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 > Marriage as a 'social institution' > Comments

Marriage as a 'social institution' : Comments

By Eric Porter, published 5/9/2017

Indeed, if marriage were simply about love, it would render all the legal infrastructure redundant.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All
Marriage is NOT a social institution: the fact of marriage is one thing and its recognition by society is another.
Not only are these different, but at times society mistakenly recognises other relationships as "marriage", which are not.

However, had marriage, as the author claims, indeed been about reproduction, then this practice must stop because the world is already way overpopulated by humans.

And anyway, why is it important to secure the future of society, especially when we know that regardless of what we do or don't, one day it will end!?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 10:38:23 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
SSM is not equal to traditional marriage or, more correctly, the only marriage there is. As one who rejects SSM, I don't, as has been said here have a “low opinion” of “same-sex love” because loving a person of the same sex is too absurd to contemplate. I regard 'it' in the same way I regard some people's ridiculous 'love' for animals. I have no objection to people feeling they need to 'love' a dog or a cat, and I have no objections to same sex people who think they love each other; what I do object to is the notion that that love is 'equal' to that between a man and a woman. It is not. SSM is not a human right (anyone taking notice will know that this silly idea has been rejected by courts several times).

Neither side of the argument is interested in the reasons why other people feel the way they do, so reasons for what we think are redundant. We will vote no or yes. The whys and wherefores are no longer relevant. The whole thing is purely political and, in due course, one side will win, the other fail. Love, rights, reason have nothing to do with anything.

It's time for the pontificating and right/wrong crap to cease. What will be will be, no matter what any of us think individually.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 10:41:52 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 marriage act was revised in 2004, by John Howard to change the wording from two people to a man and a woman.

He didn't need a plebiscite nor were they gay community consulted. Moreover, recent studies have reportedly confirmed a gay gene, not just one, but several down near the bottom of the DNA double helix spiral.

Something the brainwashed recalcitrant bigots seemed to have missed?

Remove the word gay from this diatribe and replace it with black, african, negro or lefties, and you might just get a sense of what this ignoramus is trying to argue?

And like all recalcitrant bigots with perfectly reasonable words and historical accuracy? To essentially defend the right of homophobic bigots to be homophobic bigots?

And let's not pretend that's abusive language, but rather just a factual description of this, gay bashing author?

Marriage as a social institution once never included people not racially pure. And as then and as now, justified with a heaping helping of unadulterated hogwash?

He doesn't talk of same sex marriage but rather homosexual love.

In living memory the same disgust was aimed at mixed marriage by the same alleged Christians?

All one can add is this creature is a creature of (palov dog conditioning) habit for whom science and relevant medical research means nought and to be ignored to simply prosecute a homophobic argument?

I rest my case.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 5 September 2017 10:52:08 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
Two major problems with the article:

First, the author sets up a strawman (which I don’t even think he does a very good job of knocking down) of addressing “equal love” specifically, without addressing equality in general. Then runs with it, effectively wasting the next 10 minutes of the reader’s life.

Second, the author assumes that marriage is a fixed concept by asserting that marriage is “linked inextricably to reproduction”. Which I suppose doesn’t really matter too much either way, given that gay couples are already having children.

--

AlanB Writes: "Remove the word gay from this diatribe and replace it with black, african, negro or lefties, and you might just get a sense of what this ignoramus is trying to argue?"

Indeed.

A little game I sometimes like to play is to read articles from same-sex marriage opponents by replacing 'homosexuals' with 'interracial couples', and 'gay marriage' with 'interracial marriage'.

We're all so horrified by racism and yet homophobia is no better. Even OLO's profanity filter will allow 'poofter' but insists that the 'N' word be removed.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 11:28:15 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
It seems to be about reproduction and all that but in reality the birthrate is only 1.8 meaning that the population of Australians is getting smaller and smaller from one generation to the next.
So, maybe modern marriage has significant problems that need fixing before worrying about anything else, who knows.
Posted by progressive pat, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 11:32:22 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 have strict and defined views on marriage. Male marries female; end of quote.

Through the years I have arrived at this opinion from observation of the world called reality.
My early experience observing two homosexuals screwing each other under the willow in broad daylight at a local swimming hole, was one very very defining moment.

Then as I matured and began moving through life with the boys( who were only ever normal), I attended the odd party where the local, very loose girl would entertain the boys by screwing dogs.

I thought I'd seen everything, but no, following up with research prompted by rumour, I became aware of a number of women who screwed their sons. Life was getting worse!

In later years this sexually misfit society, threw-up local priests who screwed alter boys at will. It became apparent to me that out there in the big world are a lot of very sick F*.

Now. F* gay marriage. These very sick individuals not only wish to marry their boy friends, but want to drag some powerless child into their evil web of sickness…you must be joking as they say!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 12:49:22 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
Progressive pat, the powers that be are trying to 'fix' marriage: that's the perceived problem that they are taking advantage of to conquer Western Civilisation.

Marriage isn't broken but the invading forces are trying to convince the sheeple that it is.

This attack has been going on for a long time..
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 2:32:18 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
"This attack has been going on for a long time.."

True. Well described by this astute author,

http://medium.com/@NikitaCcoulombe/why-feminism-wants-to-dismantle-the-family-long-4695d45bcf88
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 2:41:32 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
Kate Millett wrote, “so long as every female, simply by virtue of her anatomy, is obliged, even forced, to be the sole or primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.”
<<

Hilarious!

If you go to the mammamia website, for instance, you are not allowed to have your own opinion: women don't even believe in that complete joke of a website and the authors of it know, but there's too many dumb customers out there on their whitehorse for it not to be a money turner.

It's a bit like a magazine ...
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 2:54:14 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
Where would they be without the constant buffing up by 'their' ABC? And in some instances a drip feed for years from the ABC's $1.3billion pa, courtesy of the taxpaying public, the 'basket of deplorables' they so despise.
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 3:16:49 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
As a Labor voter I'm absolutely appalled by the complete bias of the abc on this issue. It distresses me that my opinion is not allowed to be heard in my own country that my family died for.

Some people survived war,... to sit in a wheelchair for fifty years and wait for death!

These people fought for my right to have my opinion heard and the fascists behind this attack on the church and therefore Western Civilisation will not win aslong as I'm breathing.
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 3:52:37 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
As a young man I can recall a couple of incidences that rammed home, being different was a crime! First time, when my sister brought home a colored gentleman with impeccable manners and genuinely affable disposition!

I liked him immediately and hoped he and Sis would hit it off and tie the knot.

Then mum arrived home from work and let fly with all the abominable expletives she could lay her tongue to. Showed him the door and sent him packing with a flea in his ear! He went visibly distressed and Sis wouldn't talk to Mum for days!

His crime, being born too different!

Later that year my Brother bought a girl home to meet the family. She was a peach, with a lovey disposition and demonstrably head over heels in love, with the Bro.

Once again the family Matriarch put her foot very firmly down. Think what they kids will be like and she's older than you! What sought of life will you have when she's in her seventies and you in your sixties. On and on she went. Until he gave in.

The real problem was, she was an albino, with extreme tunnel vision and eyes that flickered from side to side. And her only flaw.

A drop dead gorgeous, stacked honey blonde, who absolutely adored him. As always in these affairs of the heart, the heart knows what the heart wants.

The head and the expectations of others; and the resident bigots, just don't play! Nor should they. Regardless of the difference, or the expectations of hopelessly ignorant, recalcitranT troglodytes!

What's love got to do with it? Absolutely everything!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 5 September 2017 4:47:18 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
What a shallow, embarrassingly shallow and unfocussed article!

It isn't a "social institution" in any general way and pretty much constrains marriage to the purposes of controlling male urges, as a means of avoiding inbreeding and as a legal record of social commitment. Plus, for demanding that the female partner produce multiple children, akin to a puppy factory.

If the had got out more during his formative years he would know that there are many females with well-developed urges and minimal control, with nary an intention of childbearing, but I digress. Another digression might be to consider of divorce and the justifications for divorce, which can only exist consequent to marriage - the contract of. Currently, in Australia, that is "irretrievable breakdown", but not so for humanity globally.

Those purposes of marriage are commonly observed in the breach and may never have universally bound any society. If so, marriage is reduced to two primary purposes.

First, religious tradition, is steeped in ritual and meaningless to those of different or no faiths, such as me.

Second, a public register of commitment that brings advantages in a legal sense. In my case, that includes application to my(our) superannuation, home property ownership, to shared responsibility for children until adulthood and to provide default rules for distribution of the estate when one of us expires. Gender is no issue.

Marriage, as a social contract framed in legislation, does not guarantee or demand sexual fidelity and/or specific sexual practices between consenting adults in private, or production of children.

Marriage speaks of private commitment over time.
Marriage is, for some, a religious tradition.
Marriage is a legal tool, as discussed above.
Marriage is not, at its core, a social thing and is not an "institution", social or not.
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 5:09:47 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
“secure the future of society”

So the state should stop immigration and globalisation.
Far more urgent issues.

Alan B “Remove the word gay from this diatribe and replace it with black, african, negro or lefties, and you might just get a sense of what this ignoramus is trying to argue?”

Remove the word gay and replace it with "incestous" or "polygamous" and you ust might see the holes in the “love is love” argument.

“What's love got to do with it?”
Oh, the irony! Have you seen that movie?
Marriage, marriage, rah, rah, rah!

AJ Philips “without addressing equality in general”

So please AJ, address it.
What is “equality” and why is it a justification for this law reform?

A little game I sometimes like to play is to read posts from elitist snobs and replace “gay” with “incestous” or “polygamous”.

They say nothing or that'll be dealt with some indefinite time in the future.

Too bad for the partners “oppressed” and “discriminated” against in the meantime, just because they're two gay brothers (no threat of mutant children there) or three lesbians.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 5:14:30 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 have addressed equality many times before on OLO, Shockadelic. I’m sorry you missed it.

<<So please AJ, address [equality].>>

So often, in fact, that I tend not to go into detail nowadays out of fear of sounding like a broken record. But, just for you…

<<What is “equality” and why is it a justification for this law reform?>>

Equality, in this sense, is the state of being equal with regards to status, rights, or opportunities. It is a justification for law reform because of the legal principle of equality under the law;* because discrimination is demonstrably harmful (when it is not justified (it’s rather sad that I actually have to add that qualifier to pre-empt irrelevant analogies)); and because equality is demonstrably beneficial to societies. There are 195 countries which are a testament to this, and over 100 years of sociological research demonstrating it.

* http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sexual-orientation-sex-gender-identity/projects/marriage-equality

<<A little game I sometimes like to play is to read posts from elitist snobs and replace “gay” with “incestous” or “polygamous”.>>

Really? And how does that work out for you? Can’t be too well, given your last attempt at analogising same-sex marriage with incest and polygamy.

<<[Elitist snobs] say nothing [in response to incest or polygamy] or [that it will] be dealt with some indefinite time in the future.>>

Is that so? Well, then, refer them to me and I'll give 'em some pointers on dealing with this red herring.

