o sung wu,

When did I say I was giving this forum a miss?

<<I thought you'd given our humble Forum a miss for something far more cerebral and without the existence of any of us ordinary pragmatists.>>

My cousin is fine, though. Thanks for asking.

<<…I really don't know why you even bother to question me>>

Because you made some outrageous insinuations, and by questioning you, I get to expose that through either a lack of response or a personal attack from you.

<<Besides, I've told you so many times, I just don't like you, never have and never will…>>

Of course you don’t. When someone exposes our beliefs as baseless and fundamentally flawed, our first reaction is usually to interpret the feelings of discomfort that such a revelation produces as being the result of a problem inherent with the person that exposed the fact. It’s a common method of dealing with cognitive dissonance.

So I take it from your personal attacks that you have no rational basis for any of the offensive opinions that you expressed earlier? That doesn’t surprise me. I’ve heard similar sentiments expressed before and they can never be rationally justified.

--

ttbn,

No, none of those were assumptions. They’re based on the experiences in other countries.

<<Your "increased mental problems for gay people" is also an assumption.>>

I provided you with a link to the research demonstrating that one. Proper referenced stuff too. Not just the stuff you read in unreliable physical books.

<<"Increased" mental problems suggests that you think that homosexuals already have mental problems...>>

There’s bound to be mental health problems in any demographic. Which would mean it could “increase”.

<<Perhaps the whole thing is a mental problem.>>

There is no evidence for that, and it was removed from the DSM for that exact reason.

<<You clearly reject a democratic means of dealing with the situation…>>

And not because it’s democratic either.

<<Just don't expect me to indulge you any longer.>>

Oh, that’s fine with me. In fact, it’s probably more telling and easier on both of us if you don’t.

Agreed?

You'll all get used to our resident pest and know-all A.J. PHILLIPS, but despite this odd quality, he's just essentially boorish, and if you ignore him he'll go away a sulk for a month or two. It's thought he suffers from some unfulfillable aspiration that's made him awfully bitter, and causes him to 'hang around' many of these men and women in blue, in order he can derive some of the reflected glory, through association.

You see many are of the view that he really wanted to follow his cousin, (the 'chuckling' detective) into the Queensland wallopers. Unfortunately he suffered from some personality deficiency which destined him never to enter the ranks of the royal blues ?

Anyway because of this he's likely to pop again and we'll all have to once more, suffer from his ever monotnous hubris. It could be worse you know...he could've actually gotten into the job, and could you imagine, this little academic know-all, A.J. PHILLIPS roaming around the Brisbane CBD and frightening the 'bejesus' out of every man, woman and child ! What a positively frightening thought ?

Can you give an example of that, o sung wu?

<<...if you ignore him he'll go away a sulk for a month or two>>

I don't remember that happening. It sounds like you have me mixed up with someone else.

<<Unfortunately he suffered from some personality deficiency which destined him never to enter the ranks of the royal blues ?>>

No, I have never tried to join the police service. Although I do at least know the recruitment process and requirements here in Queensland intimately enough to know that I probably wouldn't have any problems getting in.

Why do you make such things up anyway? Is it the mental issues from prolonged stress as a cop that I once spotted (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310379) and you, quite heartbreakingly, confirmed?

Well at least you have an excuse for your total lack of appreciation for the fallaciousness of the ad hominem. Most others on OLO don't have that excuse. It's why I'm more forgiving of your personal attacks than I am of others'. They're more sad than they are offensive.

I'm not your enemy.

“Michael Kirby has voiced concerns about the proposed plebiscite on same-sex marriage. He wants the elected representatives of parliament to make the decision.”

Michael Kirby apparently fears that he would be in the minority in a plebiscite vote. When serving on the High Court, he had the reputation of dissenting a lot more than any other serving judge on the court, and indeed, probably more than most of the members of the court over its entire history. See:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/the-great-dissenter/3218844

In any case, the elected representatives of parliament do not necessarily reflect the majority views of their respective constituents. These days even Labor has become undemocratic by binding its MPs to vote for the re-definition of marriage, even though the majority of their constituents may be opposed.

There is no evidence to substantiate Kirby’s assertion that the debate that would occur because of the plebiscite would cause pain for homosexual people. In fact, it would not surprise if the majority of homosexual people had no wish to support marriage re-definition.

Jayb: The most likely Question to be asked has been leaked already. Should Gay Marriage be legalized? or, Should Same-Sex Marriage be Legalized? … Now they are saying the Question put this way is divisive. Eh? How?

For a start, a homosexual union is not biologically or procreatively equivalent to marriage.

//Opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that the public will vote against gay marriage//

No, opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that it's pretty damn fiscally irresponsible of a government that is constantly banging on about how much debt we're in to suddenly 'find' a 'spare' $160 million just to placate a few far-right nuts within their own party.

The plebiscite is a huge waste of our money, being wasted because the Liberal party lack the discipline to effectively deal with dissent in their own ranks.

I wonder how much stuff you could buy which is actually of value like hospital beds you could get for that sort of money. But instead, we're going to spend it on a pointless, non-binding vote.

Because that's such great value for money.

Those who propose homosexual marriage should be taking the responsibility for proposing solutions to the aftermath of their social experimentation and yes, there are downsides and costs there too.

That is something they unreasonably refuse to do.

The leftist 'Progressive' elements in Labor and the lunar Greens have a deserved reputation for playing fast and loose where social changes are concerned and for botch-ups from unforeseen negative consequences. Idealism gets in the way. Here is a past example of many, this one relating to overseas adoption,

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/01/1086037757556.html

Remembering too the long-running sores from the ideologically-driven, far left rad feminist Nicola Roxon and others in Labor. Examples being family law and the changes to de facto definition. -Where even government departments can still disagree on 'partner' status and what about the additional costs that were never mentioned?

It is the publicly-funded ABC that has been taking most of the running keeping homosexual marriage activism alive. At the same time it is quite reprehensible that the many homosexuals (to divorce them from the attention-seeking gays) who oppose 'gay' marriage and who opposed Labor+Greens State regulation of their relationships (the de facto partnership changes) were NEVER heard on the ABC, nor in the Parliament (obvious why not), nor in the media generally. But why not?