//What is your point though? How does that apply to the statement I made?

If you do not know the reasons why someone objects to same-sex marriage then it would be arrogant to act as if you do know. That is what arrogance is.//

Fcuk me sideways... not too quick on the uptake, are ya phanto?

Being lectured by you on the evils of arrogance is being like lectured by Shane MacGowan on the evils of substance abuse.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A3-5&version=KJV

AJ,

"Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of post-structuralist theory for feminism", JW Scott - Feminist Studies, 1988.

From memory, the gist of her argument was that 'equality' and 'difference' are not always in opposition, they overlap. One can be 'different', say racially, and still have equal rights to marry. 'Equality' doesn't have to mean the 'same'. At the time, 1980s, rights groups were getting themselves all tangled up in trying to square being 'different' with being 'equal'. No problems for women or Blacks.

Inter-racial marriage has been legal in Australia since the beginning, as marriage, as inter-racial, as inter-racial marriage. There didn't have to be a different word for it, and there wasn't. I don't give a toss what some racists thought of it: if they didn't like it, they didn't have to do it. But they couldn't stop it either. It was and is legal. It's called 'marriage'.

As for such prejudice: I'm told by a Tasmanian friend about a family in Burnie, the daughter of which fell in love with a bloke from Devonport. The father wouldn't speak to her for months. One hears of Ford owners whose son buys a Holden and is given the same treatment. But it's not illegal to marry a bloke from Devonport, or to own a Holden. So what ?

Joe

AJ Philips, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:39:36 PM

"Thanks for that refreshing insight into phanto’s bizarre behaviour......."

I'm moved by your appreciation, thanks.

I'm so regularly amazed by the ratbaggery that can preoccupy the human intellect that I shouldn't describe the sensation as amazing anymore. It's becoming more like an "Oh, not again......! in conjunction with a dull throbbing in the amygdala region.

As a protest against corporate religion many forums such as this were inundated with bizarre reinterpretations of scripture beginning in earnest, if my memory serves me correctly, in the last years of the 20th century.

But the only feature of Phanto that is somewhat different from the rest is his curious idea that if he can extract an opinion from his mind and place it here, devoid of evidence or supported only by a veneer of logic, then that should be sufficient for all comers and malcontents. His homophobia [doubtless in company with misogyny and an obsession with crucifying small animals] is shared by most of the other presumptive message-bringers and born-again evangelists.

Can you imagine any serious poster sitting still when reading: "[1] "You can't be born a homosexual since there is no such thing. There are just heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual type behaviour."" Such reader may be struck momentarily dumb by the blatant stupidity of the assertion. It's a statement using the logical processes of a ten-year-old essay writer.

Toni Lavis:

Why not stop playing the hapless victim and just deal with the fact that I described a particular instance of your behaviour as arrogant? Are you so fragile that someone cannot question one thing you have done without going off on a rant about 'glass houses' and being 'lectured'? If you have not behaved arrogantly then just show me how my logic about what you have done is invalid. If you have been arrogant then why not 'man-up' and admit it?

Pogi:

If I have made a statement that you equate with a ten year old then it should be easy to refute it but instead you seem to want to whine and whinge like a five year old about the fact that I provide no evidence to back up my claims. Then you bury your face in the bosom of A J Philips so you can mutually comfort yourself about how awful I am.

There is no rule that says you cannot make a statement on these forums. There is nothing to say that you must provide evidence to support your statement. I have not provided evidence so what? You do not make the rules around here.

If I have not provided evidence then ignore me. If you do not ignore me then you are a blatant fool. Either you do not play by your own rules or you do not agree with your own rules. Which is it? Either you put up or shut up. You just look so childish going on and on about it. Grow up and act like an adult and not some scared infant who wants the world to be like it is behind his mother's skirts.

phanto,

The stupid questions and amateur psychology are boring. Get another act.

<<I have not provided evidence so what?>>

Not just “haven’t provided”, you openly admit that you have no evidence; yet you state your opinions as fact.

Let me guess, if I was secure in that you openly admit that you have no evidence, then I why would I need to point it out?

Because it became relevant.

Let me guess, if I was secure in the belief that it became relevant, then why would I need to say that it became relevant?

Because I pre-empted your question.

Let me guess…

--

Joe,

Okay, I’ve read the article. It’s more geared towards those who fear acknowledging differences in the name of equality. It’s not relevant to my position, nor is it an argument for a different word for same-sex marriage. Certainly not so long as there are those who only want a different word because they see homosexuality as a defect or refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of such relationships.

<<Inter-racial marriage has been legal in Australia since the beginning, as marriage, as inter-racial, as inter-racial marriage. There didn't have to be a different word for [interracial marriage], and there wasn't.>>

So are you saying, then, that there does need to be a different word for same-sex marriage because it will have gone from not-legislated-for to legislated-for? Where’s the logic in that?

<<I don't give a toss what some racists thought of it: if they didn't like it, they didn't have to do it. But they couldn't stop it either. It was and is legal. It's called 'marriage'.>>

That’s the spirit! However, I’m sure there are gay people who will have a similar attitude towards people like yourself who don’t like the idea of same-sex marriage and/or insist that there must be a different word for it.

<<…it's not illegal to marry a bloke from Devonport, or to own a Holden. So what ?>>

I don’t know. You’re the one telling the story. You’ll need to tell me “what”. I don’t see where these stories fit into the picture.

I could not see where the article addressed the title. The authors moral agency is not being denied, he is free to battle his own cravings whatever they may be. If anything the removal of legal boundaries and social consequences around most sexual activities between consenting adults enhances his moral agency. The issue then becomes one of doing what his conscience tells because it's what his conscience instructs without the possibility that choices are driven by the legal and or social consequences of those actions.

In regard to the same sex marriage, I see no valid reason for the government to be involved in the registering of relationships. That registering does not carry with it a responsibility to procreate, it's reversible with no legal consequences for breach of the initial conditions, almost all of the laws around those registered relationships apply to those who have not so registered (based on some unfortunately poorly defined criteria).

Just what role does government registration of marriages actually play? At best making heterosexual couples and family feel better about their own relationship and the principle argument against extending that to same sex relationships then seems to be people not wanting same sex couples to feel better about their own relationships.

R0bert