<<Too bad for the partners “oppressed” and “discriminated” against in the meantime, just because they're two gay brothers (no threat of mutant children there) or three lesbians.>>

Perhaps we could fight for their rights too then, if that’s what you want. I don’t see too many gay siblings complaining of discrimination over their inability to marry their same-sex siblings, though.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 5:51:58 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 keep rabbiting on about marriage and reproduction, but many of today's young ones have opted to bypass marriage and have children anyway. The state actually recognises such arrangements in many areas such as welfare etc.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 6:28:21 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
Hi there DIVER DAN...I couldn't agree with you more! I'm so friggin' sick of this Gay marriage bit, when we're facing a serious power shortage, a lunatic in North Korea wanting to blow the world apart, and here we are going on about same sex marriage. They'll get it anyway, just give it to 'em! I couldn't care less who marries who or what, the local ewe in the next paddock or a sexy looking Rhodesian Ridgeback who has a predilection for a saucy looking Owl, sitting up a tree! Let anyone marry anything; animal, vegetable or mineral they want, but for 'Ch...t' sake shut up about it, please!
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 6:28:48 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 was a "yes" vote in the past but have now certainly changed my mind with soooo many others.

Advocates of SSM including "Get Up" who have continually decried any form of speech for the no campaign - including latest horrific barrage of attack on a Doctor, and for her to have to contact police due to death threats to her, etc - is so disgraceful and I pose the question for "Get Up" and others who do you think you are when a person of a view contrary to yours, you believe you and your supporters can then destroy a person's integrity within the field as a medical practitioner.

There are many other instances where "Get Up" and others are losing supporters due to their bullying tactics in destroying careers of those who may not support their views - or are employed in an "entity" in which they don't "like".

Is anyone watching this?
Posted by SAINTS, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 7:07:36 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
When nobel prize winning, west Australian medical researchers proved that ulcers were not as the wider medical community believed, the product of amplified acid production! But the product of bacterial infection!

They were universally howled down by a cynical medical community, who almost to a generic man, like the resident homophobes, believed what they'd been conditioned by years of standard practise, to believe?

Just because the inarguable research says one thing, doesn't mean those brainwashed activists, will ever accept evidence to the contrary!

Given that would allow or oblige them to own some terrible personal behavior, some of which, bullying to the point, where some young folk were left with no other choice than end their lives, by their own hand?

But with the hypothetical gun and ammunition supplied and loaded by the homophobic community.

One would think that someone who reports, was once a police person, wouldn't refuse to look at the evidence!? Even where that destroys a favorite if convenient theory?

I'm sick of frigging evidence destroying my favorite, if completely wrong theory and making me seem no better than the criminals I used to bang up?

The mark of intelligence O.S.W., is the ability to accept conflicting evidence, particularly when that conflicting evidence proves beyond doubt, one was laboring under a completely false premise!

Been there done that! And sincere apologies to any and all wronged by that, inculcated from birth, attitude!

Pavlov's dogs will however, continue to mindlessly salivate whenever the mind bending/mind conditioning bell tolls! WOOF, BARK, SNARL!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 5 September 2017 8:22:16 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
Eric Porter has stated what is right and fundamental about marriage. It is all about reproduction. Marriage is an institution established for that nurture and education of children.
The Judeo Christian culture constitutes most of the First World, the rich world, precisely because it has established marriage as such an institution for nurture of children, i.e . the nuclear family- not because of any particular beliefs in one God.
The rest of the First World consists of countries which have adopted the nuclear family as the basic building block of their societies because they have observed how it works for the betterment of society.
It is the nuclear family which brings children to the maximum of their potential where invention, innovation and progress thrive.

Every invention from the steam engine through harnessing of electricity, locomotives internal combustion engines, radio wireless to computers and internet have been spawned in societies based on the nuclear family.

There was no doubt what marriage meant in 1901 when the Australian Constitution was drafted. There never was a proper basis for the Federal Parliament to define marriage. That is for a majority of the people in a majority of the States to do and no- one else. If the High Court thinks otherwise it is wrong too. That would be to allow the Federal Parliament to expand its powers beyond those given in the Constitution by simply redefining the words in the Constitution. That is a corruption of the rule of law, and a breach of the pact made when the Constitution came into being.
Posted by Old Man, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 8:34:26 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
I am, SAINTS.

<<Is anyone watching this?>>

So, if a bunch of ratbags behave in a distasteful way, your response to deny an entire demographic equal treatment just because their interests are shared?

Ri-i-i-i-ight.

--

diver dan,

You need to look up the difference between homosexuality, incest, bestiality, and promiscuity.

You are yet to explain why homosexuality is evil or a sickness, too. Remember?

--

Old Man,

That might have been it’s original purpose.

<<Marriage is an institution established for that nurture and education of children.>>

But there are other purposes now, such as the standardisation of legal entitlements and the prompt identification of legal rights.

Could you please cite the sources for your claims regarding the nuclear family? It appears as though they have gotten it arse-backwards and don’t realise that the nuclear family was made possible because of the wealth and prosperity of the Western World, not the other way around.

<<Every invention from the steam engine through harnessing of electricity, locomotives internal combustion engines, radio wireless to computers and internet have been spawned in societies based on the nuclear family.>>

So, how did your sources control for cultural, environmental, and other sociological factors?

<<There was no doubt what marriage meant in 1901 when the Australian Constitution was drafted.>>

Marriage isn’t defined in the Constitution, therefore, there are no legal limitations on expanding it to include gay couples.

<<There never was a proper basis for the Federal Parliament to define marriage.>>

Yes, there is. Section 51(xxi):

“The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to marriage;

Given your misunderstanding of constitutional law, I trust you were also up in arms about the Howard government's change to the Marriage Act specifying one man and one woman?
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 9:23:39 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
Seems to be a lot of people pretending they were a yes vote and now they are voting no... It's all bulldust: you were all voting no to begin with and just want to complain about lefties because if the capital "L" iberal party voters who want to vote no couldn't complain about lefties they would cry!

Face it: you all were voting no from the start!
Posted by mememememememe, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 10:33:19 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 thinking: what would it take to change my vote to 'Yes'?

well, I vote 'No' to prevent the expansion of a government "service" that should not have existed in the first place. Had the overall use of this "service" been reduced in other ways, then extending it to same-sex couples would not be a problem.

So here is the deal: if currently-married [heterosexual] couples will be able to de-register/annul their marriage (without being forced to separate), based on the fair claim that the registration of their marriage was based on a former definition of "marriage" that is now no longer so, then I would be OK with same-sex couples registering their marriage under the new definition.

If marriage is a contract, then like in any other contract, nobody should be able to change it on the fly after it was made without the consent of all parties, including its "definitions" section.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 12:16:33 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 biggest difference between marriage and boyfriend/girlfriend relationships (in my opinion) is stability. Dating is not a stable sitution. Nowhere is there an element that says that the person you date is serious enough to stick by you and not leave. If one person feels that way but the other doesn't who would know? Agreeing to be married offers that kind of stability in a relationship because at least they both agree to their commitment to eachother.

It's in that stability that having a family is worthwhile, and having children outside of marriage offers a range of issues that can be burdensome to the single parents.

It's also stability for the children. Having a mom, dad, or both that don't change by the fragile winds of dating, or from the even less stable nature of being in foster homes from one home to another.

If that stability shows that it's not really there, (due to abuse or adultry) then that's often the prime reason to get out of the relationship. (Or it should be anyways).

Same sex marriages are something fought for and against for reasons outside of what marriage does to add stibility. If there's merrit to those points and people agree with them then society (including the government legislation), will follow suit, and offer or deny the rights and stability that marriage gives to homosexuals.

If same sex marriage doesn't happen then what that means is that society culmatively hadn't adopted it. On the flipside if same sex marriages are allowed that also reflects off of the attitudes of society. Regardless how any of us feel about same sex marriages if it comes about or doesn't, each of us will have to come to terms with the idea that this is what the magority of people think is right.

It's not about government sponsored programs that help out society, as much as it's what the population agrees with and supports.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 2:37:32 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
AJP ..

The difference between homosexual and incestuious is indefinitive ...
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 8:55:03 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 Philips "I don’t see too many gay siblings complaining of discrimination over their inability to marry their same-sex siblings, though."

So it's a matter of numbers?
I thought it was a matter of principle.
There are very few gay couples who want to marry, so you just invalidated your whole argument.

I won't be reading links from fascist bodies.

"Equality, in this sense, is the state of being equal with regards to status, rights, or opportunities."

Those are three completely different and unrelated things.

"the legal principle of equality under the law" is a only basic starting point, but there are a myriad of exemptions and exceptions written within various laws.

Some prisoners cannot vote, children cannot sign contracts, military have their own courts, etc.

There is no absolute and universally applied "equality". There are *always* conditional limits.

"discrimination is demonstrably harmful (when it is not justified"

"Harmful"? Subjective value judgement. Invalid.
No gay couple has been rushed to the Emergency Room because they couldn't get married.

Gay couples are already recognised as "de facto" by government and major corporations.
Anything not already covered by that can be dealt with by wills and contracts.
Done.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 9:10:49 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
No, it’s not a matter of numbers at all, Shockadelic.

<<So it's a matter of numbers?>>

In fact, I point this out to your side of the debate every time they argue that small numbers are a reason to not allow same-sex married. Let me rephrase that, if you’re going to take me that literally (perhaps my tone is too subtle):

I don’t see any gay brother/sister-couples arguing that they should be allowed to marry.

If there are some, though, then let’s put that on the agenda next. As you point out, what could be the harm? Right?

<<I thought it was a matter of principle.>>

Partly, yes.

<<There are very few gay couples who want to marry, so you just invalidated your whole argument.>>

No, I didn’t. My argument rests mainly on the principle of equality.

<<[Status, rights, and opportunities] are three completely different and unrelated things.>>

On the contrary, they overlap significantly. There was an ‘or’ their, by the way, if that makes you feel any better.

<<"the legal principle of equality under the law" is a only basic starting point, but there are a myriad of exemptions and exceptions written within various laws.>>

Correct. That’s why I’ve spoken on numerous occasion about weighing up the risks and benefits of allowing equality in each individual situation.

<<Some prisoners cannot vote, children cannot sign contracts, military have their own courts, etc.>>

Yes, good example. What was that I was saying about pre-empting irrelevant analogies?

<<There is no absolute and universally applied "equality". There are *always* conditional limits.>>

I know. Try telling that to Dustin, though. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7904#244810)

Tell me, though, why should the limit be set to heterosexual marriage only, in this instance? THIS is the crux of the matter.

<<"Harmful"? Subjective value judgement. Invalid.>>

No, harm is usually objectively demonstrable. Valid.

<<No gay couple has been rushed to the Emergency Room because they couldn't get married.>>

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

<<Anything not already covered [de facto status] that can be dealt with by wills and contracts.>>

Or we could just simplify and standardise the process (and nationwide, too) by letting them marry.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 10:04:03 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
Dear Alan,

«recent studies have reportedly confirmed a gay gene, not just one, but several down near the bottom of the DNA double helix spiral.»

