NO! A pox on both your houses! The people have had an absolute gutful of the type of, too clever by half manipulation Lyle!

And there will be a plebiscite! At the next Federal election just a little north of two short years!

And where folks are going to be measured by what they do and have done, rather than another grabbag of never ever honored promises!

And that goes double for the divisive anti development anti nuclear greens!

And other folk who believe they speak from high lofty elitist towers Lyle, for the marginalised, the poor and downtrodden!

For the express purpose of keeping them that way, and the status quo?

" Inasmuch as you do to the least among you, you do also unto me!"
Alan B.

Lyle by trying to be nice you are bordering on giving offence to some.

Rainbows are beautiful things of water & light, usually manifest in the sky.

Homosexuals are poofters, not rainbows. They have usurped that lovely word GAY, don't give them another.

I totally believe that people who do not support gay marriage are like those who supported Trump. Too intimidated by abusive bigots to give honest responses to pollsters. A plebiscite or election is a secret vote though, and as anti Trump protesters discovered, the results are vastly different when people have the protection of anonymity.

In my humble opinion this issue has already taken up far more time in Parliament than it is worth. I do not see any need to change one of the fundamental building blocks of our society to accommodate what is essentially a noisy minority.

There are far more pressing matters like the economy and rising crime rates which our Government should be focusing on.

Transgender dysphoria is more than biology of genitalia, Lyle.

Transgender dysphoria is such a distressing condition that those who have it deserve understanding rather than disparaging.

This is a poorly-written scattergun of ideas that is trying to pretend to be a reasoned argument.

I am suspicious of anyone who tries to tell me
"What this is about is not X, but really it's about Y",...

A favourite of ideologues of all kinds.
In other words, they are telling us how to perceive some issue. Teachers' union spokesmen say the same thing:

"This must be seen as ...."
In other words-
"See it my way or else"

This so-called Australian Christian Lobby does not represent most Christians. It's long been exposed as a front for mine owners and conservative politicians from the far reaches of Queensland and similar:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/02/22/money-and-mining-men-behind-the-shadowy-australian-christian-lobby/

I agree with one thing. I don't know how same-sex marriage became an issue. It was taken up by sections of the media. The gay men and women I know couldn't care less about it.
And the plebiscite? Like most plebiscites: doomed to fail. Australia's record for passing them is very poor.

"This is a poorly-written scattergun of ideas that is trying to pretend to be a reasoned argument."
Posted by Waverley, Monday, 21 November, 9:54:27 AM

Yes, it's a gish-gallop trying to conflate a number of loose or even unrelated concepts. Most are false-equivalence; some are red-herrings, or misrepresentation, or a combination.

It must be hard being a non-elite pleb looking up to the PC elites who see equality and "live and let live" as a good tenet to live by.

Hasbeen states 'Homosexuals are poofters...' Ahh, such intellect on display. One has to wonder why the focus is on gay males though. A psychologist's dream case going on there.

The "PC elites" are fully supportive of SSM. I agree that this piece is poorly written; so poorly written that a few posters have not got the message. This man is with the Christian Lobby - certainly against SSM and against the anti-democratic elites. So why does he say that the elites would be sighing with relief over Trump's victory? On the contrary, they are crapping themselves at the sound of the man's name. And why attack Samantha Maiden, a conservative reporter working for a conservative newspaper? Very confusing.

We all know that the queers blocked the plebicite because they knew that the majority of Australians, who have more common sense and decency than they and our tyrannical politicians have, would vote no. We also know that the poofter-pandering idiot Turnbull has been banned from the Mardi Gras for his pains.

We do not need confused ramblings. What we need is direct democracy as is enjoyed by Swiss citizens. Australia is no longer a democracy in any shape or form. We need to start calling very loudly for direct democracy via referenda on things like SSM, multiculturalism, immigration etc.

And along comes ttbn with 'poofter-pandering idiot'...another example of colossal intellect to rival Hasbeen. Also doesn't seem to understand what referendums are used for. Hasbeen has strong competition.

The deplorables have certainly shown themselves since Trump was elected. In Australia the getup drongos make up a good proportion of them. Soros seems to be one of their high priests who helps fund gw scam, indoctrinates and grooms kids for perversion and makes the white male the target of hatred. I see Roz Ward being a bully yesterday.I suppose he/she is just being the total hypocrite that many socialist are.

The very next election will be a binding plebiscite! And where folks will be marked on what they've done or delivered!

Not endless promises made conditional of the sale of our economic sovereignty!

Four foreign hedge funds have positions in all four big banks?

Now one on its own with a maximised 15%, is nothing to worry about!?

But four, able to come to some arrangement from deep in the opaque bowels of a foreign land? May explain the distinct lack of GENUINE competition between banks and petroleum companies?

Yes we need foreign funds! Absolutely! But not the debt laden tax avoiding foreign firms and foreign control and patent price gouging that comes with it!

There is a rigorously resisted means of separating the foreigner and his/her investment dollar without any of the aforementioned negatives!?

And that is via the issue of self terminating thirty year bonds! Now? Still doable! Later?

A fixed rate of return, a government guarantee and a tax free status and we could get crushed in the rush to buy? And in trillions for fail safe energy and water infrastructure, income earning projects.

When the nett become higher than the recurring? Issue more for new projects!

Rapid rail and a nuclear powered national fleet! Only needing to refuel once every hundred years!

The ships which could be fully submersible to defeat pirates, storm and tempest, to deliver like a never stopped pony express!

Would become the most reliable relied on bulk freight delivery system in the world and the most profitable!

Be it a publicly owned one, run by biennial tendering contractors or, government sponsored owner operator co-ops, or a combination of both.

The "revolt", will no longer settle for more of the same or selling the national estate down the river of no return!

Bring on the next election and the binding plebiscite that it entails!

End of story and the endless change free, two party preferred status quo!
Alan B.

And minotaur probably wonders why the majority deplore the disgustingly arrogant minorities.

How to win friends & influence people. Obviously the example of Hillary has not sunk in, & probably won't, with this type of blind arrogance.

Actually, this minotaur wonders why people make unsubstantiated statements that pose as irrefutable fact. And he can also see a crass, homophobic slur when it is made. When people have to resort to that you know they are not playing with a full deck.

But what if the right-wing USA "religious" establishment which very much includes the "catholic" bishops actually won the recent election?
This prophetic essay provides an interesting perspective.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/goetterdaemmerung.htm
Plus the footnote ref#10 The Yurica Report - Despoiling America.

Hi there MINOTAUR...

I totally agree with you, HASBEEN'S probably employed quite the erroneous locution when referring to homosexual males. Sodomite has far greater acceptance throughout the heterosexual community, whereas lesbian is better accepted by females than some of the less complimentary epithets that have found common usage among the community at large. Both groups have managed to grab much of the political limelight in recent times which is laudable, given the precise size of their actual demographic within the community perhaps.

I guess alone it's an interesting issue. But as the Trump election showed, when the inner city, high-rise, artistic, placard wielding, hemp-dressed elite chat about marriage over lattes while blue collar and rural middle Australians see jobs moving overseas, people become disillusioned with the way of things.

The myth persists that it was angry white men that gave the election to Trump.
The truth is far more complex, as West argues in his own roundabout way

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18661

It's still a mystery why anyone would voote for Trump, especially if they were
a. a woman
b. Latino
c. black or mixed race
d. had any education past about 3rd Class
e. mildly intelligent

But then demagogues have always appealed to the masses in a way that educated people couldn't understand !

"But after Trump’s triumph it is likely Australia’s progressive elites are breathing a sigh of relief."

In view of the fact that the progressive elite kept claiming that polls showed that SSM was favoured by the majority, it is indeed puzzling why they opted out from having a plebiscite.

Were they afraid that polling conducted of same-sex attracted people would show that their majority opposes SSM? In any case, why on earth would the majority of them want to tie the knot and thus forego their promiscuous freedom?

yep and the hissy fits, the violence, the name calling, the sooking from the losers is something that no rational human being can understand. Obvious that their 'education' received from brainwashing institutions have not taught these drongos much about real life.

//This so-called Australian Christian Lobby does not represent most Christians.//

They're certainly not with the Catholic Christians. I read the Catholic Weekly when I can, and they never quote the ACL even when they're in agreement. The ACL are clearly a Protestant outfit, so there's about half the Christians they're supposedly representing done away with back in the Reformation.

And when it comes to the proddies, I'm not convinced they're all fully behind the ACL either. Has anybody asked the Uniting Church about how they feel about being 'represented' by these Tory shysters?

//And the plebiscite? Like most plebiscites: doomed to fail. Australia's record for passing them is very poor.//

You might be confusing plebsicites with referendums. A plebiscite only needs a majority to pass, but it's non-binding. A referendum needs a majority in the majority of states - much harder to achieve - but it is binding. Referendums can only be held on constitutional matters. Plebiscites are essentially an official and expensive opinion poll of the entire voting public.

//What we need is direct democracy as is enjoyed by Swiss citizens.//

Our Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, inherited from the British, has served us extremely well. It was good for the Brits, too: the Empire Upon Which the Sun Never Sets. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I don't see the evidence that the Westminster system is broken.

minotaur,

Your own intellect is not up to much: homophobic? How crass! Referendum? Who said anything about a referendum? Do you mean plebicite? The two are different. Your homo friends don't want either. You are in no position to make remarks about anyones intellect.

Hmm, seems ttbn has some memory issues. I shall quote ttbn from a post in this forum 'We need to start calling very loudly for direct democracy via referenda on things like SSM, multiculturalism, immigration etc.' Direct reference to referendums there.

