A J Philips:

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

Here is a little more for you. When someone keeps going on and on about another person's behaviour and does not do anything to avoid that behaviour when it is within their power to do so - it is called nagging. A nag is a gutless person who does not have the courage of their convictions. They can avoid the behaviour but are too afraid of letting go of the power trip they get from the bullying.

"you state your opinions as fact"

Aren't they contradictions in terms?

RObert:

There are no good reasons for the government to register marriages. Sometimes they need to know when two people are to be considered a 'couple' and they have a reasonable definition of the word 'couple'. They have no need to know which couples are married because, as you say, all benefits from the government are equally distributed to couples whether married or not.

In fact they act in quite a discriminatory manner in this regard. In order to declare two people a couple they become quite invasive in collecting evidence. This might be fair enough but in relation to married couples it is sufficient to just check their registration of marriage. They should treat all couples equally.

I don't think it is the government's responsibility to help people feel good about their relationship. Where would such a responsibility stop since we have a wide variety of relationships. Why should we single out marriage? Many people also are able to feel good about their relationships without any government help. Some are just more secure than others so such security must be something that can be attained without government involvement. If people need to be married to feel good about their relationship then it is not a very good start to a relationship.

So now you’re an amateur English scholar, phanto?

<<When someone keeps going on and on about another person's behaviour and does not do anything to avoid that behaviour when it is within their power to do so - it is called nagging.>>

No, to nag means to be “constantly harassing someone to do something”. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nagging)

<<A nag is a gutless person who does not have the courage of their convictions.>>

No, a nag is a “person who nags someone to do something”. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nag)

A gutless person is a person who is “lacking courage or determination”. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gutless)

Having the courage of one’s conviction means to “act on one’s beliefs despite danger or disapproval”. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/courage)

So you get an F for English. What I’m more interested in, however, is how my actions suggest that I’m gutless and don’t have the courage of my own convictions. It’s not like I’ve shied away from anything, after all.

One minute - according to your bogus, amateur, and admittedly-non-evidence-based psychology - if I stay here, it means that I’m unsure of my own beliefs. Now it somehow means that I’m gutless and lack the courage of my own convictions.

The former sounds more convincing, if only for the fact that the latter makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But the former is discredited by the total absence of anxiety felt by me and the thrill I get from responding to stupidity.

Let me guess, if I was secure in the belief that I don’t experience anxiety, then why would I mention it?

Boring! Find another angle.

<<[Naggers] can avoid the behaviour but are too afraid of letting go of the power trip they get from the bullying.>>

Bullying?

[Verb] Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bully)

You flatter me, phanto. No, nothing superior here. I’m just an ordinary guy who gives a damn about facts and actual psychology. That’s all.

<<Aren't they contradictions in terms?>>

No, it’s possible to state one’s opinions as if they were facts.

Your English skills were better before you took up amateur English.

phanto, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 4:18:07 PM.

"I didn't bother reading your post but the mere fact that you felt the need to respond to me only proves my point."

My posts, though addressed to you, were for a wider readership, not only for yourself. But I do confess to a profound disappointment that my unworthy prose should not be graced by your august attention and consequently I am plotting a course to the nearest active volcano for jumping into or the shortest travelling time to the Haig Distillery in Scotland where I might drown myself in a vat of their 12-year-old peat-smoked Dimple. The only drawback with this latter option is that on previous occasions I've been forced to climb out for a leak several times before the final depth-dive. Another thing is that I seem to lose interest in the suicide aspect of the project after about three leaks.

So, I have proved your point? As I see it, the point you make is somewhat at variance with the point you would like to make. Using the word "prove" colloquially, I perceive the emergence of a proof that accomplishes nothing for you except ignominy. In spite of generous offers of advice and fellowship you maintain a stubborn attachment to the declaration: "No I don't have evidence for any of my opinions but as I said it does not mean those opinions are wrong. If you think that only opinions that are supported by evidence are worth considering then there is no point reading any of mine." Your first sentence is perfectly correct but the corollary that attaches is devastating to your stance. Your opinions will be accorded zero credibility when all opinions that oppose you are presented with supporting evidence. To use a horse-racing analogy, you fell at the first hurdle of the race and are determined that you will go no further. Cont.......

phanto, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 4:18:07 PM.

Cont...... You should reflect on the consequences of a post before posting. I write because, among several other fulfilling pursuits, I enjoy deflating presumptuous piffle and obstinate obliquity. A man I admire immensely, though on the opposite end of the see-saw, passionately observed: "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." That man is Martin Luther King jr. And Albert Einstein admonished us: "Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value." MLK jr was and remains a man of value. Few of us indeed can expect such elevation in humankind's estimation. We harken too infrequently to the thoughts and experiences of great minds. Their blood and sweat are offered to us free of charge and so many times we scorn the offer. That is a sad commentary on humankind because it reduces us to engage in not a noble struggle to succeed but an ignoble one that pits us against each other. The prospect that leaves us with is as one of the Cosmos's failed experiments.

So, how do you expect to be remembered, Phanto?

Posted by Pogi, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 3:37:48 AM

" ... Nevertheless, sex purely for procreation was once common but still practiced today in some societies. ... "

In so far as I understand Balinese Hinduism, couples are encouraged to have relations well prior to marriage and if the female partner does not become pregnant, the that is a legitimate reason in their culture for the male partner to dissolve the relationship and any future prospect for marriage at his discretion.

..

Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 4:05:56 PM

" ... It was. Joe, if you won't take my word for it then at least take Sherlock Holmes' (yes, I know he's fictional). Read 'The Adventure of the Yellow Face', published in the 1890's. ... "

Yeah Joe, I am not convinced that you are correct about inter-racial marriage always being legal in Australia. Certainly it was illegal in certain states of America back in the day.

..

If a person of age and sound mind wishes to have a faith and practice a religion the majority of us I believe support this, within reason.

And, within limitations, we even tolerate them prosletyzing.

And when these people are clearly confused between the difference of what the meaning of "to know" is, as distinct from "to believe" there are some people who offer to assist them to take on a knew understanding.

But when they unite on mass to manipulate the machines of democratic government with a view to subjecting everyone to their particular religious persuasion then clearly it becomes a problem, requiring perhaps something a bit stronger mixed in with their tea i.m.o.

As AJ recently said, and as I and many others have said in the past, much of the debate in relation to homosexuality etc turns on the need to stop the discrimination and ill treatment as distinct from something favorable the majority must afford a minority.

phanto, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 6:01:13 PM
Cont........

"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 etc, etc, etc."

I predicted you'd issue a statement like this, didn't I? Of course you can do as you have done! As I wrote earlier, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."*

You have given us every reason to view you as a closet fundamentalist christian creationist. Normally this would brand you as a YEC [Young Earth Creationist]. For myself, it won't make much difference whether you are any of these things. I'm enjoying myself dealing with your posts as it is, so there won't be any major diversions for the present.

"If I have not provided evidence then ignore me."

Not for a minute if I can help it.

"If you do not ignore me then you are a blatant fool."

And if I did ignore you then you would lead a much more dull and boring existence [and so would I].

"Either you do not play by your own rules or you do not agree with your own rules. Which is it?"

My rules in this context are the rules of this forum.

"Either you put up or shut up."

I have been putting up. You refuse to supply evidence and defend your assertions against legitimate criticisms.

"You just look so childish going on and on about it etc, etc, etc."

It redounds on your credibility and maturity when you have no retort but exaggeration of the criticisms I made of you mixed with a little hyperbole. Expand your mind a little and pick a real vulnerability.

* The genuine author of this epithet is of course Francois-Marie Arouet aka, Voltaire