This is amazing: can you point us to these studies?

Take for example homosexuality or diabetes: we know that they existed from time immemorial, even in apes, so finding corresponding gene(s) would not come as a surprise. The question is, how come this/these gay gene(s) were dormant for millennia and failed to express themselves until about the 1960's? Or are they new mutations? Perhaps resulting from nuclear experiments or vaccinations?

Just consider the implications and dangers of genetic mass-control: to the best of my knowledge, so far science never found any other genes to be responsible for political orientation!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 7:08:19 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 question is, how come this/these gay gene(s) were dormant for millennia and failed to express themselves until about the 1960's?//

No gays before 1960? Well that's a new one.

Ever heard of Alan Turing (1912-1954), Yuyutsu? He was gay. Or Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)? Also gay. Or Sparta (900's BC-192 BC)?

I believe gayness has been around since before we were homo sapiens. Bonobos, our closest genetic relatives along with chimpanzees, are very gay indeed.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 7:28:23 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
Alan Bsays :” by John Howard to change the wording from two people to a man and a woman.”
We know that Alansuffers from verbal diarrhoea, and has little control over his output, but John Howard did not change the law of marriage, it was never between two people, as in Alan’s ridiculous assertion, Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and still is. The “same sex” marriage is a nonsense promoted by the fraudulent political arm of the perverts, who want to call their recently decriminalised relationships 'marriage". It would be simpler to reverse the decriminalisation.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 10:27:37 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
Philips:

“Or we could just simplify and standardise the process (and nationwide, too) by letting them marry.”

Why should the government be involved in simplifying and standardising the process since wills and contracts are sufficient? There is no need to change marriage law unless you have some other agenda in changing the marriage law.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 7 September 2017 8:19:10 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
phanto,

We’ve been through this many times before. I suggest you go back and re-read some of our previous discussions before wasting too much of our time.

<<Why should the government be involved in simplifying and standardising the process since wills and contracts are sufficient?>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#241024
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#241154

Why stop at ‘sufficient’ when there is no reason not to change the laws to offer simplicity and standardisation, too?

The government is the only body which can provide standardisation and ease of access to these otherwise costly, and sometimes complex, legal arrangements, by the way.

<<There is no need to change marriage law unless you have some other agenda in changing the marriage law.>>

Yes, there is. We just went through one of them. There’s another one, too: equality. You've never countered this.

Come up with something new or go away.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 September 2017 9:01:53 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
Philips:

Whether you or anyone else wastes their time is entirely their choice and I cannot be held responsible for how you or others spend their time.

The laws in regard to wills and contracts apply to everyone and if there is something wrong with them then they should be changed so that everyone benefits who is entitled to benefit. What you are proposing is a change in marriage law so that same-sex couples can also benefit but this only compounds the discrimination in favour of married couples. You are wanting to make a bad situation worse.

Any individual should be able to nominate whoever they choose as a benefactor of their will and any individual should be able to appoint who they like as having power of attorney over their affairs. Such rights should not be given only to married people because that is discrimination and flies in the face of your supposed sense of ‘equality.’
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 7 September 2017 9:25:59 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
I know, phanto.

<<The laws in regard to wills and contracts apply to everyone …>>

But there is no one predictable, uniform will or pre-nuptial agreement (apart from marriage) which couples can access, so your rebuttal is irrelevant (and if there were, same-sex couples still probably wouldn’t have access to it).

<<… What you are proposing is a change in marriage law so that same-sex couples can also benefit …>>

Correct.

<<… but this only compounds the discrimination in favour of married couples.>>

No, it doesn’t. We’ve been through this many times before, too:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338772

I suggest you actually read the discussions I link you to before rushing in and making an ass of yourself again.

<<You are wanting to make a bad situation worse.>>

You are yet to demonstrate this.

<<Any individual should be able to nominate whoever they choose as a benefactor of their will and any individual should be able to appoint who they like as having power of attorney over their affairs.>>

Unless, of course, those privileges are provided in a cost-effective, standardised package providing predictability, and is called “marriage”. Isn’t that right, phanto?

<<Such rights should not be given only to married people because that is discrimination and flies in the face of your supposed sense of ‘equality.’>>

No, it doesn’t. Again, see the above linked-to discussion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:05:24 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
Philips:

“But there is no one predictable, uniform will or pre-nuptial agreement (apart from marriage) which couples can access,”

A will is not an agreement between two people – it is a statement of the wishes of an individual in regard to who should get their property on the occasion of their death. This can be any person nominated by the one who writes the will. This means that the beneficiary is the person nominated regardless of relationship. If you want it to be your partner then all you have to do is nominate your partner by name. What is unpredictable about this? This is how it should be for every individual regardless of their marital status and it should be every individual’s responsibility to nominate who they want to be the beneficiary. It should not be the government’s responsibility to do this by overseeing marriages for such an outcome.

It is not necessary for governments to arrange the affairs of individuals via marriage when they have already put in place laws in regard to the carrying out of the wishes of individuals as legally documented in a will.

There is absolutely no good reason why same-sex couples cannot ensure that their property is passed on to their partner if that is what they want. It is not necessary to change the marriage law in order for them to have the outcome they desire.

“I suggest you actually read the discussions I link you to before rushing in and making an ass of yourself again.”

I suggest you be less patronising and insulting.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:45:45 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 Philips writes:
[…] “pre-nuptial agreement” […]

I reckon pre-nuptial agreements could/should be made enforceable and perhaps not be subject to challenge just like any other contract.
Maybe even make them mandatory?

That would neutralise a lot of Family Law angst, not to mention the vast legal bills these matters can generate.

Of course, in the case of SSM, this conjures up images of two lesbians fighting over access to the children neither of them conceived. That’d be entertaining.

But at least the money would be sorted.
Posted by Dustin, Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:58:43 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
Good point, phanto.

<<A will is not an agreement between two people … This means that the beneficiary is the person nominated regardless of relationship.>>

Another reason why it is not a substitute (not even in part) for marriage.

<<What is unpredictable about this?>>

You haven’t read much case law in this area, have you? That being said, I should add 'uncertain'. (See Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161, for starters.)

<<This is how it should be for every individual regardless of their marital status and it should be every individual’s responsibility to nominate who they want to be the beneficiary.>>

And it already is. Marriage, however, provides a predictable, cost-effective, certain, equitable, and uniform means of addressing multiple questions at law.

<<It should not be the government’s responsibility to do this by overseeing marriages for such an outcome.>>

Who else is going to do it, unless we adopt your inequitable, chaotic, marriage-free proposal?

<<It is not necessary for governments to arrange the affairs of individuals via marriage when they have already put in place laws in regard to the carrying out of the wishes of individuals as legally documented in a will.>>

Apparently it is.

<<There is absolutely no good reason why same-sex couples cannot ensure that their property is passed on to their partner if that is what they want.>>

Correct, so long as they go about it in the more expensive, hazardous, and uncertain way which you propose, of course.

<<It is not necessary to change the marriage law in order for them to have the outcome they desire.>>

It is if we want to make the law as easy and predictable for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex couples. You are yet to present a reason why we shouldn't.

<<I suggest you be less patronising and insulting.>>

Too bad. Don’t like it? Then bugger off, or present a sensible argument. I’ll be as patronising and insulting as your ridiculous arguments warrant.

Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 September 2017 11:13:55 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
Philips:

“Too bad. Don’t like it? Then bugger off, or present a sensible argument. I’ll be as patronising and insulting as your ridiculous arguments warrant.”

It is fairly obvious that it is not arguments which bring out your aggression but any threat to your deep-seated and hate-filled bitterness and resentment towards those people who forced you into Christianity when you were powerless.

You are becoming increasingly desperate in these forums and the way you speak to people is indicative of the venom which courses through your veins. You are not interested in same-sex marriage you are only interested in trying to punish those who symbolise the people and attitudes which you have never been able to distance yourself from emotionally.

This is not the place for you to act out your bitterness and resentment. People here are genuinely trying to find the truth but you are not. Your agenda is deeply personal and abusive and every time you post you expose the vindictiveness that has possessed you.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 7 September 2017 12:08:51 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
Ah, the fallacious ad hominem. It’s always your last resort, isn’t it phanto?

<<It is fairly obvious that it is not arguments which bring out your aggression but any threat to your deep-seated and hate-filled bitterness and resentment towards those people who forced you into Christianity when you were powerless.>>

No-one forced me to become a Christian. You’re making that up. I love the people who indoctrinated me. They didn’t know any better. Being so young, too, no force was required. Furthermore, I have already demonstrated that there was no bitterness. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7844#242441

<<You are becoming increasingly desperate in these forums and the way you speak to people is indicative of the venom which courses through your veins.>>

And yet you are the only one here who has had to resort to a fallacious ad hominem. Amusing.

No, all my arguments are still standing strong, as you have helped to demonstrate. And now you are throwing a tantrum because the same arguments, that have failed you time and time again, are once against laying in tatters.

There’s a word to describe a person who does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time…

<<People here are genuinely trying to find the truth ...>>

Not many, apparently.

How about you do something change that, though? I mean, presenting failed argument after failed argument against same-sex marriage, without ever allowing yourself to conclude that there may just be nothing wrong with it, hardly demonstrates a genuine desire to find the truth now, does it?

But thank you for this morning’s discussion. You have now blown our entire posting allowance on this thread for the day, and achieving nothing more in the process than being an idiot.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 September 2017 12:40:50 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
"Cost-effective"?

NSW Registry wedding: $422-$533

http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Pages/apply-for-certificates/apply-for-certificates.aspx#fees

Non-registry Wedding: Avg $36,500

http://www.moneysmart.gov.au/managing-your-money/budgeting/simple-ways-to-save-money/how-much-can-a-wedding-cost

Will/Power of Attorney: $0-25

http://www.legalzebra.com.au/australian-legal-will-kit-free-draft-will/
http://legalwill.com.au/much-will-power-attorney-cost/

Even without a will, your de facto partner (either sex) can inherit your property:

http://www.craddock.com.au/Document/Changes+to+the+Intestacy+Laws+in+NSW.aspx

"A “spouse” includes a married person or domestic partner. A domestic partner may be someone of the same or opposite sex."
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 7 September 2017 5:03:31 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
AJ Phillips - your response to my post being -

I am, SAINTS.

<<Is anyone watching this?>>

You state -

So, if a bunch of ratbags behave in a distasteful way, your response to deny an entire demographic equal treatment just because their interests are shared?

Ri-i-i-i-ight.

My response - REALLY- is that your response?
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 7 September 2017 5:30:06 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
Alan B - you wrote on 5th -

The marriage act was revised in 2004, by John Howard to change the wording from two people to a man and a woman.

He didn't need a plebiscite nor were they gay community consulted. Moreover, recent studies have reportedly confirmed a gay gene, not just one, but several down near the bottom of the DNA double helix spiral.

Something the brainwashed recalcitrant bigots seemed to have missed?

My apologies for late response - maybe - just maybe John Howard was aware in those days - as to - what is now evident - to wanted change in our society and demographics.