I shall also help out with the homophobia with words from ttbn; 'We also know that the poofter-pandering idiot Turnbull has been banned from the Mardi Gras for his pains.'

To refer to gay men as 'poofters' is a homophobic slur. Not only that, it excludes gay women. More discrimination.

Yes, clearly my intellect is not up to it.

Waverly why on earth do you think you can tell the rest of us anything? Putting up arguments that lost and backing it up with insults and invective?
I suggest you read some Rudyard Kipling as he was very keen on "Good" sportsmanship. Accept your loss, appreciate you have misread the majority and go down to the girls toilets for a cry!
No one likes a cry baby Waverly.

minotaur,

Yes, you are right, I did mention referenda and I do have short-term memory blanks sometimes. I'll back down on that one. However using the word 'poofter' does not make me homophobic because I don't hate homosexuals. I don't like homosexuality and I never will, but I'm happy to treat them the same way as everybody else, except for SSM. I'm sorry I didn't mention dykes, as the omission seems important to you.

When Trump is your role model, you are truly deplorable. Clinton is no angel. Electing Trump is horror to all sensible humans of the world, a laughable thing except to die hard bigots. Castigating Clinton for what she said about deplorables is twisting the truth out of joint. It's true you have to be either deplorably bigoted or irredeemably ignorant to vote Trump. That is what Hillary meant and no, that's not what cost her the election. The white people who needed a saviour for white privilege had to get the baddest bigot in sight, and they got Trump. That's deplorable. Clinton saying it simply provided a cheap excuse for those wanting to resurrect Hitler in the name of Trump to do for America what Hitler did for the Germans. Germans pretended the holocaust wasn't happening, yet participated fully in it. Bigoted Americans and all their bigoted cheerleaders allover the world are pretending bigoted white supremacy is not playing out in American politics. They pretend oh it's because Clinton supported gays and talked of deplorables.
Pay no homage to the evil that played out in Trump's election or you truly lump yourself in Clinton's basket of...you guessed it.
be cautious when writing in Christian forums. Your readers have backgrounds from all continents of the world. Your wording may easily come off as cheap propaganda to excuse the inexcusable - just saying.

LGTBXYZ have no legal disabilities and tantruming for a Right to a Rite is ridiculous. We have real problems, ignore this rubbish.

All those claiming to be Christians saying ACL doesn't speak for them or is wrong,surely ACL must be judged by what the Bible says on these issues and in my experience they are usually in accord so either you are not reading your bible or ignoring what it says both of which cast doubts on your claims to be Christians. I certainly hope that this will be the next revolt against the establishment and also a wake-up call to you "Christians" who think SSM or homosexuality in general are all right

Hi there MARICUS...

Being a 'born again atheist' even I know the Bible doesn't support homosexuality in any way. Males who engage in this behaviour are committing sodomy, whereas females are actually not engaged in anything unlawful, other than lesbian behaviour. When I first joined the job we used to lockup those males who were caught engaging in sodomy (homosexual activity) in public places. Today, well it's now been decriminalised throughout Oz, therefore it's become more or less a moot point.

Lesbians never did come under official police notice other than being occasionally charged with indecent behaviour or indecent exposure, all under the old Summary Offences Act and before that, the old draconian Police Offences Act. Though lesbians did incur the wrath and suffered significant ostracism from the puritanical members of our society, as is their right.

Personally, in those days I never thought it appropriate men should be locked up for sodomy, provided it was conducted in discreet circumstances, and no other offences were associated with; or compelled by it. Still many would no doubt disagree with me I reckon?

Elana's rant shows exactly why Trump was elected. It is her kind of irrationality that caused people to overlook Trumps flaws while seeing how sick the lefist ideology is.

//surely ACL must be judged by what the Bible says on these issues and in my experience they are usually in accord//

No they're bloody not.

//either you are not reading your bible or ignoring what it says both of which cast doubts on your claims to be Christians//

No, it's the ACL who ignore what their Bible says. Which is why most Christians think they're a bit of a joke.

If the Government realised that they aren't actually representative of most Australian Christians and stopped listening to them, we'd all be a lot better off. But somehow they'be managed to hoodwink the Government into believing that the name of their organisation isn't a misnomer. If only our politicians weren't so easily conned... and if only a supposedly Christian organisation wasn't OK with lying through its teeth to advance its Tory agenda. Isn't there a commandment against telling porkies?

I'm sorry Toni but I do read through my bible, all of it, every year, and I know what it says. It says if you are a practising homosexual (including lesbians O Sung Wu- Romans 1:24-32; and Jude 7 among other passage less directly ) it is a perversion of God's created order like other sexual immorality, like any other sin, and needs to be acknowledged as such, confessed, repented of, abstained from. As such SSM is also a perversion of Marriage. As for ACL 'lies' it is the LGBIT activists who are the true liars, continuing to make the long debunked claim that they comprise 10 percent of the population when Science and the most reliable and recent surveys show it is less than a third that, saying gender is fluid with no evidence, and claiming there will be no real changes except for a few words in the constitution if SSM is legalised. We can only hope that more and more people start to see this, especially those claiming to be Christians.

Toni Lavis:

It really does not matter whether ACL represent Christians or not. The only thing that matters is the argument they put forward for SSM. If their argument is illogical then it should be ignored in the same way as any other illogical argument.

Hi there MARICUS...

My knowledge of the Bible could only be described a scant at best. I wasn't aware that the Bible prohibited lesbian practices, but it did nevertheless roundly condemn that of sodomy. In relation to criminality per se, lesbian behaviour was not in itself breaking any law, except for some behaviour that might come as a consequence of lesbian activities in public places.

I didn't know the Bible condemned lesbians as well, though for what precisely I couldn't imagine? A couple of women having a kiss 'n cuddle in the back seat of their car? That's rough I reckon.

One thing I can share with you, quite authoritatively as well - the number of really serious, violent crimes committed against the person, in the name of male homosexuality, would positively amaze you MARICUS. Jealousy among male homosexuals alone, has accounted for some of the very worst of murders I've seen in my over 32 years in the job, including those committed in NSW maximum security gaols!

Hey all - last election those that voted Liberal knew one of the issues being a plebiscite on SSM. Well since then "voters" have been denied our democratic "right" to say yes or no via labor and other parties?

So I ask a pertinent question - why?

Why were parties so against a plebiscite .... maybe, just maybe there were more against changing the marriage act than they were prepared to acknowledge ..... just saying.

Saints, when did the 'voters' last get a chance to vote on a simple legislative change? Oh yeah, never. It is not a democratic right to have a vote about changing legislation. To even propose such a thing is lunacy and abrogation of parliamentary responsibility.

Minotaur

No – this is not a “simple legislative change” as you suggest. This would change the entire meaning of the Constitution of the Marriage Act which has served us well for centuries.

So before those in “twitter feed” start storming out of their proverbial sandpits on masse, John Howard’s change to the Constitution of the Marriage Act (in essence) being between a man and a woman (or male and female) – I haven’t got access to the actual words with me at time of pending this note, however, if you peruse the “actual” words it will confirm above.

You state – “To even propose such a thing is lunacy and abrogation of parliamentary responsibility”.

Parliamentarians come and go – these proposed changes to the Constitution of the Marriage Act will last FOREVER, as such, we – as voters – don’t accept a plebiscite as lunacy and/or abrocation of parliamentary responsibility – as you assert.

We voters DEMAND a plebiscite on the following basis -

If the Australian public say - yes - RESULT MUST BE RESPECTED.
If the Australian public say - no - RESULT MUST BE RESPECTED.

Liberals went to the last election with the promise that Australian voters would be permitted to vote on change to the Marriage Act.

I don't believe the Australian public require any funds for the "yes" or "no" campaign. As this issue has been ongoing for decades, I believe we all know how we will vote.

Labor and others voted this down? With the most "shallow" of excuses. Shameful behaviour by Labor and others.....yep and we as voters are watching this sham

O Sung Wu – your post to Maricus on 25/11/

You state - One thing I can share with you, quite authoritatively as well - the number of really serious, violent crimes committed against the person, in the name of male homosexuality, would positively amaze you MARICUS. Jealousy among male homosexuals alone, has accounted for some of the very worst of murders I've seen in my over 32 years in the job, including those committed in NSW maximum security gaols!

As a further person with knowledge of same – they don’t get it do they?

As a mainstream male I chose to marry an accepting mainstream female and was part of a mainstream family. I didn't have to have any of this approved by a plebiscite of other people with different life choices. It was nobody else's damn business but ours.

Why then should I have the unalloyed arrogance to make it part of my business how and on what basis another couple wish to commit themselves to marriage? And why should anyone else display such arrogance?

All decisions on matters affecting the whole nation are the whole nation's business and in a democratic society (which Australia isn't) these would all be subject to popular vote. But not individual couples' personal business. Turnbull's failure to call a parliamentary vote to clear away hangover laws with-holding same sex marriage rights shows him up as not a leader committed to doing the right thing.

Emperior Julian

You state - As a mainstream male I chose to marry an accepting mainstream female and was part of a mainstream family. I didn't have to have any of this approved by a plebiscite of other people with different life choices. It was nobody else's damn business but ours.

I advise - neither did I.

Why then should I have the unalloyed arrogance to make it part of my business how and on what basis another couple wish to commit themselves to marriage? And why should anyone else display such arrogance?

