Leo Lane,

I can assure you that it’s not me who’s being forgetful here.

<<Your words were:” Toni Lavis already explained this, doesn't it?”>>

Correct. Although the “doesn’t it?” was a leftover from a deletion. There was muddled-ness.

<<...I took it to mean that you were relying on Lavis’ lie. Tell me if it is not what you meant...>>

Well, you’re yet to demonstrate that it was a lie; but otherwise, you’re on track so far.

<<You have some difficulty understanding that it is axiomatic that marriage is between a man and a woman.>>

Again, this depends on what you mean exactly. You’ve discussed three different lines of reasoning in regards to the axiomatic. I even summarised them neatly, one after the other, a couple of posts ago if you need reminding of what they were so that you can decide which one you want to go with once and for all.

<<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?”.

Yes, and you still haven’t explained the connection. Or are you saying that you’ll go with the second axiom? Do you not understand what equivocation is?

<<You did not reply, because you do not wish to confirm my statement by your answer.>>

Erm, yeah, I did reply. You even mistook my answer for being Toni Lavis’s.

<<There is a solution, to your quandary. You can do what Toni Lavis did; make one last stupid remark, and disappear from the thread>>

You would like that, wouldn’t you? It would make you feel like you were right all along and it would get you out of this hole you’ve dug yourself into.

Well, I’m not going anywhere too soon. I’m having too much fun at the moment, and I’m not exactly known for tiring quickly either. I had a debate on OLO that went for eight months once, so we may as well start being nicer to each other.

Eric G

'Killarney ... You were gay bashing when you wrote “such an expensive referendum … at best symbolic and at worst empty of any purpose other than a feel-good factor..'.

Yep! You're onto me.

I just woke up one morning and decided 'Gee willikers, I just wanna bash gays. Hand me that baseball bat.'

Forget nuance. Forget Irish politics.

At the time of the referendum, the so-called banking inquiry was in full swing. No prizes for guessing that absolutely no one will be charged, despite millions spent that Ireland cannot afford. Great distraction.

And within one day of the referendum, the government announced it was selling off Aer Lingus - a company that has enormous symbolic value to Irish people and is majorly efficient and profitable - to a Qatar-based conglomerate that also owns British Airways, for a disgusting bargain basement price. Irish MPs were given a massively generous 2-day period to debate and research the issue before voting - which, according to party lines is a slam-dunk.

But the media is still basking in the wonderful referendum result. Another great distraction for the Irish people who are overwhelmingly against the sale.

Get my drift?

And by the way ... did you happen to notice from my previous comments that I voted Yes?

No matter. Any excuse to bully and badger anyone that diverges from the 'oh, isn't this the greatest progressive shift of all time' paradigm is fair game.

I'd rather have a referendum to get rid of marriage altogether.

It's archaic and redundant, conceived in a time when protection of property and inheritance rights, as being passed down through the male line, was all-important. Marriage completely deprived women of any status other than as the wife of their husband and rendered children the chattels of their parents.

All the supposed romantic and symbolic value of marriage was propagandised by the established order - Church, State, monarchy - to cement its role as supposedly fundamental to society.

In the modern era, civil law covers virtually every property and financial protection that marriage is supposed to provide. If anything, marriage overly complicates and exacerbates separation and divorce procedures.

Why gay people want to buy into this crap is beyond me.

(Disclaimer: I've been happily married for 25 years. I would have been just as happy to have lived these last 25 years without a marriage certificate.)

Yada yada patriarchy

Yada yada power struggle

yada yada control

yada yada yawn...

I wonder whether your "husband", if he exists, which seems unlikely given your previous posting history, thinks he's happy. Seems even less likely really.

//Lavis' answer was:"Not off the top of my head"//

No it wasn't. You're entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. No wonder your arguments are so lousy.

I asked whether “ marriage was ever an institution for the union of two people of the same sex?”.

Toni Lavis:“Yes, and you still haven’t explained the connection”.

Simple enough.You might agree that Marriage is a recognised institution.
You say that there is controversy about it being between a man and a woman, but you will not say what the controversy is.
The answer to my question might throw some light on what the controversy is, or is not. You are right, “not off the top of my head” was Phillips answer. You have not answered at all, understandably, and no doubt never will.As with what the controversy is,that you assert, you do not have a clue.