What are we voting for? and what are the protections for any others in society who wish to vote for a "no" ...... we as a society have no protections and no advice from Government - until vote finalised. Really?

With no protections to businesses who wish to vote "no" - they are screwed. The Attorney General says this is about one issue only - yea right. With the legal eagles already "dancing with glee".

So my question being - why are we voting for this without any knowledge as to the rights of any person within the business industry who just happens to object to same sex marriage - no document has been proposed to either Senate or House of Representatives for discussion and vote prior to vote - really is this where we are at?
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 7 September 2017 5:55:58 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
mememe+ - you wrote -

Seems to be a lot of people pretending they were a yes vote and now they are voting no... It's all bulldust: you were all voting no to begin with and just want to complain about lefties because if the capital "L" iberal party voters who want to vote no couldn't complain about lefties they would cry!

My response -

No you are soooo wrong - I am - and many others - are "swinging" voters who have no alliance to any party as you assert.

We - as voters - look at when we vote, who (which party) will protect Australians en masse from terrorism .... full stop.

The same sex marriage issue is "open" to public debate, via any party, as you are quite entitled to state.

People - via any persuasion - can change their vote - however in this debate one only has to look at the campaign for "yes" who totally wish to destroy peoples career if they support a "no" vote.... are you and others really serious?

I ask a simple question - Why would "Get Up" and others wish to destroy any persons career and standing within their community and workplace with having a differing view - are we really serious as an adult society??
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 7 September 2017 6:32:29 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
I am yet to be convinced that there isn't a serious mental health issue going on when a man can get turned on by another mans stinking ar$e.
Posted by OutbackJack, Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:14:14 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
Wow, that was a painful wait with OLO deciding to switch to Greenwich mean time for some reason. As if phanto’s post-wasters weren’t annoying enough as it was.

--

Shockadelic,

Yes, you read me right: cost effective. To obtain a similar level of legal protections, lawyer's fees could run into the thousands (and even then, you still wouldn’t have the prompt identification of legal rights and access in the case of an emergency).

Comparing the cost of anything beyond what the registry office costs is silly, too, because that's voluntary. I don't care if the average is $1,000,000. It makes no difference to my argument.

But, hey, just for you, I'm happy to remove that as a listed benefit, if it so offends you. That still leaves equitable access to legal predictably, legal certainty, legal rights, and uniformity.

--

SAINTS,

Yes, that's my response. If you are willing to vote against treating an entire demographic equally just to punish a bunch of ratbags, simply because they share an interest, then nothing else needs to be said.

Unless, of course, you can somehow explain how that is a rational response? Why am I not surprised that you didn’t opt to just do that in the first place, instead of asking me if that was really my response?

<<... I am - and many others - are "swinging" voters who have no alliance to any party as you assert.>>

This issue has nothing to do with multiple parties offering different deals, this vote is about whether one believes that gay people should be allowed to marry. So, to cite your status as a swinging voter in this instance makes no sense.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 8 September 2017 11:50:53 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
Phillips says:” achieving nothing more in the process than being an idiot.”
Does this mean that when your lies and nonsense don’t work, and they never do, you resort to ad hominem, as you falsely accuse others of doing?
Nice to see that the perverts’ attempt to deprive citizens of their say on the attack on the institution of marriage, was dismissed by the High Court, with costs against the perverts.
We will now all have the opportunity to vote NO
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 9 September 2017 11:36:44 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
Dear Toni,

«Ever heard of Alan Turing (1912-1954), Yuyutsu? He was gay.»

I am well aware of Turing's tragic story and how shamefully and ungratefully he was persecuted. Yet this was because he was homosexual. While nothing can justify the terrible treatment he received - he was not gay and had you called him so, he would most likely be offended (and so probably would any other homosexual prior to the 1960's)!

«I believe gayness has been around since before we were homo sapiens. Bonobos, our closest genetic relatives along with chimpanzees, are very gay indeed.»

Bonobos display homosexuality openly - and good on them, but I'm yet to see a bonobo attending a gay parade or otherwise participate in provocative political petitions and demonstrations. Bonobos are not boastful of their sexual orientation - they simply behave accordingly without any complications, they do not wantonly rejoice or sing about it ('gay' probably originates from the Sanskrit root 'gay'="to sing", from which also comes 'gita'="sung").

---
P.S. While not immediately related, I must correct this postulate as if we were at any time homo sapiens: only the bodies that we wear are homo-sapiens bodies, not we who wear them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 9 September 2017 11:40:05 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
//Yet this was because he was homosexual. While nothing can justify the terrible treatment he received - he was not gay//

WTF?

Both gay and not gay? How's that supposed to work then, Yuyutsu?

Would this be like your God who both exists and does not exist? Still haven't got the hang of reductio ad absurdums, have you mate?

//Bonobos display homosexuality openly - and good on them, but I'm yet to see a bonobo attending a gay parade//

You don't have to go to pride rallies to be gay, Yuyutsu. People have been gay since long before there were pride rallies. Remember the Spartans?

//I must correct this postulate as if we were at any time homo sapiens: only the bodies that we wear are homo-sapiens bodies, not we who wear them.//

Get off the crack.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 9 September 2017 12:52:37 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
Dear Toni,

«Both gay and not gay? How's that supposed to work then, Yuyutsu?»

Why, Alan Turing was not gay. If he came to know that you described him as gay, he would most likely feel offended.

«You don't have to go to pride rallies to be gay, Yuyutsu.»

True: while that is one way, there are also other ways to feel and express one's pride in one's sexuality and to make a big political deal about it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 9 September 2017 2:12:29 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
No, it doesn’t, Leo Lane.

<<Does this mean that when your lies and nonsense don’t work, and they never do, you resort to ad hominem, as you falsely accuse others of doing?>>

You’ll notice that I discredited phanto’s nonsense before noting that he was being an idiot. Nothing had been resorted to.

I notice you didn’t say anything about his FALLACIOUS ad hominem, though. You know, the one where he RESORTED to personal attack without addressing my arguments.

Funny that.

<<Nice to see that the perverts’ attempt to deprive citizens of their say on the attack on the institution of marriage, was dismissed by the High Court, with costs against the perverts.>>

You are yet to demonstrate that they are perverts or that any attack is occurring.

Were you up for another round?
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 9 September 2017 8:09:13 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 am well aware of Turing's tragic story and how shamefully and ungratefully he was persecuted. Yet this was because he was homosexual.//

//Why, Alan Turing was not gay.//

You do realise that contantly contradicting yourself undermines your position, right?

//there are also other ways to feel and express one's pride in one's sexuality and to make a big political deal about it.//

You don't have 'to make a big political deal about it' to be gay, yuyutsu. You don't even have to engage in sexual activity. You just have to be attracted to the same sex: that is all, end of story.

I'm not sure you've fully grasped the point of language, yuyutsu. It's exists for communication, not demonstrating how clever and non-conformist you are by plucking new definitions of words with well established usage out of your fundament, then arrogantly insisting that your definitions are the only ones that matter, common usage be damned.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 9 September 2017 9:17:06 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
Dear Toni,

«I'm not sure you've fully grasped the point of language, yuyutsu. It's exists for communication»

Suppose the North-Korean regime "communicates" to us that the name of their country is DPRK - "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", are we supposed to accept that lie?

The recent new use of 'gay' was similarly produced as political propaganda, overriding centuries of correct and meaningful English. If we start on this path, soon we arrive at Orwell's "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength".

«You don't even have to engage in sexual activity. You just have to be attracted to the same sex»

Actual attraction is not a requisite either - all you need is to identify with being homosexual, considering it [mistakenly as] an important part of who you are and how you want to present yourself to the world.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 9 September 2017 10:19:01 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
Yuyutsu,

That’s the Etymological fallacy.

<<The recent new use of 'gay' was similarly produced as political propaganda, overriding centuries of correct and meaningful English.>>

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

No, if you want to play that game, the word ‘gay’ was originally applied to gay people as a slur, suggesting that homosexuals were immoral.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay

<<If we start on this path, soon we arrive at Orwell's "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength".>>

What, you mean like ‘wicked’, ‘bullsh!t’, ‘filth’, and ‘sick’ can now mean ‘awesome’? Are you concerned now that the word 'nice' means 'pleasant'?

*Crickets chirping*

The meaning of words evolve over time, and others come in to fill any gaps. Get used to it.

So, not only are you using language incorrectly, but you have the history of the word ‘gay’ wrong anyway.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 9 September 2017 10:45:33 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
//The recent new use of 'gay' was similarly produced as political propaganda, overriding centuries of correct and meaningful English. If we start on this path, soon we arrive at Orwell's "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength".//

Nope, usage defines meaning. We don't have a L'Academie Anglaise. And even if we did, you'd never be appointed an Immortal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qT8ZYewYEY
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 9 September 2017 11:36:34 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
Philips:

“You’ll notice that I discredited phanto’s nonsense before noting that he was being an idiot”

Why would you bother to discredit nonsense? If it really is nonsense then why not just ignore it? It shouldn’t need to be discredited or is it that you don’t have enough confidence in the capacity of other forum members to decide for themselves whether or not it is nonsense? Either it is not nonsense or you arrogantly assume that other readers cannot see nonsense when it is displayed and need you to help them out. Which is it?

If it is was not nonsense but has been discredited then why note that I was being an idiot? It sounds like you do not have enough confidence in your ability to discredit arguments. If you arguments are good enough then everyone will see that and that is all that they need to see. It seems though that you do not have enough confidence in your arguments and that is why you have to tack an insult on to your comments just in case.

Fundamentally you resort to the same ‘name-calling’ that you accuse others of because you do not have confidence in your arguments. It is ad hominem that you accuse others of. You are no better than anyone else.

“The meaning of words evolve over time, and others come in to fill any gaps. Get used to it.”

You don’t sound very convinced of your assertion or you would not have to command that Yuyutsu ‘get used to it’. Why not just make you point and have enough confidence to let your point stand on its own merits. Why do you need to tell people what they should do? Either you are not confident in your assertion or you think that Yuyutsu is too stupid to know what to do in response to your assertion. Which is it?

How can people have confidence in any of your arguments when you demonstrate such a lack of confidence yourself?
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 10 September 2017 12:15:20 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
Toni Lavis:

“You just have to be attracted to the same sex: that is all, end of story.”

But how do you know that you are attracted to the same sex? Perhaps you are just attracted to certain personal characteristics which you project onto other people. Maybe you are not attracted to them because of their sex or gender but because of their characteristics which have nothing to do with sex or gender. You are attracted to human characteristics and if they are truly human then they can be possessed by either sex.

How do you know that it is sex that attracts you and not some other aspect of the individual person?

Maybe sex is just the rationalisation of the attraction since all of us are capable of having those human characteristics which we project onto others. Rather than appropriate those characteristics to ourselves which can be emotionally painful we excuse our attraction by presenting it as some kind of instinct for sex.
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 10 September 2017 12:46:03 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 attracted to human characteristics and if they are truly human then they can be possessed by either sex.//

Roll up, roll up and see The Amazing Phanto, world's greatest mind-reader! Marvel at his incredible power to see inside the mind of men! Thrill to his torturous contortions of logic! Gasp in awe at his breath-taking conclusion that we're all secretly bi and just haven't figured it out yet!