My response - It's not a matter of arrogance on any ones part. You need to look "further" into the implications across all avenues of legislation.

Thanks for demonstrating you have absolutely no credibility Saints.

Emperor Julian
You have not been paying attention, this is NOT just about changing a few words in the Marriage Act, it would require changes to a whole lot of other laws too and infringe on others' rights as has happened in countries where SSM has been legalised, where people who in all good conscience and sincere religious beliefs oppose SSM- despite supposed freedom of religion and speech- have been dragged
before courts, fined thousands of dollars, even threatened with jail. This is the model favoured by Shorten, the ALP, the Greens and the gay lobby.
Phanto, the term same-sex marriage itself is illogical so SSM should be ignored/rejected altogether.
Minotaur, plebiscites are a democratic tool and this is not just about a simple legislative change as I and others have already pointed out. Australia has had plebiscites before.

EmperorJulian:

“As a mainstream male I chose to marry an accepting mainstream female and was part of a mainstream family. I didn't have to have any of this approved by a plebiscite of other people with different life choices. It was nobody else's damn business but ours.”

It was also the government’s business. You made sure that the government was included in your business. You presumably have a certificate that says the government acknowledges your relationship as a marriage. Why did you involve the government in your business?

Why should same-sex couples want to involve the government in their business?

maricus,

How is the term, ‘same-sex marriage’, illogical?

phanto,

The answer to your question is easy.

<<Why should same-sex couples want to involve the government in their business?>>

Because they involve themselves in the business of opposite-sex marriage - with all the benefits that that entails - and deny same-sex couples the same opportunity/privilege for no good reason. It's discriminatory.

But we’ve already been through this before.

Hi there SAINTS...

I don't believe anyone in our community should be subjected to any physical harm or verbal abuse because of their life-style. As long as it's legal, and homosexuality between consenting males (by virtue of that, sodomy) is legal. However it doesn't diminish one iota, the risks they confront if they choose to engage in this perilous course of conduct, by unwittingly foraging through darkened parks and public places, seeking out like minded males.

Some have been found (rescued) inebriated, in order for them to achieve a form of 'dutch courage'. Often because they're new in town, or loneliness, fear of scandal, or to avoid their spouse or long term partners. Well I'm here to respectfully advocate, this type of behaviour can attract serious trouble just like radar, seeking out these poor buggers, many of them are not street wise, nor are they 'bullet proof'. You don't need to be a social worker to see how some of these incidences can sadly end?

Getting married is telling the world - people you know or will get to know - you're a committed couple. The government recognises this and a raft of legislation including benefits and obligations applies to you along with social expectations. This is all that couples of the same sex are asking for. It's no skin off my nose and I have zero respect for theocrats who want to make it skin off theirs. I resent being required to vote yes or no in a ridiculous plebiscite on others' right to marry and if it comes about I won't select yes or no but will write on the ballot paper "None of my #@$@&% business". I'd urge others to do likewise.

EmperorJulian:

“Getting married is telling the world - people you know or will get to know - you're a committed couple.”

Why would you need to do this? Why do you care so much about what others think of you?

“The government recognises this and a raft of legislation including benefits and obligations applies to you along with social expectations.”

The same raft of legislation including benefits and obligations applies to couples who are not married so why should there be a special category of ‘married’ couples if in the eyes of the government if they are the same?

What social expectations are you talking about? Why should society have any expectations of you as a couple that they do not already have of you as a single?

Minotaur

"Thanks for demonstrating you have absolutely no credibility Saints".

Thanks for the compliment.

Every question that phanto has asked with "why" and "what" in it has the same answer: For much the same reason that 10 million or so other Australians do, along with hundreds of million Europeans and Americans do. Try being a person of the world and asking them, starting with married people you know.

Hi o sung wu

“I don't believe anyone in our community should be subjected to any physical harm or verbal abuse because of their life-style”.

I totally agree, however there are those in our society who chose to ignore or even acknowledge gay bashing still occurs. They only talk of “rainbows” and chose to ignore some inconvenient truths.

Most of us have worked alongside gays, lesbians, transgender etc in complete harmony and have forged life long friendships, they are no different to you or I, they just live a different lifestyle. Times have changed in acceptance since the 70’s.

Three years ago two guys from work opened up a “support group” for those who didn’t feel inclusive in society, or hadn’t quite announced they were gay. Our guys came back with some rather extremely sad life experiences related to them by their “fellow family” guests, from physical abuse, drugs, alcohol and other addictions.

Three teams in the work place organised a fortnightly run to assist the “support group” guys in their work, the funds provided tea, coffee, fruit platters or anything else to assist in running 3 nightly meetings per week for their “fellow family” guests.

The “support group” wanted a place whereby their guests could talk openly, have a safe place and support of others – and not feel judged.

We all felt proud in the fact that we were able to show support to our two guys (both gay) – who felt passionate enough to go the extra mile to help others in a time of great stress. We celebrate their successes and the positive effects they have made in many lives of all “fellow family” guests.

Hi there SAINTS...

Gay bashing is still the preferred sport of 'boofheads', most of whom wouldn't dare confront a male, Gay or otherwise, in a 'one-out' stink, which surely exemplifies the precise bounds of their personal courage! Please don't misunderstand me, I'm no 'white knight' who's inclined to defend homosexual behaviour, in fact I find it quite repugnant on every level. That doesn't mean I'm a closet supporter of these maggot gangs who seek out these unfortunate men, for the purpose of bashing them senseless on the feigning deception it's a curative practice in order to 'turn' or 'return' a gay man back to normal heterosexuality?

"Often funded by governments or billionaire members of the establishment such as George Soros, the 'LGBT' lobby has become more and more brazen in its extreme demands to curtail freedom under the guise of banning “hate.” In the face of opposition from Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and even many liberty-minded homosexuals, however, it has become clear that the only way to quickly achieve the goals of radical LGBT-agenda proponents is co-opting education and the press, and the coercive power of the state. (See: Thursday, 02 January 2014 -
Citing EU, Italy Orders Journalists to Promote Homosexual Agenda.)

"To put it simply, there is an obvious effort on the part of the left to demonize anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda and the argument being used is that disagreement with their ideals equates to hatred and bigotry." http://freedomoutpost.com/exposing-global-effort-behind-homosexual-agenda/

Like the skewed "statistics" that are used by the Feminazis to justify funding, air time, journalistic license, university scholarships, government policies and more, the industry that runs this mindset and the misanthropes behind it need to be brought to account. I doubt that will happen for a very long time though. Maybe there is hope in the form of people like Hanson/Trump. There are far more instances of women perpetrating Domestic Violence (both in hetero and homo relationships) than is ever reported. As usual its the children who are the meat in the sandwich.

The term "best interests of the child" as used by the Family Court can and has been bastardised. Today it is the weapon of choice for those seeking to excommunicate their former partner/spouse.

That we, as a society are being forced to participate in this plebiscite at all tells me that fascism is alive and well in today's Australia.

In the words of Ines Radman: "Why do I need to accept it? Do you see Swingers organizing huge Swinger Pride Parades and openly sharing partners? Do you see normal, healthy, natural couples organizing huge Pride Natural Couple parades to bring about awareness? We should because we have lost those values about family, mother and father raising children."

EmperorJulian:

"Try being a person of the world and asking them, starting with married people you know."

I know you and you are married but you did not give me an answer! You just said for the same reasons as other married people which is not an answer. Perhaps you don't have one.

Albie Manton,

Thank you for this discussion’s first instance of the Naturalistic fallacy with a quote from some bigot (yes, ‘bigot’ is a fair and apt term until someone can come up with a rational argument against same-sex marriage) who misses the point and uses a false analogy to support their position (swingers aren’t discriminated against) and the baseless implication that children need both a male and a female parent for optimal development (there is no evidence for that, and plenty of evidence to the contrary).

phanto,

Whether or not EmperorJulian has a good reason for being married is irrelevant to the issue.

Phanto, mountains of reasons have been explored for the origins and growth of the the social phenomenon of marriage. Whole libraries could be filled with them. Not being a historian or sociologist or having to explain the reasons why marriage is embedded in the custom of billions of people and why I am one of that vast number who go along with it, I can only suggest you look for your own explanations if it matters to you. Like the rest of those billions I have chosen to go with the flow. I don't begrudge that decision being legally available to people whose personal partnership decisions are based on different sexual criteria from my own. I do not wish to choose in a plebiscite what arbitrary criteria are to go on being imposed on other people. Do you?

EmperorJulian:

Why do they need to be legally married?

I begrudge government involvement in marriage since there is no need for it to happen. I begrudge my government wasting its time.

AJ Phillips, sure the examples posted are 'bigoted' as are most other self interest groups and the dogma that goes with it. What I object to (in the words of Dennis) See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

is the labelling by those who express an opinion different to yours as "bigoted".

Celebrate what unites us...not what divides.

What no comment about the Soros, MSM, academia reference...? AJ, I'm shattered... and here I was thinking you had an enquiring mind with a balanced view on things.

No AJ, I don't accept that I have to, or am about to have to submit to an illegal act in participating in an event foisted upon me by someone else's agenda. That is not democracy.

AJ, I brought up 2 sons by myself after their mother left. 19 yrs as a single Dad without any partners (LGBTI or otherwise). In that period I didn't feel the need to 'out' or 'go queer' because my partner had slept with someone else. Nor did I march in the street and demand a plebiscite. If in life you find a mate (S-S or otherwise) to raise a child(ren) with ...awesome ! I believe it is a 2 person endeavour even to this day.

