Dear Julian,

<<Who in this thread, or known about to anyone in this thread, is personally disadvantaged by recognition by the law of the land of relationships between any two autonomous adults whatsoever>>

Every tax payer.

Expanding the government function called "marriage" (and its accompanying function called "divorce") to include even more people than now, means more public-servants eating off my table. It also means even more "bought" people who would always vote to keep this system of government in place because they and their families wouldn't part from this regular income. Instead, this function should be eliminated altogether, sending home a wave of no-gooder public-servants. Those who want to get "married", whatever it means to them, can still do it privately with the help of their chosen celebrants, priests or anyone else they respect.

ERIC G...

You state inter alia, '...a good cop would take responsibility for today mistakes first...' or similar language ? Similarly, a good advocate for Gay rights would take responsibility for attributing false accusations concerning an individual's character, when he knows absolutely nothing of that person ?

ERIC as an advocate for Gay rights - both your attitude and confrontational style does you no credit nor especially your cause. Simple as that. I told you I have no knowledge of VICPOL, I was with NSWPOL. Your training video, and everything else you claim was initiated by you under the aegis of VICPOL, is something of which I'm unaware, therefore of no interest to me ! By way of comment, you no doubt would've been a real 'hit' with police recruits, with that combative attitude of yours ?

You further assertions that 'I' have my foot in your guts...? How so ? Are you so bitter, and so emotionally rancorous about how homosexual males were treated (not only by police, but by the entire community) up until about the middle of the last century, your judgement is so clouded and warped you can longer advance your argument without it being liberally veneered with pure enmity and suspicion ! Is that you ERIC G ?

You SHOULD consider one thing my indignant friend...!

You cannot:- 'legislate', 'threaten', 'terrorise' or by any other method coerce, an individual into either 'liking' or 'accepting' you or your way of life.

The only successful method, is by amicable persuasion ? The same applies to racism, the only successful way to reach people is by amicable or cooperative persuasion.

Speaking with this well known Reverend, from some Pentecostal religion, years ago now. Anyway I enquired of him, why was it that his church's policy is to speak against homosexual practices, when he personally welcomed them into his church ? His reply was both simple and direct (you can make of this as you will?), he said, the homosexual act itself is against the law of God and more particularly, and of nature ?

Eric G,

You are apparently unaware that the de facto provisions (definition broadened and as well referred to as 'relationships') were extended to homosexual (same sex) relationships. See here,

https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Pages/Samesexreforms.aspx

and here,

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/recognition-of-same-sex-relationships

Maybe you need to ask a bureaucrat or lawyer because you may be in a (same sex) 'relationship' without knowing it, or intending it to be so. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals no longer choose, the State decides for them and you may be obliged to prove otherwise.

Have a look at the very broad and murky definition of same sex relationship.

. Toni Lavis made the smart-alec, assertion in relation to my statement that marriage being the union of a man and a woman is axiomatic, “ No it isn't. An axiom is a premise so evident that it is accepted by everyone without controversy. If you really think there is no controversy over this premise then I pity the village that is currently missing its idiot.” Toni demonstrated that he had made a false assertion, by his failure to answer my query,” let us know when and by whom it was asserted otherwise, and between what parties other than a man and a woman a marriage was said to occur”. Lavis' answer was:"Not off the top of my head"
AJPhillips relied on Lavis’ lie to back his baseless criticism, and when he realised he was talking nonsense, accused me of not knowing what I was talking about.
What a pair of disingenuous losers!
It is axiomatic that marriage is between a man and a woman, so to talk about same sex marriage is pure nonsense, as is talk about “marriage equality”

Leo Lane,

It seems you’re getting Toni Lavis and I mixed up a bit…

<<Toni demonstrated that he had made a false assertion, by his failure to answer my query,” let us know when and by whom it was asserted otherwise, and between what parties other than a man and a woman a marriage was said to occur”. Lavis' answer was:"Not off the top of my head">>

But either way, in claiming this, you demonstrate that you still don’t understand why your fallacy of equivocation is an equivocation. Do you realise that when axioms are described as “starting points”, it’s in reference to a starting point for reasoning; it does not refer to the status quo? And even if it did, it would be a pretty stupid term to use given that even you acknowledge that the current form of marriage evolved from something else.

I also asked you what difference it would make if same-sex marriage had never existed before - giving you a chance to demonstrate that your fallacious thinking at least helped you to fluke the right answer - and still no word on that. You’re just ducking a weaving now.

<<AJPhillips relied on Lavis’ lie to back his baseless criticism...>>

Firstly, you haven’t demonstrated that what Toni Lavis said was wrong, let alone a “lie”. Secondly, I didn’t rely on anything; I already understood what axioms were. Here’s a couple of definitions for you:

Axiomatic: http://bfy.tw/3Fi
Axiom: http://bfy.tw/3Fj

<<What a pair of disingenuous losers!>>

Ah, that ad hominem. So that makes three fallacies. You’re doing well. Just waiting on the Appeal to Nature now.

<<It is axiomatic that marriage is between a man and a woman, so to talk about same sex marriage is pure nonsense...>>

But according to you, it won’t be once it's legislated. So there’s nothing to worry about.

Or are we now talking about the axiomatic state that refers to “starting points” that have nothing to do with reasoning, and aren’t actually starting points at all?

You’re gonna have to be a little less vague, Leo. I’m not a flippin’ mind reader.

Forgetful, aren’t you AJ? Your words were:” Toni Lavis already explained this, doesn't it?” You were a bit muddled in your wording, but I took it to mean that you were relying on Lavis’ lie. Tell me if it is not what you meant, if you do have any idea of what you meant.
You have some difficulty understanding that it is axiomatic that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is why I asked you” Can you tell me when marriage was ever an institution for the union of two people of the same sex?”. You did not reply, because you do not wish to confirm my statement by your answer.
There is a solution, to your quandary.You can do what Toni Lavis did; make one last stupid remark, and disappear from the thread