//How do you know that it is sex that attracts you and not some other aspect of the individual person?//

'Coz I like pussy. Not rocket science, dude.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 10 September 2017 1:41:40 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
Toni Lavis:

"'Coz I like pussy."

Yeah that's what pedophiles say but it hardly makes their behaviour reasonable does it?

"Not rocket science, dude."

No its not really but still you completely missed the point. What has 'bi' got to do with anything? I was talking about being attracted to things other than sex or gender.
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 10 September 2017 5:19:08 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
Dear Toni,

«Nope, usage defines meaning.»

25 million North Koreans use "DPRK", hence "democracy" means _____?

Yes, language evolves: new words are being formed and old ones forgotten, but we should be very concerned and rejectful when established words are hijacked to facilitate propaganda - how more so when the new meaning is contradictory.

Why contradictory? Can a gay person, i.e. proud and joyful, also be depressed? We know that homosexual people can be depressed (with some indications, even at above-average rates): Alan Turing himself was depressed (no wonder, given the horrible way he was treated) to the point of committing suicide. Surely he was not proud and joyful at the same time!

Would you be similarly happy had the word 'gay' instead been hijacked for propaganda by a different group? say they invested millions in ads: "Gay people drink Coca Cola, so join us and be gay - drink Coca Cola!"?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 10 September 2017 6:43:00 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
Because I enjoy it, phanto.

<<Why would you bother to discredit nonsense?>>

Why does there have to be another reason?

<<It shouldn’t need to be discredited or is it that you don’t have enough confidence in the capacity of other forum members to decide for themselves whether or not it is nonsense?>>

This is a false dilemma.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

<<Either it is not nonsense or you arrogantly assume that other readers cannot see nonsense when it is displayed and need you to help them out. Which is it?>>

This is another False dilemma. There’s at least one other option. Let's see if you can get it.

<<It sounds like you do not have enough confidence in your ability to discredit arguments.>>

More pseudo-psychoanalyses. Can you tell on which psychological perspective you are basing this assessment and what the research is behind it?

<<It seems though that you do not have enough confidence in your arguments and that is why you have to tack an insult on to your comments just in case.>>

Yes, because that happens so-o-o-o-o frequently, don’t it phanto?

<<Fundamentally you resort to the same ‘name-calling’ that you accuse others of because you do not have confidence in your arguments.>>

"Resort". That's adorable.

Can you tell on which psychological perspective you are basing this assessment and what the research is behind it?

<<It is ad hominem that you accuse others of. You are no better than anyone else.>>

Ad hominems are fine so long as they can be justified and they are not used in place of an argument - like your last one was. I pick on the ones that are unjustified or used in place of an argument. Sounds like you need to learn the difference.

<<You don’t sound very convinced of your assertion or you would not have to command that Yuyutsu ‘get used to it’.>>

Or it could just be a result of the fact that I have already explained what I had said to Yuyutsu many times before. True to form, however, you take most unflattering possibilities, and present them as the only ones.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 10 September 2017 8:24:51 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
“Because I enjoy it, phanto.”

No you don’t you are lying.

“This is a false dilemma.”

This is not a false dilemma.

“This is another False dilemma.”

This not another false dilemma.

“Can you tell on which psychological perspective you are basing this assessment and what the research is behind it?”

I don’t need one.

“Yes, because that happens so-o-o-o-o frequently, don’t it phanto?”

So it does happen then. Why?

“Can you tell on which psychological perspective you are basing this assessment and what the research is behind it?”

See above.

“Ad hominems are fine so long as they can be justified”

What is fine about them?

“Or it could just be a result of the fact that I have already explained what I had said to Yuyutsu many times before.”

So that makes it your right to tell him how he should behave?
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 10 September 2017 9:29:54 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
So you’re just going to claim that I’m lying now, phanto? That's desperate.

<<No you don’t [enjoy discrediting nonsense] you are lying.>>

Where is your evidence to suggest that I'm lying? Looks like you may be the only one lying here. We’re mind reading again, phanto. *Tsk tsk*

<<This is not a false dilemma.>>

Yes, it is. I even provided you with a link explaining what a False Dilemma is. Simply asserting that it isn’t doesn’t cut it, sorry. You presented two possibilities as the only two possibilities when others exist. That’s a False Dilemma fallacy. Once again, perhaps you should read the links I provide before making an ass of yourself?

<<This not another false dilemma.>>

See above.

<<I don’t need [a psychological perspective].>>

You do if you want to apply actual psychology rather than ad hominems.

<<So it does happen then. Why?>>

It doesn’t, and pretending to not be able to read sarcasm, in order to insult the one making the sarcastic comment, is something I haven't seen since primary school. You must be proud of yourself.

<<What is fine about [ad hominems that can be justified and aren’t used in place of an actual argument]?>>

The fact that they can be justified and are not used in place of an actual argument. Kind of speaks for itself, don’t you think?

<<So that makes it your right to tell him how he should behave?>>

No, and at no point did I suggest otherwise.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 10 September 2017 9:54:21 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
Philips:

“Where is your evidence ...?”

You said that you enjoy discrediting nonsense. If it is nonsense then it does not need to be discredited. There is no reason for discrediting it so why would you enjoy doing something which is unreasonable. People only enjoy things because those things give them pleasure or satisfaction. It is the pleasure or satisfaction which makes them reasonable. What pleasure and satisfaction could you possibly derive from engaging at all with nonsense? You are obviously lying.

You also complained about the fact that I had wasted your post allocation for the day. If you enjoyed it then why was it a waste? Which one of those two is a lie?

“ I even provided you with a link explaining what a False Dilemma is”

Thanks for the patronising link but I am well aware of what a false dilemma is and these are not false dilemmas until such time as you have shown there are more options than these two which I have provided. If you have reasonable alternatives then let’s hear what they are instead of resorting to some patronising guessing game. If your alternatives are reasonable then you will not need to be patronising.

“You do if you want to apply actual psychology rather than ad hominems.”

Who said anything about psychology? It is basic common sense.

“pretending to not be able to read sarcasm”

Why do you need to resort to sarcasm at all? It just shows how insecure you are about your opinions.

“The fact that they can be justified”

How can they be justified? What reason do you have for using them?

“No, and at no point did I suggest otherwise.”

What else could the directive to ‘get used to it’ be? You told him how to behave. You told another adult how they should behave and you think you have a right to do that simply because you have told him what you think on several occasions. Telling another human being how to behave when they have not asked for your advice is sheer arrogance.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 11 September 2017 12:38:22 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
Correct, phanto.

<<You said that you enjoy discrediting nonsense.>>

Others often compliment me on my patience and perseverance. However, I don’t think these are needed so much when one enjoys what they’re doing.

<<If it is nonsense then it does not need to be discredited.>>

Not necessarily. There may be some for whom your nonsense is not so obvious.

<<There is no reason for discrediting [nonsense] so why would you enjoy doing something which is unreasonable.>>

The fact that I just provided a reason aside, people enjoy doing things that others perceive to be unreasonable all the time. Reasonableness is not a pre-requisite for enjoyment.

<<People only enjoy things because those things give them pleasure or satisfaction.>>

See? Even you agree.

<<What pleasure and satisfaction could you possibly derive from engaging at all with nonsense?>>

Exposing it.

<<You are obviously lying.>>

Apparently not.

<<You also complained about the fact that I had wasted your post allocation for the day. If you enjoyed it then why was it a waste?>>

Because I wanted to save a post or two to respond to others.

<<Which one of those two is a lie?>>

Neither. See above. Another False Dilemma.

<<… I am well aware of what a false dilemma is and these are not false dilemmas until such time as you have shown there are more options than these two which I have provided.>>

Oh, but I did, and again just above, too.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19267#342658

<<Who said anything about psychology? It is basic common sense.>>

Well, you shouldn’t have too many problems presenting your evidence then, should you?

<<Why do you need to resort to sarcasm at all?>>

Why do you assume I 'need' to?

<<How can [ad hominems] be justified?>>

By being true.

<<What reason do you have for using [ad hominems]?

To highlight a point.

<<What else could the directive to ‘get used to it’ be?>>

A suggestion that Yuyustu should get used to the fact that he’s wrong.

<<You told him how to behave.>>

No, I didn’t. What one accepts and how one behaves are not always the same thing.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 11 September 2017 1:10:37 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
“Others often compliment me on my patience and perseverance.”

I didn’t ask you about your patience and perseverance I asked you why you enjoy engaging with nonsense.

“Not necessarily. There may be some for whom your nonsense is not so obvious.”

Why would nonsense be obvious to you but not to everyone else? That is a rather arrogant attitude. They are too stupid to see nonsense?

“Reasonableness is not a pre-requisite for enjoyment.”

Reasonableness is a pre-requisite for everything or for nothing.

“Exposing it.”

It doesn’t need exposing if it is nonsense unless you have your own personal definition of the word nonsense.

“Because I wanted to save a post or two to respond to others.”

Well you had that choice and you obviously concluded that it was more ‘enjoyable’ to respond to me so why are you complaining?

“Well, you shouldn’t have too many problems presenting your evidence then, should you?”

Common sense does not need evidence. That is what the word means. It is sense that is obvious and common.

“Why do you assume I 'need' to?”

Everyone that uses sarcasm needs to use it. It is used because of a lack of confidence in arguments.

<<How can [ad hominems] be justified?>>

“By being true.”

I didn’t ask you about their qualities I asked you about the reasons for using them. You have yet to provide one.

“To highlight a point.”

Why do points need to be highlighted if they are good points? Do you lack confidence in your points?

“A suggestion that Yuyustu should get used to the fact that he’s wrong.”

It wasn’t a suggestion it was a directive. Whether he gets used to it or not is up to him and he doesn’t need you to tell him how he should respond to your opinions. He is quite capable of making his own decisions.

“No, I didn’t. What one accepts and how one behaves are not always the same thing.”

You offered opinions but you also gave him directives about how he should behave in response to your opinions. That’s arrogance
Posted by phanto, Monday, 11 September 2017 2:24:41 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
I know you didn’t, phanto.

<<I didn’t ask you about your patience and perseverance I asked you why you enjoy engaging with nonsense.>>

You appear to have missed the relevance of what I said.

<<Why would nonsense be obvious to you but not to everyone else?>>

I didn’t speak of “everyone else”. I spoke of “some”.

<<That is a rather arrogant attitude.>>

Indeed it would be.

<<They are too stupid to see nonsense?>>

Not necessarily.

<<Reasonableness is a pre-requisite for everything or for nothing.>>

This is a false dichotomy.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

<<[Nonsense] doesn’t need exposing if it is nonsense unless you have your own personal definition of the word nonsense.>>

Another False Dilemma. Why do you assume there is a ‘need’?