I did however find lots of resistance to the fact I had been awarded custody and control of my children from the Feminazis and their ilk, so please spare me the lecture.

BTW, during my days in the ADF, 'LGBT' was an acronym for: "Laser Guided Bomb Technology, LGBTI ...same but the 'I' signifies "Indicated".

Whilst I may not agree with your point of view, I have however worn a uniform to fight for your right to express that point of view and all the other freedoms that were once protected by the common law rights and implied rights under our constitution. Today however, due to the influence of so many self interests, lobbies and such, we have lost that sense of duty with many of the rights. But for some it seems we're obliged to 'vote' on something we are either morally, spiritually or philosophically opposed to.

AJ Phillips wrote:

"Let's hope Australia can learn some lessons from America's dwindling democracy and save what little we have left before we get to that extent. The fall of the Howard Government was a good start, although they were well on their way to stuffing things up with some of the the anti-terror laws. Thank goodness we don't have an electronic voting system – yet."
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 7:29:08 PM

All good and well though AJ to express an opinion, but in light of your stance on the plebiscite, the rationale don't hold water here.

The War On Everything was just the precursor, democracy (if you can call an outpost of the British Empire such) - as it was up until 1942, then thank goodness we don't have the US Constitution as well. Since WW2 though, we have in all but actual government been the 51st state of America.

You can help stop democracy dwindling in Australia by letting people exercise their free will and not force them to vote on something you espouse...just sayin' !

I’m sure some people do that, Albie Manton.

<<What I object to … is the labelling by those who express an opinion different to yours as "bigoted".>>

I don’t, however, and I even said, “yes, ‘bigot’ is a fair and apt term until someone can come up with a rational argument against same-sex marriage”, to highlight the fact.

You see, whether or not one is bigoted has nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not, but whether or not they can rationally justify their stance, and an opposition to same-sex marriage cannot be rationally justified. Unless, of course, you have something new for me that I haven’t heard before?

<<What no comment about the Soros, MSM, academia reference...?>>

No. What about it?

<<… I don't accept that I have to … submit to an illegal act in participating in an event foisted upon me by someone else's agenda. That is not democracy.>>

No, it certainly doesn’t sound like democracy to me either. What illegal act are we talking about, by the way?

<<… I didn't feel the need to 'out' or 'go queer' because my partner had slept with someone else.>>

I’m sure you didn’t. I can’t imagine many would. What a bizarre thing to say.

<<Nor did I march in the street and demand a plebiscite.>>

Of course not. Why would you?

<<I did however find lots of resistance to the fact I had been awarded custody and control of my children from the Feminazis and their ilk, so please spare me the lecture.>>

I’m glad it all seems to have worked out for you. I’m not sure what lecture I need to spare you of though. There were problems with a quote you appeared to agree with and I pointed them out. That’s all.

<<… in light of your stance on the plebiscite, the rationale don't hold water here.>>

That was something I said nine years ago. What relevance does it have to this issue?

By the way, voting in a plebiscite is not compulsory. No one is forcing anyone to vote on anything.

Same-sex marriage is illogical because:
Our bodies are made (or have evolved if you prefer) for heterosexual sex so anything else is not logical.
One of the reasons for marriage throughout history is procreation between the couple which can't happen with SSM and that is not due to some illness or mutation, so it is not logical.
These are statements of fact, and so I believe is this one - it is a violation of God's created order, they are not bigotry. SSM is illogical therefore there is no case for it and it should be rejected as it has been throughout the rest of history, it is SSM supporters who need to make a case and they have not, indeed cannot.

maricus,

This is essentially just the Appeal to Nature fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)

<<Our bodies are made (or have evolved if you prefer) for heterosexual sex so anything else is not logical.>>

It also ignores the evidence for the evolution of homosexuality:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.595.7163&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=econ_wp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/247233162_Is_male_homosexuality_maintained_via_kin_selection/links/00b4952d4c6f539bde000000.pdf
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/4068897/test_of_homosexual_hypothesis.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1480637678&Signature=lFASoq8xXDgK3kwuQYozqkUK1Bg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DAn_Empirical_Test_of_the_Kin_Selection_H.pdf

<<One of the reasons for marriage throughout history is procreation between the couple which can't happen with SSM and that is not due to some illness or mutation, so it is not logical.>>

This is the Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)

<<… it is a violation of God's created order ..>>

This argument counts for nothing until you can demonstrate the existance of your god.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

<<… there is no case for [same-sex marriage] …>>

Yes, there is: equality.

<<… and it should be rejected as it has been throughout the rest of history, …>>

Another Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy. Do you mob have anything other than fallacies to support your position?

<<… it is SSM supporters who need to make a case and they have not, indeed cannot.>>

I just did.

Maricus:

“Same-sex marriage is illogical because:”

It is illogical for the same reasons that opposite sex marriage is illogical. No one needs to get married and no good reason has been presented why they do. Of course people have a right to do illogical things but they do not have a right to have the government aid and abet them in their illogical quest. They are welcome to have their church or their ‘community’ witness their behaviour if they so wish but in order to qualify for government involvement they should be able to mount a good argument for that involvement.

As it stands getting married is illogical. It is illogical whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. Governments must make sure that any behaviour to which they are a party is rational. This is their first and foremost priority. Other issues such as discrimination are irrelevant unless the behaviour can first be proven to be reasonable.

‘Marriage equality’ only adds even more irrationality.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”., and never has been.
Marriage is a well established institution in our society, as well as many other societies. Same sex marriage is an invalid term.
If there are same sex unions, whose participants want them institutionalised, then they need to give such unions a name, and seek acceptance by society, and cease telling lies like “marriage inequality, and trying to hijack another word like they did with the word "gay".
Pervertiage might be appropriate. Sodomiage could be seen as excluding women.

Thanks for yet another example of the Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, Leo Lane. You homophobes really don't have anything, do you?

Still no one has demonstrated why the term, 'same-sex marriage', is 'illogical' or 'invalid'.

Anyone else want to give it a crack?

Marriage is between a man and a woman, so “same sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms, and invalid, as you well know, vi.
Howard’s amendment to the Marriage Act did not change the law. It affirmed the existing law by codifying it.
You have nothing, AJ, to justify your assertion of invalidity, and you confirm this by reverting to your puerile, baseless name calling.

What a stupid argument, Leo Lane.

<<Marriage is between a man and a woman, so “same sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms ...>>

So, presumably, when marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, you'll be fine with it because the term will then be valid.

<<You have nothing, AJ, to justify your assertion of invalidity ...>>

I'm not the one arguing that the term is invalid, Leo. You are. Remember?

<<... and you confirm this by reverting to your puerile, baseless name calling.>>

"Reverting", as if it were something that I was doing before and have had to go back to.

Sorry, Leo, but my name calling doesn't prove any such thing, nor does it absolve you of the fallacy you committed. My name calling remains valid for so long as no one here can provide a rational argument against same-sex marriage. Perhaps you could pray to your non-existent god for one?

By the way, you are in no position to knock someone for name calling.

AJ says:”“when marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman,”
That is off topic, AJ, we are talking about the real situation, not a hypothetical situation, which you throw up because you have no valid justification for your position. The facts are against you, the law is against you.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, the assertion of same sex marriage is baseless nonsense, and an invalid concept.
Marriage inequality is a ridiculous lie.
You have nothing to justify your position, so you respond with irrelevant nonsense.
Your argument is that if the facts were different, you would not be wrong. The facts are not different, marriage is between a man and a woman, so you are wrong. There is no shred of justification for your nonsense.

AJ Philips you are the most boring, know it all, on this entire olo and Forum. You must be a homosexual guy and have no friends, and it is no wonder nobody likes you on the Forum. You tell many lies about who you are and all your qualifications being a criminalogest and other things. So now, you should just go away please AJ Philips, because you are just a, know it all person. So just go away please.

Leo Lane cannot put together a logical or coherent argument against same sex marriage and Misanthrope resorts to insults. Pretty obvious A.J. Philips is clearly winning the argument. As usually happens when against those opposing same sex marriage equality.

What are you talking about, Minotaur?
The fact is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
There is no argument, and no basis for the attempted concept of marriage between individuals of the same sex, whose proponents are making futile arguments against irrefutable facts.

Leo Lane,

No, my hypothetical was perfectly on topic where your reply was concerned because it showed the flaw in your thinking.

<<The facts are against you, the law is against you.>>

So, once again, presumably, when marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, you'll be fine with it because the term will then be valid.

<<Marriage is between a man and a woman, the assertion of same sex marriage is baseless nonsense, and an invalid concept.>>

The debate is not over whether or not same-sex marriage is currently legislated for, but whether or not it should be.

<<Marriage inequality is a ridiculous lie.>>

Not so long as same-sex couples aren't able to marry.

<<You have nothing to justify your position, so you respond with irrelevant nonsense.>>

Yes, I have: better equality. It is you who has not justified their position, and you're committing the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy in the meantime to distract from the fact.

<<Your argument is that if the facts were different, you would not be wrong.>>

No. Unlike you, I am not relying on legal status to justify my position. The legal status of same-sex marriage says nothing for whether or not it should be legislated for. If that were the case, then the laws would never change.

Misanthrope,

Of course most here don't like me. Most on OLO are of a conservative bent. I would be worried if they did like me as it would suggest that I'm either not doing a very good job of articulating myself or I'm not presenting very convincing arguments.

