would ever attain a legal basis for anything.

No, the principle of ‘equality before the law’ is all they need.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 6 July 2017 8:53:10 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. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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