<<Well you had that choice and you obviously concluded that it was more ‘enjoyable’ to respond to me so why are you complaining?>>

I’m not, anymore. You’re just digging up again.

<<Common sense does not need evidence.>>

It does if you want others to accept your version of it. Common sense is as reliable and sensical as the assumptions it’s based on. I could give you a few examples of where common sense fails.

<<It is sense that is obvious and common.>>

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be wrong.

<<Everyone that uses sarcasm needs to use it. It is used because of a lack of confidence in arguments.>>

What is your evidence for these claims?

<<I didn’t ask you about [the qualities of non-fallacious ad hominems] …>>

I know you didn’t, and nor did I provide you with any.

<<… I asked you about the reasons for using them. You have yet to provide one.>>

Yes, I did. “Being true”, is a reason to use a non-fallacious ad hominem. Conversely, some may not be true and, therefore, unjustified.

<<Why do points need to be highlighted if they are good points?>>

For emphasis.

<<It wasn’t a suggestion it was a directive.>>

Call it what you like. Either way, I wasn’t telling him how to behave, and you are yet to demonstrate that I was.

Try again, phanto.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 11 September 2017 2:58:49 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
//It seems though that you do not have enough confidence in your arguments and that is why you have to tack an insult on to your comments just in case.

Fundamentally you resort to the same ‘name-calling’ that you accuse others of because you do not have confidence in your arguments.//

//How can they be justified? What reason do you have for using them?//

Do as you say, not as you do, eh Phanto?

//Yeah that's what pedophiles say//

I wouldn't know, phanto.

//I was talking about being attracted to things other than sex or gender.//

Whatever floats your boat, phanto. It's the 21st century and I'm quite broad-minded. But I'm still not going to date any blokes, because I'm not attracted to blokes.

//25 million North Koreans use "DPRK"//

Sounds unlikely, yuyutsu. I'm pretty sure they mostly speak Korean, not English.

//we should be very concerned and rejectful when established words are hijacked//

Oh here we go... a conspiracy theory. This just keeps getting better and better XD

//Can a gay person, i.e. proud and joyful, also be depressed?//

You don't have to be proud or joyful to be gay, yuyutsu. Did you watch Tom's video, yuyutsu? Remember the bit at the end?

"Language changes: regularly and often. The Oxford English Dictionary... is descriptive, not prescriptive, and that is really important. They'll tell you what's considered correct but if popular opinion changes, so will they - and so should you.

So the next time some pedant complains 'that's not what the dictionary says', well the dictionary probably needs updating. Or at least theirs does."

You're that complaining pedant whose dictionary needs updating, yuyutsu.

//Everyone that uses sarcasm needs to use it. It is used because of a lack of confidence in arguments.//

Sixpence! Sixpence to see The Amazing Phanto!
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 11 September 2017 3:01:53 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
Dear Toni,

I have no need to update my dictionary to suit others' propaganda machines.

There is nothing wrong about the word "homosexual" or even about homosexuality itself. If your reason for requiring a new synonym was innocent, then you would simply coin a new word rather than try to steal an established one.

But no, what those who grabbed the word 'gay' meant to say by that act, is that being homosexual is cool, that one should be happy and proud of it.

So sorry Toni, sexual orientation - and I really don't care, nor is it any of my business, what one happens to be sexually attracted toward - is NOT a good reason to be happy and proud. If anything, one should feel sad about the fact that they are being pulled by the nose by their tyrannical genes and hormones.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 11 September 2017 3:38:46 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
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 11 September 2017 4:21:23 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
Philips:

“You appear to have missed the relevance of what I said.”

Perhaps you could enlighten me then instead of just telling me and then I can have the opportunity to judge.

“I didn’t speak of “everyone else”. I spoke of “some”.”

So why would ‘some’ not be able to determine nonsense if it truly is nonsense?

<<They are too stupid to see nonsense?>>

“Not necessarily.”

Well, what else could they be?

“This is a false dichotomy.”

So if there is no black or white then how do we know that such a statement is black or white? It contradicts itself.

“Why do you assume there is a ‘need’?”

Because you did it without any reasonable explanation. You must have some ulterior need.

“I’m not, anymore. You’re just digging up again.”

So you were complaining before and now you are not. What has changed? Why were you complaining before or why are you not complaining now?

“It does if you want others to accept your version of it.”

There can be no two versions of common sense or else it is not common is it?

“What is your evidence for these claims?”

There is no good reason to use sarcasm so that is evidence in itself. There might be bad reasons.

“Yes, I did. “Being true”, is a reason to use a non-fallacious ad hominem. Conversely, some may not be true and, therefore, unjustified.”

It is irrelevant whether or not they are true if there is no valid reason for using them in the first place. You have yet to offer one.

“For emphasis.”

Why would you need to emphasise a point? Either it is a valid point or it is not. How does emphasis make it any more or less valid?

“Call it what you like. Either way, I wasn’t telling him how to behave”

I’ve already called it and you have not been able to refute what I called it.

Try again Philips.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 11 September 2017 5:39:47 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
Sure, phanto.

<<Perhaps you could enlighten me ...>>

The relevance was that because I enjoy discrediting nonsense, the need for patience is reduced.

<<So why would ‘some’ not be able to determine nonsense if it truly is nonsense?>>

Because not everything is obvious to everyone.

<<Well, what else could they be [other than stupid]?>>

People who are not stupid but just have a different perspective that makes your nonsense a little less obvious to them.

<<So if there is no black or white then how do we know that such a statement is black or white?>>

At no point did I suggest there is no black and white. You, however, cannot see the grey.

<<Because you did it without any reasonable explanation. You must have some ulterior need.>>

Again, why do you assume there is a ‘need’? What if it was just a ‘want’?

<<So you were complaining before and now you are not. What has changed?>>

I got over it. I also appear to have no-one else to respond to, currently.

<<There can be no two versions of common sense or else it is not common is it?>>

Wrong. Commonness does not necessitate a majority.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/common

<<There is no good reason to use sarcasm so that is evidence in itself.>>

That doesn’t mean that people who use it ‘need’ to use it. Try again.

<<It is irrelevant whether or not [non-fallacious ad hominems] are true if there is no valid reason for using them in the first place. You have yet to offer one.>>

I did: to highlight a point.

<<Why would you need to emphasise a point?>>

Why do you assume I ‘need’ to?

<<Either it is a valid point or it is not.>>

Correct.

<<How does emphasis make it any more or less valid?>>

It doesn’t.

<<I’ve already called it and you have not been able to refute what I called it.>>

Yes, I did. By pointing out that what people accept does not always dictate how they behave.

<<Try again Philips.>>

No need. You’re the one who is yet to make any headway.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 11 September 2017 8:33:57 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
Good news on Q&A - more people are starting to challenge the continued existence of "marriage as a 'social institution'": http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-12/q-and-a-should-anyone-get-married-at-all/8893630

Senator Zed Seselja is unnecessarily alarmed because marriage itself is never going to be defeated. The bond of hearts and commitment for lifetime and beyond, will continue and flourish, with or without government approval and certificate. Churches too will continue to conduct marriages with or without the state's assent.

Yes, families are and will continue to be the good foundation of society - but nothing adverse will happen to families once they no longer receive this stupid and artificial stamp of approval by government.

Now is our chance: by voting 'No' to the institutionalisation of same-sex marriages, we open the flood-gates for the popular rejection of "marriage as a 'social institution'" altogether, thus achieving marriage-equality in a healthier way.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:56:56 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
Toni Lavis:

“Do as you say, not as you do, eh Phanto?”

There is a world of difference between expressing an opinion about someone else’s behaviour or motivation and the desire to hurt them with derision, insults, put downs and sarcasm.

Everyone’s behaviour and motivation should be under scrutiny and most people who behave with good grace and for the right reasons will not have a problem with that. It only bothers those who have a hidden agenda to protect.

“Sixpence! Sixpence to see The Amazing Phanto!”

This is an example of your desire to hurt. Whether you succeed or not is beside the point but you certainly have the intention. Of course if you do not have that intention then my claim will have no affect on you.

“//Yeah that's what pedophiles say//

I wouldn't know, phanto.”

Yes you would – you are lying.

Philips:

I am no longer going to indulge your “whack-a-mole” evasiveness. If you do not have the personal integrity to admit your intention to insult me and then Yuyutsu and also to indulge your arrogant attitudes towards other members of this forum then there is not much I can do to change that.

You have exposed yourself for all to see and people will draw their own conclusions. There is not much you can do about that either.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 6:49:24 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
At no point have I been evasive, phanto.

<<I am no longer going to indulge your “whack-a-mole” evasiveness.>>

On the contrary, I went to great lengths to respond to every rubbish claim of yours and all the mental gymnastics you engaged in for the sole purpose of making my rather normal and understandable motives appear sinister.

Why, one can make any action - no matter how innocent - appear sinister, if one presents the motives in a False Dilemma.

But then, you already knew that, didn’t you phanto?

<<If you do not have the personal integrity to admit your intention to insult me …>>

Oh, it was (in part, at least). I haven’t denied that. Indeed, I happily acknowledged it:

“I’ll be as patronising and insulting as your ridiculous arguments warrant.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19267#342520)

Which is why we were discussing the difference between fallacious and non-fallacious ad hominems. My insult was justified. When you are justified in calling me an idiot, I can assure you that I won’t complain if you do. Indeed, I welcome it. There is nothing wrong with calling out idiocy. It is a means of allowing those, who are not snowflakes like yourself, to learn from their mistakes and engage in some self-reflection - an ability you are apparently yet to learn.

Again, you really know how to debate yourself into a right tangle, don’t you phanto?

<<… and then [insult] Yuyutsu …>>

I haven’t insulted Yuyutsu. I had pointed to the problems in his arguments. to which he responded by digging his heels in.

<<… and also to indulge your arrogant attitudes towards other members of this forum …>>

Do you have an example of me doing this? I don’t think so.

Bye bye, phanto.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 7:20:30 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 a world of difference between expressing an opinion about someone else’s behaviour or motivation and the desire to hurt them with derision, insults, put downs and sarcasm.//

There sure is. Remember that case a few years back when the Chaser team disagreed with journalist Chris Kenny's political views and so rather than make joke about those, they called him a 'dog-rooter' (and he subsequently sued for defamation)?

What the Chaser were doing there was attempting to malign Kenny's reputation with unfounded insults, which is exactly what you're attempting to do by accusing me of pedophilia. So congratulations, phanto! You're as mature as those darlings of the ABC left, the Chaser boys. Hope you feel proud of yourself.

//It only bothers those who have a hidden agenda to protect.//

So everybody who objects to being having unfounded accusations levelled against must be hiding something, eh phanto? Great logic there, buddy.

//Yes you would – you are lying.//

Really? Is that the best you can manage? No attempt at debate? Not even an attempt at a skilfully constructed ad hominem? Just keep on repeating your unjustifiable accusations, because it makes you look so witty and clever?