Thanks for the ad hominem too. The fact that you lot can't present a rational argument and rely almost entirely on personal attacks suggests that I'm on the money. And no, I won't be going anywhere. Ever. So either get used to me or leave. Learn to be a bit more civil, too, while you're at it.

AJP's patience is amazing. He bases his call for marriage equality on the accepted rules of reasoning and calls out those who violate them. However the differences are not in the reasoning process but in the premises. If the definition of marriage requires marriage to be between a man and a woman then no homosexual union is a marriage. The debate is over removing that arbitrary requirement.

Basically the public debate is really about laws relating to marriage, and a call for these laws be rewritten so the sexual definition re-asserted in Howard's Marriage Act is abandoned.

What are the rules governing heterosexual marriage? What would be the consequences if these rules were extended to homosexual wheelbarrow (I know, I know, the homophobe lobby don't want it called marriage). Well one consequence would be that same sex couples would have available to them the same laws that are now available to a man and a woman who marry. What person who can mind his or her own business over other people's lives is harmed by this? What person who can't mind his or her own business over other people's lives is worth the slightest consideration in Australian law? I'd give any such a person no consideration, only contempt.

So what is stopping Mr Turnbull showing leadership and making Mr Abbott's opus dei metastases put up or shut up in a vote on the floor of the parliament?

Emperor J, you take a very shallow and limited view.
The question is whether one of our basic and important social institutions should be interfered with to satisfy the whim of a self absorbed ,arrogant, dishonest 1.6% minority.
If they want to institutionalise the same sex union, they should set about doing so, and start by realising that marriage is institutionalised world-wide, and is the union of a man and a woman. The name of this well established foundation stone of society is not available to be hijacked and used inappropriately.
It is not a simple matter of a definition, it is a matter of preserving an important element of our society from depredation by a noisy minority.

EmperorJulian:

You are in favour of same-sex marriage and yet you cannot come up with one logical reason why people should go through the action of getting married. What is the point of arguing for something on the basis of equality if that behaviour is illogical?

There is no logical reason for marrying and so there is no logical reason for changing marriage legislation since there is no logical reason for having that legislation.

You talk of the benefits of getting married but what benefits are there which are not already available to couples whether they are heterosexual or homosexual?

What is the point of agitating for something that is totally irrational? Unless you can come up with a good argument in favour of marriage then all your huffing and puffing about equality and discrimination makes no sense.

I have asked you why your want to be married and you have not given one answer. If it is so reasonable to go through the process of getting married then it should not be hard to come up with at least one answer.

Phanto, how about a billion answers? Say 100 million from north America, 100 million from South America 200 million from Europe, 100 million from Africa, 200 million from China, 200 million from the Middle East, 100 million from Russia?, 100 million from the regions I haven't thought of. If the question of why people marry really bothers you and you're not just trolling, do your own research. Google beckons.

EmperorJulian:

That is not an argument it is just a statement of fact that a billion people are married. It does not tell me why they are married and what logic led them to marry.

Not everything that people do is logical.

If it is just a question of numbers then you could also say that there are a billion people who are opposed to same sex marriage so does that make it logical?

Do I have to do research to find out why people marry? Is it that complex an issue? Did you do research before you got married?

I already know many of the reasons that people give for getting married but I have not yet heard a logical one. I do not know which ones you give because you will not tell me. You seem to be avoiding the question. You want homosexual people to be able to marry but you cannot give a good reason why anyone in general should get married so therefore you cannot give a good reason why homosexuals in particular should marry. You do not have an argument for your case unless you have an argument for marriage in general. That is fundamental logic. You have to be able to give reasons for changing something especially if you want the government to change something.

Perhaps you married because you gave way to emotional pressure or out of some misguided sentiment about you relationship. Perhaps you do not want to focus on why you did what you did and perhaps why you even remain married. You do not want to examine your reasons and so you just resort to platitudes and rhetoric that are trotted out in regard to marriage.

The more marriages the better – that way we do not have to question the whole notion of marriage. A billion people cannot be wrong - or can they?

Leo Lane, simply stating 'marriage is between a man and a woman' is not an argument. It is an empty statement. And to claim it is a world wide institution for a man and woman is simply wrong and ignorant of the fact that many countries have embraced same-sex marriage.

You also completely ignore the fact that same-sex couples have marriage ceremonies all the time...the only difference is that their marriage has no legal recognition from the Federal government. That can be rectified by a simple legislative amendment.

I'd say I look forward to some rebuttal of intellect but I have no expectation of that happening.

phanto,

Here’s a logical argument for marriage: it provides a speedy nationally and internationally recognised way of proving a couple’s legal rights and relationship status (as opposed to state-based de facto laws that differ from place to place).

So your non-sequitur, that marriage should therefore not be extended to same-sex couples, is bunk - even ignoring for a moment the fact that it’s a non sequitur to begin with.

Phanto writes: "Perhaps you do not want to focus on why you did what you did and perhaps why you even remain married"

Not really. Not a single reason but a range of reasons that amount to a subset of the massive range of reasons that govern the rest of the billion. We are both quite satisfied about our marriage and have no interest in exploring it with an ignoramus on line.

If you repeat the same question the answer will be exactly the same but may not be transmitted as repetition is boring.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, Minotaur,> The statement is one of fact, and definition, like the statement that two parallel lines never meet. It is axiomatic, so not open to argument.
“Same sex marriage” is a nonsense. The union of a same sex couple is not marriage.
That is why the movement for perversion of marriage aims to change the legal definition, as if that will wipe out millennia of society establishing and sustaining the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The legislated legal definition of marriage is simply a restatement of the definition of the institute of marriage. It is not a fabricated definition like the one proposed for perversion of the term "marriage".

I have just read through 14 pages of this, and no-one has stated the reason a plebiscite was rejected. When it was first mooted certain parties, including Labor, were opposed to the cost, estimated to be in the region of $525m. The argument was, you're the government, either do it or don't do it, we don't need to spend $525m. That's how it stands, you cannot add for or against arguments here, because for or against hasn't been decided.

If you want to change the definition of marriage in Australian society, then at least give Australians a say in it... bring on the plebiscite.

No handful of pollies have the right to change this without the assent of the people.

The vast majority of hate and rabid behaviour has been coming from the Progressive Left and a minority of LGTBIQ people. Why should we change tradition and a rite that has been with us for millenia on the say so of a very very very small minority?

It's not about love or equality... marriage is more than that... its about change for change sake.

Re Billyd

I think the reasons for the rejection of a plebiscite have been

1. The cost
2. The belief that a plebiscite would lead to a hate fest
3. My own objection, that neither I nor any other citizen has the right to decide on what sexual criteria other people should be permitted to marry.

Same sex couples wish to be able to marry under the same rules as male-female couples, with the addition that reference to gender be omitted. They wish for all the conditions allowing a man and a woman to marry to apply also to them. That'll be why SSM advocates call it marriage equality.

The main objection to marriage equality seems to be from people who have grown used to their own type of marriage (heterosexual) enjoying a supremacist privilege in which society and its culture has long been sculpted around their particular type of sexual union, and who wish it to remain "special" or exclusive.

Any legislative change opening up the definition of marriage to same sex couples would require removing any reference to gender from legal provisions relating to married couples. This could easily be legislated by a vote in the national parliament.

Surely not a big deal, too big to be voted on in parliament. Turnbull is allowing himself to be hogtied to a mainly Roman Catholic mafia which has internalised Bob Santamaria's Jesuitism - a mafia as little an expression of the Roman Catholic religion as ISIS is an expression of Islam.

Why can't the dogmatists get over it by adding an asterisk, in all their correspondence, to their own marriage status so that recipients can gasp "Wow"?

Leo Lane once again you make statements but have no argument to support them. Very typical of opponents of same-sex marriage...absolutely no substance.

Cost? You are kidding right?
If it costs $200 million for all Australians to have a say about their society then so be it... all Australians deserve a say on this issue.

As for more hate speech, come off it what is there is there and it will not get worse than it already is and the fact is most hate speech has been from those supporting SSM... as for people committing suicide due to it... pull the other one just how weak minded do you honestly think gay people are? Do you honestly think they are all delicate little flowers who cant tolerate dissent?

As for the LW Progressive push, well when you put that together with their current agenda re sexual fluidity etc, the view of the future is certainly more different than they claim it will be.

Why should voters be given a say on what should be simple legislative change?

AJ Philips I am right you are a homosexual man because you did not say no or deny it did you. I have not a problem with you beeing a homosexual man, it is because you are a "know it all" person and bacause of that nobody likes you. You think a lot about yourself a very big head they call it, you think you are much clevery than anyone else. You need a long time in the Army of my <former country Albania> and all that "know it all" syuff you have would be lost from you quick smart. But that is not possibly because of you beeing a homosexual man and a very weak man as well. I say I don't have a problem of you beeing a homosexual man, I think it is a sickness and against Gods laws.

Seems to me that misanthrope has massive issues with gay people, in particular gay men. To call someone's sexuality a 'sickness', well that's just a 'sick' and pathetic attitude to have.

And A.J is certainly winning the debate as now the rebuttals are in the form of personal insults. A sure sign that the person using them has no argument and arguably intellectually bereft.

The minotaur was a man headed bull in classical mythology. The sculptor of the Archibald Fountain must have had someone like you in mind, Minotaur, when he depicted it as a bull headed man.
You seem to lack basic education. Why not ascertain what is meant by “definition” and “axiomatic”, and you will understand how ignorant your comments are..
The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman has stood for millennia, and is not a matter for argument.
Minotaur you say:” the rebuttals are in the form of personal insults. A sure sign that the person using them has no argument “
So when Phillips calls someone a “homophobe” he is losing the argument. He is certainly losing, he has done that more than once.