How pathetic when people feel the need to resort to vile personal abuse instead of civilised discussion. Good day to you, phanto.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 8:06:07 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
Toni Lavis:

“What the Chaser were doing there was attempting to malign Kenny's reputation with unfounded insults”

No they were attempting to insult him, to deride him and hurt him in the hope that he would go away and that they would not have to engage with him at a rational level. ‘Dog-rooter’ says nothing about his political views but something about his sexual behaviour.

“accusing me of pedophilia.”

So every example that someone uses to make a point with you is an accusation that you are the same as the example? Your life would be unbearable if you identified with every example used in an argument with you.

“So everybody who objects to being having unfounded accusations levelled against must be hiding something, eh phanto?”

Why would they bother objecting? This is an anonymous forum so how can you be affected by things if you deem them untrue? You would only be affected if there was some element of truth about those accusations.

“Really? Is that the best you can manage? No attempt at debate?”

What is there to debate? Are you trying to tell me that you have never heard the statement that pedophiles do what they do because they like it? You expect me to believe you are that naive when you go out of your way on this forum to show how much of a ‘man about town’ you really are? Yes I think you are lying.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 8:37:49 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
Sorry, phanto, but I can’t let this gem go unaddressed.

<<You have exposed yourself for all to see and people will draw their own conclusions.>>

I have engaged with your asinine excuse for reasoning for over two years. Now, suddenly, according to you, I’m supposed be concerned because I have finally told it how it was by pointing out the fact that you are acting like an idiot.

Yeah, I don’t think anyone’s buying that, phanto. Good try, though.

The pointing out of idiocy needs to be justifiable and done sparingly. Follow this as a rule-of-thumb and there is nothing to be ashamed of. Anyone who still wants to pass judgment, is themselves being an idiot, not to mention 'precious'.

It’s all about character assassination with you, isn’t it? That’s what that little flurry of back-and-forths was about for you. Every time your arguments flop, you attempt to bring the motives of your opponents into disrepute. That’s the whole point of your amateur psychology, isn’t it?

Your logic is so poor, and your beliefs so vacuous, that you need ad hominems to distract from the fact when it is exposed. And what better way to do that than to present a fist-full of false dilemmas?

I could have remained as peachy and sickeningly polite as possible for the entire two years I've engaged with your stupidity - heck, I could have started every post with “Dear phanto” - none of that would have mattered. You would have still drawn something sinister from my actions, even if it were from the mere fact that I was not letting you have the last word within the time frame which you wanted it.

Here’s a challenge: how about the next time you and I clash swords, we remain as sickeningly sweet as we possibly can, and see who cracks first?

I give you ten posts before you start with the ad hominems.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 8:45:30 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
Philips:

“Sorry, phanto, but I can’t let this gem go unaddressed.”

Why are you apologising? Either you have a reasonable gripe or you do not.

You said bye, bye but of course you did not mean bye,bye. You went off to have another sulk in the corner and then came back with the ‘woe is me’ mantra.

You are such a pathetic victim.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 9:09:21 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
Dear phanto,

I am apologising because my second-last post ended with the suggestion that my intention was to leave our there.

<<Why are you apologising?>>

Clearly this turned out not to be the case. I am again sorry if any offence was taken. That was not my intention.

<<Either you have a reasonable gripe or you do not.>>

That is correct, yes. However, the reasonableness of my grievance was not what I had sought to establish there.

<<You said bye, bye but of course you did not mean bye,bye.>>

I’m afraid I did at the time. In retrospect, however, it was rather hasty of me. I will be more careful to consider my readiness to end communications in the future.

<<You went off to have another sulk in the corner and then came back with the ‘woe is me’ mantra.>>

I’m afraid I wasn’t sulking, sorry. I went to make breakfast and considered your claim that I had “exposed” myself. After realising why your claim was implausible, I proceeded to type a response to you explaining thus.

<<You are such a pathetic victim.>>

I did not feel victimised in any way, I trust you will be relieved to hear. Nor, to my knowledge, did I mean to present myself in a way such that it may be interpreted as conveying a perceived state of victimhood. This may be why any perceived sense of victimhood on my behalf came across to you as less-than-satisfactory. What I was in fact doing was explaining why my actions should not be a cause for concern amongst reasonably-minded individuals.

I apologise for any contribution I may have made towards the confusion there. I will endeavour to express my thoughts more precisely in the future.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 10:07:07 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 was in fact doing was explaining why my actions should not be a cause for concern amongst reasonably-minded individuals."

Wouldn't they be able to determine that for themselves or are you yet again trying to 'dumb-down' the members of this forum?
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 10:36:58 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
Dear phanto,

I fear there may be some confusion here as to whom my comment was directed.

<<Wouldn't they be able to determine [why your actions should not be a cause for concern amongst reasonably-minded individuals] for themselves …>>

If, by “they”, you mean “readers and forum contributors other than yourself” then, yes, I am confident that they should.

However, my comment was made for the benefit of your good self only, as there appeared to be some confusion on your part. This apparent confusion was made evident in the belief which you expressed, that I had exposed something undesirable about myself.

Again, I apologise if I had in any way contributed to the confusion there.

<<… or are you yet again trying to 'dumb-down' the members of this forum?>>

As I clarified earlier, my intent was not to assume a lack of intelligence on the part of any individuals who may be reading our discussion, but to instead allow for varying perceptions and worldviews; all of which may influence what is obvious, and what is not obvious, to the individual.

In no way is this intended to be a reflection on their intellectual capacities, but instead a means of ensuring clarity in the understanding that we all, as individuals, perceive things in different ways, irrespective of our intellectual capacities.

I would kindly ask that you refrain from employing incorrect assumptions which I have previously sought to clarify. If, at any point, I am unclear in my communication, then please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. I will be more than happy to oblige.

Thank you.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 11:37:35 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
Yuyutsu:
“Now is our chance: by voting 'No' to the institutionalisation of same-sex marriages, we open the flood-gates for the popular rejection of "marriage as a 'social institution'" altogether, thus achieving marriage-equality in a healthier way.”

Everyone who votes in the postal vote has to ask themselves this question about the reasonableness of government involvement in marriage. You cannot avoid the implications of the choice that we have. Either you agree with government involvement or you do not. Voting YES is an agreement to further government involvement – to making a bad situation worse. You cannot vote YES and be opposed to government involvement since your actions would decry you opinions. It is not a question of ‘equality’. It is first and foremost a question of relevance. Is it relevant for the government to be endorsing marriages?

If you vote YES then you need to have a water-tight argument as to why governments should be involved in endorsing marriage. There is no way to avoid this question. The postal vote or even a plebiscite has put this question on the agenda for every Australian. Had the parliament decided then it would be out of our hands but now it is firmly front and centre for everyone and the question should be asked about government involvement.

Philips:

If you think you new found saccharine ‘persona’ changes anything then you are very naive.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 6:58:34 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
Dear phanto,

That would depend on what one was attempting to change. However, change has not been my intention. I am not attempting to offset any past indiscretions. Allow me to clarify…

Yesterday, I presented a challenge for both you and I. I proposed that we attempt to remain as civil as possible in our discourse, so that it might be revealed who, if either of us, finds such discourse to be an untenable means of communicating their position.

The logic behind this is that if our positions are defensible, then the individual(s) for whom this is the case should be able to continue polite discussion without a need for personal attacks or attempts to characterise the motives of the other as, shall we say, unsavoury. In a past discussion of mine, for example, I requested that another individual (who is most unpleasant) be polite before I responded to his challenge:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18168#323507.

Unfortunately, this individual could not exceed one courteous post. The reason for this, I can only presume, is the fact that this individual’s arguments rely entirely on abuse; possibly to conceal a lack of supporting evidence for his arguments, or perhaps to discourage the individuals with whom this individual converses to leave the discussion before any problems with his position are revealed through further discourse. But I digress.

It is with sincere regret that I report the fact that you did not even make it to one post.

I do try be fair at all times, however, and am therefore willing to accept that you were perhaps not yet making an effort to be as courteous as I am sure you can be. This is likely my fault, as I had spoken of the “next time” we engaged in robust discussion, and one could be forgiven for regarding our last few exchanges as a continuation of the preceding unpleasantries shared.

Therefore, I am happy to disregard your last few posts, if you so wish. Of course, I will not be offended if you decide that you would prefer not to partake in the activity which I have proposed.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 7:29:01 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
Roll up! Roll up! Step this way and watch The Amazing Phanto try to dig himself out of a hole! A feat never before accomplished in human history! Can The Amazing Phanto manage it, or will he just end up digging himself deeper? Only tuppence to find out, just step this way ladies and gents.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 1:43:12 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
Philips:

If you think I am just going to whitewash all your previous aggression and ignore any future aggression then you are indeed very naive.

Toni Lavis:

You didn't respond to my arguments that I put forth to you. You have just come up with another boring piece of sarcasm. Hiding behind Philips are you?
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 3:26:59 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
hahahaha, bravo Toni Lavis! Phanto won't be alone in that hole...he'll have Leo Lane, diver dan and ttbn, plus a few others, in there with him. They can all keep digging...they may even strike oil one day! Although they'll have to ensure Leo Lane lets go of his 'liquid waste' appendage to ensure he remains productive!

Nice work...now, where do I buy tickets?
Posted by minotaur, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 3:52:00 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
//You didn't respond to my arguments that I put forth to you. You have just come up with another boring piece of sarcasm. Hiding behind Philips are you?//

Back in your cage, you freak. Your impudence tests my patience.

//now, where do I buy tickets?//

Save your pennies, good sir, and scatter them instead amongst the worthy beggars who need them more than yourself.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:20:45 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
//and ignore any future aggression//

Sixpence! Sixpence to see The Amazing Phanto predict the future! Again...

No madam, I assure you that we're not charlatans.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:33:55 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 phanto,

I again appear to have failed in conveying my precise intentions here. Perhaps I am not making myself clear? I will try once again.

<<If you think I am just going to whitewash all your previous aggression and ignore any future aggression then you are indeed very naive.>>

No aggression has ever before been displayed on my part. Nevertheless, I am not attempting to make amends here, for my past behaviour was indeed justified for the reasons previously stated. Nor is my current demeanor indicative of a commitment not to repeat such actions in the future, as what had been said, and the unfortunate manner in which it was said, may again become a necessary and justifiable course of action.

I can assure you, though, that if I do ever resort to such unbecoming and dastardly behaviour, I will indeed apologise profusely for the indiscretion. I sincerely hope, however, that I never lose my composure in such an untoward and beastly manner. But, alas, if ever I fail in my intentions here, and allow myself to become such an unsightly spectacle as the one you portray, I ask that your good self promptly call it to my attention so that I may remedy the situation.

As for my actual intentions here, I am afraid that I cannot elucidate any more than I did in my previously posted commentary this morning. If you need me to clarify anything, then you need only ask. I will be more than happy to oblige.

On a final note, I ask that you do not feel victimised by the perceived aggression on my part. I sense that you are feeling distressed, and cannot help but feel that you hold me responsible for these negative emotions which you are experiencing. I sincerely hope that you work through these negative emotions to the best of your ability, and, as father used to say: build a frigging bridge...

Ooo... How beastly!
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:51:31 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
Toni Lavis:

"Back in your cage, you freak."

You seem to have a problem with people with a disability. First your saw blindness as a bad thing and now you think 'freaks' should be locked in cages.

Minotaur:

Where have you been in this discussion? You only come out of the wordwork when you can be part of a group?

Philips:

"Ooo... How beastly!"

Can't hide you aggression no matter how hard you try!
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 5:31:03 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
O’ come now, dear phanto.

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of jolly banter to lighten the mood. Feelings of victimisation are so frightfully unhealthy for oneself.

I would ask again, however, that you refrain from rehashing accusations that one cannot support. It is most unbecoming.

Perhaps if your good self were willing to partake in the cordial discourse with me, it would better help to quell my savagery within?

Surely you have adequate confidence in your position, on this important topic, to test it out with some gentlemanly dialogue concerning the matter?

Over to you, dear boy.

(I must say, this new persona of mine is becoming astonishingly British-sounding!)
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 6:23:06 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
//You seem to have a problem with people with a disability.//

Silence, freak. Yours is not some mere physical deformity; the Gods have cursed you with a tongue that speaks of that which is yet to come, and of the secret thoughts of men that go unspoken. My forefathers would have burnt you as a witch.

It is by my good grace that you find yourself in my menagerie, but it is entirely contingent upon the degree to which you amuse me.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 6:33:53 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
What discussion would that be Phanto? I gave up trying to have any sort of rational discussion with the likes of you ages ago. Denigrating people for the sexuality isn't a discussion...it's merely an opportunity to rage your homophobic prejudices. Keep on raging but I won't be responding to it.
Posted by minotaur, Thursday, 14 September 2017 8:55:28 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
Phillips refers back to his past failure to conduct courteous dialogue, and of course, blames the other party, myself, who he describes as “unpleasant”.
I continually told the truth, and pointed out his nonsense and lies, an unpleasant experience for Phillips., who untruthfully whines that any truthful description of his conduct is “abuse”. On that thread, to which Phillips has supplied the link, he said:
” this individual could not exceed one courteous post..”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19267&page=0
The arrangement was, as shown on that thread, that, if I asked politely, he would answer my questions. I politely asked for the answer to three simple questions.
His response answered none of them, and started:” Thanks, Leo. That was a lot better.First off, I’m certainly no climate expert. I do, however, know of many denialist arguments, and why they are wrong”
So in his usual dishonest way, he breached his agreement to answer my questions. He answered not one of the questions he had promised to answer. I informed him that he had earned the title of “grub”. And addressed him accordingly thereafter. The truthful answers to my questions verified my assertions, so Phillips would not supply them.
His one constant reliable feature is his dishonesty, and that was a prime example of it.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 14 September 2017 8:20:41 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
Tiny-mind Lavis has attempted comedy, when she is incapable of composing a comprehensible post of any kind.
She will cringe when she sobers up and reads it.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 14 September 2017 8:33:31 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
AJ Phillips - you replied --

This issue has nothing to do with multiple parties offering different deals, this vote is about whether one believes that gay people should be allowed to marry.

Keep dreaming AJ Phillips - House of Commons today - parliamentarians seeking legislation to push Churches (of other beliefs) to marry same sex couples. That was an interesting read.

Parliament have provided no legislation as to what protections there are for any Religion, business etc if such entity choses to vote "no".

Attorney General George Brandis says this vote is about same sex marriage only, and nothing else .. obviously John Howard is most aware of legal implications with current Government not advising of any protections for those/any entities who wish to vote no.

As I have previously stated, asking Australia to vote (albeit via Postal Survey) on SSM with no Government "draft" legislative protection for those who wish to vote "no" is incomprehensible.
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 14 September 2017 10:05:04 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
Dear Leo Lane,

I am afraid you had not reported the situation accurately, my friend.

<<I continually told the truth, and pointed out his nonsense and lies …>>

However, there is always the possibility that I am mistaken. Therefore, I would welcome any examples of nonsense uttered by myself, or any untruths which had been told, to be brought to my attention, if you would be so kind as to do so.

<<… an unpleasant experience for Phillips., who untruthfully whines that any truthful description of his conduct is “abuse”.>>

Indeed, abuse is undoubtedly an unpleasant experience for any individual to endure, regardless of its accuracy. Therefore, it is always advisable that one bring untruths told to another’s attention with the utmost care to not offend. You may find that the tellers of untruths, with whom you engage, are more likely to consider your criticisms and correct their most unfortunate behaviour.

<<The arrangement was, as shown on that thread, that, if I asked politely, he would answer my questions. I politely asked for the answer to three simple questions.>>

Correct, and it appears I may have erred, too. You did post a second somewhat polite response. However, this is where communications ended. I can only presume that your good self found polite discourse too unbearable to continue.

<<So in his usual dishonest way, he breached his agreement to answer my questions. He answered not one of the questions he had promised to answer.>>

You will indeed find that I did, regardless of my preceding disclaimer:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18168#323525
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18168#323526

<<I informed him that he had earned the title of “grub”. And addressed him accordingly thereafter.>>

But the calling of names is such an unnecessary and unbecoming pursuit, would you not agree?

<<His one constant reliable feature is his dishonesty, and that was a prime example of it.>>

I am afraid that no dishonesty had been brought to our attention in that last example of yours. It is indeed unfortunate that you have interpreted my attempt to be as open and honest from the outset (that being my disclaimer) as dishonesty.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 15 September 2017 4:26:05 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 asserts that he has not lied, and asks that his attention be drawn to any lie, so that he can answer the assertion.
I have constantly drawn his attention to his lies and nonsense, and he has constantly made futile attempts to cover himself.
One example is the following post of mine:” Marriage is between a man and a woman, so a relationship between people of the same sex cannot be marriage, so people talking same sex marriage are talking ridiculous nonsense.
Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”
The parties to a marriage are a man and a woman, and they are currently treated equally under the law.
A man entering a relationship with a man is nothing to do with marriage, any more than a woman entering a relationship with a woman, so Phillips is talking baseless nonsense. He admits that he is only talking about possibilities.
In the remote possibility that the NO vote fails, he may have an opportunity to partake in the serious damaging of society.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19225&page=0#341996
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 16 September 2017 8:03:17 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
Dear Leo Lan,

Indeed I do, and indeed I would be appreciative if you could do so, too.

<<Phillips asserts that he has not lied, and asks that his attention be drawn to any lie, so that he can answer the assertion.>>

Let us all see what it is that you have to reveal, my friend.

<<One example is the following post of mine:” Marriage is between a man and a woman, so a relationship between people of the same sex cannot be marriage, so people talking same sex marriage are talking ridiculous nonsense.>>

That is merely an assertion on your behalf, my friend. Unfortunately, you have not accompanied it with any supporting evidence. This is somewhat problematic for your argument.

<<Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”>>

I am afraid not, my friend. There is no need to even go to the extent of raising the notion of inequality here, as you have not yet adequately demonstrated that marriage cannot be between two members of the same sex.

<<The parties to a marriage are a man and a woman, and they are currently treated equally under the law.>>

That is correct, yes.

<<A man entering a relationship with a man is nothing to do with marriage, any more than a woman entering a relationship with a woman, so Phillips is talking baseless nonsense.>>

In Australia currently, yes. However, you have not yet explained why this cannot ever be the case.

<<He admits that he is only talking about possibilities.>>

Not so, my friend. Same-sex marriage is a reality in a few countries now.

<<In the remote possibility that the NO vote fails, he may have an opportunity to partake in the serious damaging of society.”>>

Unfortunately, you have not yet demonstrated that serious damage will occur if same sex marriage is allowed. I look forward to evidence of such, however.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 16 September 2017 9:19:29 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
Dear Leo Lane,

My sincerest apologies for the typo in your name in my last post. It was most careless of me. I will endeavour to take more careful in the future. Thank you for your understanding.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 17 September 2017 8:10:32 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
Huge "NO" skywriting over Sydney today.

Cue hysterical chants from purple haired "revolutionaries".
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 17 September 2017 11:26:37 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
Shades of 'Occupy' where the co-ordinated, easily-found mobs of 'anti-No vote' demonstrators are concerned.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:55:08 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
Phillips says:” Same-sex marriage is a reality in a few countries now.”
We are talking about the present time in Australia. I am aware that there has been tampering with the definition of marriage overseas. This will inevitably stimulate the anti-perversion movements. The perverts scurrilous political wing will inevitably suffer setbacks, as will any attempts by a pervert minority to redefine marriage
.One of Phillips’ constant lies is that I have yet to show that homosexuals are perverts.
He would not accept that this is self evident, as it clearly is, so I posted proof, to which he had no sensible answer, so he posted a blatant lie, in answer, in which he included a definition which was not the one which I had posted, but his reply was based on the lie that it was mine.
Since then, he repeats the lie that I have not demonstrated the self evident and proven truth that homosexuals are perverts.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 17 September 2017 7:54:02 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 Leo Lane,

In that case, yes, I am only talking about possibilities.

<<We are talking about the present time in Australia.>>

However, you note this as if it were something unfavourable, even referring to my acknowledgment of the fact as an “admitting”, as though it were done hesitantly and begrudgingly.

<<I am aware that there has been tampering with the definition of marriage overseas.>>

The word “tampering” suggests that marriage in these countries has been damaged. However, you have not explained how this is the case.

<<One of Phillips’ constant lies is that I have yet to show that homosexuals are perverts.>>

Indeed you have not, my friend. The closest you came doing so, was to point to the definition of “pervert”, but would not expand on that when challenged:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333515

<<He would not accept that this is self evident, as it clearly is, so I posted proof, to which he had no sensible answer, so he posted a blatant lie, in answer, in which he included a definition which was not the one which I had posted, but his reply was based on the lie that it was mine.>>

This was a misunderstanding which we have cleared up twice now (see the above link). Unfortunately for your good self, your clarification did not help your case.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 17 September 2017 8:58:24 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
A J Phillips

So no response to my latest post .... interesting.
Posted by SAINTS, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:22:27 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
Why would that be "interesting", SAINTS?

<<So no response to my latest post .... interesting.>>

Not every lack of response is indicative of an inability to respond. Sometimes, it's because one waits until the discussion is archived and hidden by default:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673&page=0#333942

You had made it sound as though your status as a swinging voter was relevant to the question of whether equality should be granted. It is not. You are not voting for or against political parties. You are voting on whether an entire demographic should receive equal treatment.

Furthermore, you have not yet explained how one can rationally respond to ratbaggery by denying equal treatment to an entire demographic, just because the two groups share an interest. Now THAT is interesting.

There is nothing more I need to say.

If you have a rational argument against same-sex marriage, then let's hear it. Otherwise, I'm done.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:41:40 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
A J Phillips

So what's your point?
Posted by SAINTS, Monday, 18 September 2017 9:19:15 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
I would have thought that was rather obvious, SAINTS.

<<So what's your point?>>

My main point was that I am done with our communication, unless you can justify taking your dissatisfaction with a group of ratbags out on an entire demographic, simply because they share an interest.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:16:26 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All

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