//The statement is one of fact, and definition, like the statement that two parallel lines never meet. It is axiomatic, so not open to argument.//

But they do meet, Leo. In elliptic geometry, for any given line l and a point A, which is not on l, all lines through A will intersect l.

//AJ Philips I am right you are a homosexual man because you did not say no or deny it//

When this is the level of reasoning being employed by the anti-SSM mob, it is only a matter of time before it becomes a reality.

Once again Leo Lane offers nothing of substance but plenty of bluster while he lays out the insults. To label someone ignorant but not even acknowledge that the concept of marriage has evolved in so many progressive countries and jurisdictions to include same-sex couples is hypocrisy writ large.

Here's some free education for those such as Leo. Marriage is a human construct and not a natural one. Its very existence is fluid and has involved centuries of change. Read the history of it sometime, if that is not too much trouble for those who seem so intent on maintaining personal opinion as some sort of irrefutable fact. You will see that the evolution of marriage now indeed does include same-sex couples.

I reiterate that to simply repeat the statement that marriage is solely for a man and a woman is not an argument against same-sex marriage. And A.J. Philips has been winning the argument because no one can offer a decent counter...his/her use of homophobe has been invariably well targeted too.

Misanthrope,

No, you weren't right. I am married with children.

<<I am right you are a homosexuaHul man because you did not say no or deny it did you.>>

I didn't deny it for four reasons:

1. My sexuality is irrelevant.
2. I had a word limit.
2. Despite what your ignorant generation thinks, calling someone a homosexual is no longer considered offensive.
3. I have corrected so many people who think it's safe to assume that I'm gay now that you would have to be one of the only people on OLO who isn't aware of the fact that I'm not.

<<I have not a problem with you beeing a homosexual man …>>

Then why assume that if you don't think it's an insult? What relevance would it otherwise have?

<<You think a lot about yourself …>>

No, but I do think highly of the arguments I use. That's why I use them. And the fact that you need to resort to personal attacks to respond is a testament to just how good they are. How about you try mounting a rational argument against them instead of slinging mud? I bet you can't do it.

<<You need a long time in the Army of my <former country Albania> and all that "know it all" syuff you have would be lost from you quick smart.>>

Apparently all that would do is turn me into an ignorant conservative. You're not really selling it for me, sorry.

<<I think it is a sickness and against Gods laws.>>

Well, you're wrong on both counts. Homosexuality is now known to not be a sickness and there is no evidence that your god exists.

But please do keep the insults coming. They make my arguments look good and help to discredit the opposition, who, I might add, still have not managed to present a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

Leo Lane,

My use of the word ‘homophobe’ would only be a sign of failure of it were misdirected or used in lieu of a rational argument.

Repeating the same nonsense, Minotaur? “marriage” means the union of a man and a woman. You have no answer to that, so you repeat the same pointless nonsense. Whatever the union of same sex couples is, it is not marriage.
You have no answer to that , Minotaur, and repetition of your baseless nonsense will not make it true. Your assertions about “winning the argument” are pathetic. Phillips has been unable to advance any basis to include same sex couples in the term “marriage”. He has in effect conceded that it will not happen without a change of the present definition..
You have no rational basis to invalidate or detract from the definition of marriage I have provided. It is the social definition and the legal definition. It excludes same sex unions.

This topic sure has legs given the diversity of some of the commentary and the many insults flying about. For such a minor issue in my opinion, why doesn't government simply allow Gays to marry. They've decriminalised the offence of sodomy, and that in itself was a mighty big hurdle to conquer, given public opinion in the mid-sixties to the early seventies, surely then to advance the next step, and permit them to marry, will not cause any more appreciable harm.

If various religious groups, even churches within those groups, mount any formal objection against performing a marriage ceremony, between Gays - Well exempt them, by allowing them to observe their own religious conscience; consistent with their own particular religious credo. I really can't understand what all the various objections are about?

If the anti-gay marriage proponents think by delaying any government decision, they'll ultimately fraught the entire proposition, well they're wrong. Gays will ultimately have their way in this issue. After all, what's the point in causing any additional pain, by delaying the inevitable.

//It is the social definition and the legal definition.//

Yeah, you do know that the Parliament has the power to change legal definitions, don't you?

With or without a plebiscite.

Leo Lane,

For someone who is a retired lawyer, you are surprisingly bad at articulating yourself. There are three ways to interpret your position, going by what you've said so far:

1. That marriage is not between two members of the same sex because it’s not, and that it is between a man and a woman because it is.
2. That marriage cannot be between two members of the same sex because it’s always been between a man and a woman.
3. That a marriage can just never be between two members of the same sex.

The first is a tautology. The second is the Argumentum as antiquitatem fallacy. The third ignores that marriage is a social construct and relies on the existence of a higher authority (e.g. a god) or a logical absolute.

So which one is it, Leo? Or is there a fourth one I’ve missed? Because until you can articulate your thoughts in a coherent manner, discussion with you is pointless.

<< Phillips has been unable to advance any basis to include same sex couples in the term “marriage”.>>

Yes, I have: better equality.

<<He has in effect conceded that it will not happen without a change of the present definition..>>

“Conceded”, as if it were done reluctantly. You do realise that I can rationally justify my position regardless of the definition of marriage, don't you? The definition includes two members of the same sex in many jurisdictions around the world now. Does that mean that you'd automatically be wrong in those jurisdictions and that I'd be right? What kind of logic would that be?

I'm starting to think you don't know what anyone is arguing here. Including yourself.

o sung wu has summed up the situation perfectly.

The sun will rise no matter how fervently some will cling to the cover of darkness.

As I have said before, AJP, and for some reason you choose to ignore, the union of a same sex couple is not marriage and, now that it is no longer a criminal offence, should be given a name, and its acceptance by society sought, by its proponents.
The attempt to hijack the term, “marriage” should cease. Marriage is an important and well established institution in our society, and should not be subjected to depradation of its status by an arrogant, self centred, inconsiderate minority of 1.6% of our population.
Let them go through the process necessary to gain the status they wish to attain for their unions, and desist in their attempts to interfere with the rights and status of others.
Even AJP might be able to assimilate that.

The reality is that a large number of LGBTIQ people are not committed to a long-term, monogamous relationship. Two recent national surveys, “Private lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians” and “Monopoly: A study of gay men’s relationships”, it is clear that a large number of LGBTIQ people prefer a more fluid lifestyle. All my Gay friends agree with that, none are interested in getting married.

In the 1st survey: Only 5-10% reported formalising the relationship with a marriage or commitment ceremony, while most others had no wish to do so. In the 2nd survey: Only a minority of men indicated they would like to marry their primary regular partner. To the question, “Would you marry your partner?” only 11% said yes.

While Turnbull favours a plebiscite, a policy largely endorsed by the Australian people in a survey, Shorten and Wong say they fear that debate will lead to gays and lesbians being vilified and attacked. Suddenly Australians have all become homophobic and hateful. Both are wrong to argue that those supporting "heterosexual" marriage are bigoted etc. The Left’s default position has been to engage in ad hom attacks. Supporters of "heterosexual" marriage condemned as “homophobic”, “heteronormative”, “bigoted” and, God forbid... “Christian”.

While they both argue in favour of SSM a great many in the LGBTIQ community show no real interest in it. Also ironic that, after being elected as servants of the people, they wish to deny one of the basic tenets of democracy – the right of citizens to vote on issues. Surely this issue demands the people have a say. Without it, any change will have no credibility or authority.

97% of Australians identify as heterosexual, surely they have every right to express their opinion on whether the institution of marriage, a cornerstone, a bedrock of a stable, peaceful society, should be so radically redefined.

If only 11% of 3% want this change... just why are we contemplating it. Little wonder they refuse a plebiscite and seek a Progressive government consisting of a handful of pollies to over-rule the rest of us.

No, Leo Lane, I don’t choose to ignore anything. You simply haven’t justified or elaborated on that claim with anything reasonable.

<<As I have said before, AJP, and for some reason you choose to ignore, the union of a same sex couple is not marriage …>>

Yes, yes, I know… because of the definition. But what if the definition changes? Definitions change all the time. And, again, would you be wrong in countries where the definition of marriage includes two members of the same sex?

<<The attempt to hijack the term, “marriage” should cease.>>

Terms can’t be hijacked. No one owns them and words change their meanings over time either way.

<<Marriage is an important and well established institution in our society, and should not be subjected to depradation of its status by an arrogant, self centred, inconsiderate minority of 1.6% of our population.>>

There are two false assumptions here:

1. that marriage as an institution is under attack or threatened in some way, and;
2. that it is only homosexual people pushing for same-sex marriage.

As a heterosexual myself, one of the reasons I’m in favour of same-sex marriage is because more equality is always beneficial to a society when there are no reasons to withhold it.

<<Let them go through the process necessary to gain the status they wish to attain for their unions, and desist in their attempts to interfere with the rights and status of others.>>

How will the statuses of others be affected?

//they wish to deny one of the basic tenets of democracy – the right of citizens to vote on issues.//

That's not how Westminster democracy works. In Westminster democracy the citizens have the right to vote for Parliamentary representatives, and those representatives vote on issues in the Parliament. Or at least, that's the way it has worked in the past, and it has served us and Britain so well that I believe we tinker with it at our peril. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm amazed at how many supposed 'conservatives' are arguing in favour of a radical shake-up of our democratic processes because they're upset about the prospect of a law that won't affect them anyway. Bizarre.

//Surely this issue demands the people have a say.//

Why? Why this one issue and no others? Why is it acceptable for the Government to pass laws on all sorts of relly important things like taxation, superannuation, public health, transport, education etc. - things that will have a direct impact on your life - but when it comes to a law that won't have the slightest effect on anybody who isn't gay and considering marriage, suddenly representative democracy isn't good enough any more. What's up with that?

//Without it, any change will have no credibility or authority.//

It will have credibility and authority of Parliament, the same as all our other laws. Or do you show similar contempt for Acts of Parliament you dislike? What a great society that would be to live in, if everybody just decided that the laws they don't like had no credibility or authority. I imagine the road toll would go up for a start.

//97% of Australians identify as heterosexual, surely they have every right to express their opinion//

Yes they do. And they exercise it all the time. You just did, and I'm doing it now. Nobody is trying to remove our right to freedom of expression, although we'd all prefer it if people didn't abuse that right.

//If only 11% of 3% want this change... just why are we contemplating it.//

0.33%? I'm not sure those figure are accurate. The polling I've seen generally indicates about 70% support for SSM. Obviously, most of those in support are heterosexual.

Tony obviously you and AJ are clueless on this subject and I cant work out why. Yes AJ we do not want the definition of marriage changed. Nor do all my gay friends.

Look at how the LW progressives are working at social change and their agenda re sexuality.

Currently society and its traditions are under attack from LW Progressives from 2 fronts re sexuality and society's response to it.

They want SSM to be recognised in law.
They want sexuality to be recognised as fluid and not set by your physical nature.

Hence we have the push to deny the majority of Australians a say in SSM and we have to pernicious agenda of the LW Progressives and some homosexuals to deny the natural order of sexuality where heterosexuality is the norm in order for a minority to feel "normal".

So what does this world look like?
It looks like a place where anyone can marry anyone no matter what sex they are because sex is not defined by how you are born. Physicality has no influence on your sexuality because sexuality is fluid. You can be born male but choose to be female and vice versa.

This is their future... a world where heterosexuals are just part of the mix, where you can be indoctrinated into various forms of sexuality and none are more correct than another.

A world where heterosexuals will be propositioned by homosexuals and made to feel bad if they reject them. A world where the birthrate will slow and in time fall. The third world population the only place birthrates will continue to rise.

Children will be educated and indoctrinated into a non-discriminatory sexual existence where all sexual orientations are the norm and choosing one sexuality is discriminatory. A childhood that is more confusing than ever before, where feelings and crushes etc are misinterpreted and children sexualised before even entering puberty.

Where children have sexual reassignment before they even really know what sex is.

Being an elderly individual with a relatively low IQ and even lower level of tertiary education, would someone kindly enlighten me as to the precise meaning of the letters; LGBTIQ & GLBTI please?

Is it some form of surreptitious code employed within the Gay community, in order to confuse and confound many of their boofheaded, and frequently violent adversaries? Or is it nothing more sinister than a simple acronym used for simplicity to ease written and verbal communication?

And MINOTAUR do you think perhaps, that your observations concerning MISANTHROPE'S rather 'clumsy' commentary were probably because of his/her obvious inability to clearly articulate his/her position on these issues. Rather than being simply bereft of any logical or intellectual argument? I'm thinking English perhaps is not his/her first language coming from Albania, I think he/she said?

Moreover his/her somewhat coarse and prickly remarks directed to A.J. PHILIPS, is perhaps not so much for 'what' he said, more for the 'manner' and 'style' of his argument(s)? A view entirely shared by myself, one which is well known to A.J.PHILIPS!

It really is pointless trying to engage with the likes of Leo Lane as they cannot comprehend that statements of opinion are empty rhetoric and not an argument for or against anything. They also clearly cannot comprehend what you put to them as they are too blind to see past their own shallow view point.

T800 (which terminator was that?),

I like how some of you conservative folk suddenly develop all these gay friends who agree with you when this topic arises. It's particularly amusing when an individual's lack of reasoning behind their opposition to same-sex marriage reveals a thinly-veiled disgust for a category of people to whom a portion of their friends allegedly belong. My gay family members and friends (conservative or not) would disagree with you and your friends.

<<Yes AJ we do not want the definition of marriage changed. Nor do all my gay friends.>>

Well, words and social constructs are going to change over time regardless of what you or your friends want. You and your friends are also in an ever-shrinking minority.

What about all the poor souls who wanted marriage to remain a trade or alliance-forming deal? Do you spare a thought for them?

Tell me, what reasons do these gay friends of yours have for not wanting to change the definition of marriage? Which fallacy is it that they commit?

<<[Progressives] want SSM to be recognised in law.>>

How is this an “attack” on marriage? Leo Lane made the same assumption, but apparently couldn't expand upon it.

<<[Progressives] want sexuality to be recognised as fluid and not set by your physical nature.>>

Perhaps that’s because it can be for some. And what do you mean by “physical nature”? Is this another appeal to nature that ignores the evolution of homosexuality?

<<Progressives and some homosexuals to deny the natural order of sexuality where heterosexuality is the norm in order for a minority to feel "normal".>>

Now this certainly is the Appeal to Nature fallacy. You lot don’t learn, do you?

<<[This world] looks like a place where anyone can marry anyone no matter what sex they are because sex is not defined by how you are born. Physicality has no influence on your sexuality because sexuality is fluid.>>

Yes, more like reality. A world where people don’t have to live miserable existences like they had to in the good ol’ days because they couldn’t be true to themselves.

Continued…

…Continued

<<You can be born male but choose to be female and vice versa.>>

It’s not a choice. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality)

<<... a world where ... you can be indoctrinated into various forms of sexuality and none are more correct than another.>>

Yeah, right. I feel sorry for you if you are that unsure about your sexuality and gender identity.

'Is Homophobia Associated with Homosexual Arousal?' http://www.homeworkmarket.com/sites/default/files/qx/15/04/24/01/adams_et_al_1996_homophobia_defense_mechs_article.pdf

A little spoiler: the answer is 'yes'.

<<A world where heterosexuals will be propositioned by homosexuals and made to feel bad if they reject them.>>

Why would they feel any worse than rejecting someone of the opposite sex? This is pure hyperbole.

<<A world where the birthrate will slow and in time fall.>>

Gay people still seem to be having plenty of children of their own. Would you prefer they lived miserable lives, raising children in unhappy marriages like the good ol’ days? Or do you honestly believe that there are that many out there whose sexualities and gender identities are as malleable as yours?

I could go on, but your response only gets more and more absurd as it goes. It doesn’t appear as though Toni and I are the ones who are “clueless” here.

o sung wu,

I know from years of experiment and experience that it doesn’t matter what manner or tone I use. People are going to get upset if they cannot defend strongly held beliefs when they are challenged. Therefore, I now alter my tone depending on the level of absurdity of the claims I’m dealing with, in combination with the sincerity of the person making them.

By the way, LBGTI stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex.

Terms can’t be hijacked, according to AJP.
I just read in a non-fiction book by Ion Idriess about a line of “gay young aboriginal youths”.
Of course this was written before the hijacking of the word “gay” by the political arm of the homosexual activists. This situation has arisen from the action of the lobby in respect of the word, which AJ says was not “hijacking”. What is the appropriate word,for their action if it is not "hijacking" AJ? Demonstrate for us your mastery of English usage, which you have kept so well hidden to date.
You say:” But what if the definition changes? Definitions change all the time. And, again, would you be wrong in countries where the definition of marriage includes two members of the same sex?”
The definition has not changed, so what I have said remains valid. I am not saying it in the countries to which you refer, I am saying it here, where what I say is valid, and what you say is irrelevant nonsense. There is no such thing as “same sex marriage” marriage is a union between a man and a woman in this country, here and now.
I notice bull-head is bleating the same baseless nonsense again, and showing his paucity of education.

//Tony//

Learn to spell, dyckhead. There is no 'y' in 'Toni'.

//They want sexuality to be recognised as fluid and not set by your physical nature.//

My physical nature is slim, pale and very sparsely haired (comparisons to Gollum are not required, thankyou). What sexuality does this make me, in your opinion?

Although you do know it's all crap, don't you? Physiognomy has been soundly debunked as pseudoscience. It's your brain that defines your personality.

//So what does this world look like?//

I dunno. Narnia? I hope it's Narnia.

I stopped reading when I got to your question because I had a hunch that the rest of your post was going to be an attempt at soothsaying, and I don't have much truck with so-called 'psychics' and their ilk.

Then I realised that I might have missed a valid rebuttal of my arguments in favour of preserving the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, so I did read the rest. How disappointing.

//would someone kindly enlighten me as to the precise meaning of the letters; LGBTIQ & GLBTI please?//

They're acronyms: G = Gay, L = Lesbian, B = Bisexual, T = Trans, I = Intersex, Q = Queer. Sometimes you'll also see an A, for Asexual.

//T800 (which terminator was that?)//

The really butch, masculine one that is sent back to kill Sarah Connor in the first movie. Played by the former Governor of California, in what I consider to be his finest performance and one of the greatest pieces of casting in Hollywood history. Arnie was born to play a scary, robotic killing machine.

//What is the appropriate word//

The appropriate phrase is 'semantic drift'. Look it up. It's been around for as long as language has. There is no evidence to suggest that it is part of a conspiracy by the dreaded homosexuals to inflict some sort of Newspeak on us.

//The definition has not changed, so what I have said remains valid. I am not saying it in the countries to which you refer, I am saying it here, where what I say is valid//

Sorry, did you have a point you were trying to make? Or did you just come here to point out the blindingly obvious?

//There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”//

Yep, because if something doesn't exist in Australia it doesn't really exist anywhere. Leo, you take parochialism to a new and hilarious level.

AJP, Toni, and so on still don't get it- SSM is NOT about equality and never has been, just as Safe Schools is not about anti-bullying. Smokescreens, misdirection, they have not 'won' the argument, have been unable to provide any reasonable justification for such major social change- don't even seem to realise how major it is, it is NOT a few words and a few laws- or for why thousands of years of tradition of, and the purposes for, marriage should be discarded. That's why there needs to be a plebiscite, that's why both sides must have their views heard, SSM is just one pillar of a negative Social Engineering agenda to erode and discard science, history, the facts, and individual rights and freedoms.
AJP, I see no evidence that appeal to Nature is fallacy so it is your assertions that are fallacy. Gender fluidity is an unscientific myth and the symptoms/characteristics of those who seem to suffer from this dysphoria seem remarkably similar to any number of other conditions classified as mental health issues, e.g. hating one's own body, but because it is a sexual thing it somehow isn't. Such conditions need appropriate treatment, not indulgence, quite apart from the fact that the vast majority of children showing some level of this grow out of it during puberty (which the current agenda opposes),or there will be social catastrophe down the track. Nor have you addressed the fact that most of the abuse, hatred, and intimidation in this debate is currently coming from the supporters of SSM, which surely should ring alarm bells for any reasonable person, and casts much doubt on the claims that SSM has 70 percent support which is certainly an exaggeration.

Hmm, marcius states that same-sex marriage will be a 'major social change'. I have never seen anyone justify that claim and marcius falls into the usual trap of making a statement that poses as irrefutable fact but has no substance.

As it stands it is not illegal for same sex couples to get married and same-sex couples can and do have marriage ceremonies in Australia. Others get married either overseas or in embassies on Australian territory. The friends and relatives of such couples recognise them as married and often they have a marriage certificate. The only entity that does not recognise the marriage is the Marriage Act.

According to marcius et al there should be great social upheaval due to such same sex couple unions. The fact there hasn't been shows up their claims as the outright falsehoods they are.

That's right, Leo Lane.

<<Terms can’t be hijacked, according to AJP.>>

Because nobody owns them.

<<Of course this was written before the hijacking of the word “gay” by the political arm of the homosexual activists.>>

Well you seem to know how the meaning of the word ‘gay’ changed better than anyone else then. So tell us, what were the political motivations for these activists to do such a terrible thing?

<<What is the appropriate word,for their action if it is not "hijacking" AJ?>>

You haven't yet demonstrated that the definition was deliberately altered, let alone done deviously with sinister intentions.

<<The definition [of marriage] has not changed, so what I have said remains valid.>>

Actually, it has. I made a passing mention of the fact in my response to T800. But even if it hadn't, that would not negate my point that the meaning of words change over time.

<<I am not saying it in the countries to which you refer, I am saying it here, where what I say is valid …>>

Nice sidestep there. My point was that if your argument is wrong in a different jurisdiction, then your reasoning isn't very sound. The fact that you are not currently in one of those countries is irrelevant.

<<There is no such thing as “same sex marriage” …>>

Not yet there isn't. Not in Australia at least. But where will your argument be when there is?

<<... marriage is a union between a man and a woman in this country, here and now.>>

No one has claimed that there is. You are one very confused person.

----

I have, maricus.

<<... they have ... been unable to provide any reasonable justification for such major social change …>>

Three times now: better equality. And what will all these disastrous effects be, by the way?

Continued...

Continued...

<<... or for why thousands of years of tradition of, and the purposes for, marriage should be discarded.>>

This part doesn’t make much sense to me, but it appears that you’re fallaciously appealing to tradition again.

<<SSM is just one pillar of a negative Social Engineering agenda …>>

Social engineering: the right-wing term for ‘evidence-based approach’.

<<... to erode and discard science, history, the facts, and individual rights and freedoms.>>

How are science or history or facts against same-sex marriage? How is same-sex marriage against individual rights and freedoms?

<<I see no evidence that appeal to Nature is fallacy so it is your assertions that are fallacy.>>

Ironically, this statement is the Argument from Self-knowing fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_self-knowing_.28auto-epistemic.29). Are you just messing with me here?

But, I know. None of you seem to. This should help, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Google is your friend.

Essentially, whether or not something is natural says nothing about the rightness or goodness of it. Rape is natural, but that doesn't make it right. In the context of this debate, the fallacious appeal to nature also ignores the evidence for the evolution of homosexuality.

<<Gender fluidity is an unscientific myth and the symptoms/characteristics of those who seem to suffer from this dysphoria …>>

What exactly are you referring to when you say “gender fluidity”, and what is the evidence for your claim that it’s a myth and a disorder? More importantly, what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

<<Nor have you addressed the fact that most of the abuse, hatred, and intimidation in this debate is currently coming from the supporters of SSM …>>

“Nor” have I addressed? You make it sound like there was a first thing that I didn’t address. That was relevant, at least.

How is this an argument against same-sex marriage, by the way?

<<... which surely should ring alarm bells for any reasonable person, and casts much doubt on the claims that SSM has 70 percent support which is certainly an exaggeration.>>

How so?

Hi there A.J.PHILIPS...

What ! Are you having a lend of me, eh ! I've never heard of such a mouthful when it comes to a simple acronym - it's little wonder the title is consigned to an assemblage or cluster of letters? Anyway thanks for that, I'm afraid I'm well behind the pace of things when it comes to the use of modern lingo.

You know, having read much of what you've written, it might surprise you that some of it, in principle at least, I agree with. The difference between us, I'm totally pragmatic, whereas you're very much a theoretician. And in general terms never the twain shall meet, though there is some common ground, where exactly is beyond me.

What's always triggered my bristles A.J.PHILIPS, apart from my personal enmity of you, is your intransigence in what you say is 'always right'. And you strongly assert that position by employing an immense reservoir of academic argument that tends to leave the reader profoundly stunned. To a point they stagger from the Forum in a daze, feeling as they've done 10 rds with 'Iron' Mike TYSON.

Whereas words are just that, mere words. It's personal opinions, experiences, our own and others views, that's the stuff of sound argument! We might quote 'Lord Muck' in the House of Lords occasionally, giving us his learned opinion and that's all very nice. However it's not him we wish to hear, it's yours or mine or someone else, that's who's opinion we wish to know, not some dreary Lord a century past. Thanks again for defining the acronym.

minotaur:

“As it stands it is not illegal for same sex couples to get married and same-sex couples can and do have marriage ceremonies in Australia. Others get married either overseas or in embassies on Australian territory. The friends and relatives of such couples recognise them as married and often they have a marriage certificate. The only entity that does not recognise the marriage is the Marriage Act.”

Why would you care that friends and relatives and governments recognise you as married? What difference does it make to the quality of your relationship? Your relationship is what it is no matter what others say that it is. Only couples who were insecure about their own relationship would need the affirmation of others. Recognition changes nothing.

Missed the point completely there phanto. Try reading my comment again and get a better understanding of what it says.

minotaur:

Well perhaps you can help me? Any fool can just blame the lack of comprehension on the reader. If I am so dull then why bother even replying to me?

When a respondent to a comment deliberately uses a quote out of context then they demonstrate they did not comprehend what the original comment was about. Should you want to be regarded as a dullard of that sort then don't let me stop you phanto.

minotaur:

So if I did not comprehend then why have you bothered to tell me that I did not comprehend –twice! Either you want me to comprehend because what you said was important – in which case you would seek to clarify what you said – or you would judge me to be incapable of comprehending and so not bother replying to me. Which is it? Perhaps you should put up or shut up!

There is no such thing as same sex marriage, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There is no valid argument against that. It is established by definition.
We should consider what the activist perverts say about marriage.
The lesbian activist Gessen says:”” Gay marriage is a lie.”
• “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
• “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
“Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen's candid sentiments: "Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it," he once wrote. "James Dobson was right about our evil intentions," he quipped. "We just plan to be quicker than he thought."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/matt-barber/2015/08/17/the-gay-marriage-gauntlet-time-to-choose

phanto, the point was that same-sex marriage is not illegal and same-sex couples can and do get married.

You then somehow misdirected the issue to 'recognition'. As you did raise the issue I'll play along as I'm bored. Heterosexual couples get the ultimate recognition of their 'union'...that of the 'state' and all the protections and privileges under law that gives. They also get the non-state sanctioned recognition of family and friends. Is that not one of the purposes of having a marriage ceremony...the symbolic recognition of a union supposedly entered into for life?

minotaur:

“As you did raise the issue I'll play along as I'm bored.”

Well I am not here to amuse you or be patronised by you. Either my questions were valid in the first place in which case you should treat them with the respect that all genuine questions on this forum deserve or you should ignore them.

You have responded to them now but not because you have acknowledged them out of respect but to pacify your boredom. So you still have not put up or shut up

It appears Leo Lane is providing evidence of my negative social change assertions and you can find plenty of other examples if you do your research, such as what has happened in the (small minority of) countries that have legalised SSM (and other countries have rejected legalising SSM as well)- people in all good conscience, in lands that are supposed to have freedom of speech and religion, who oppose SSM and the gender fluidity myth (if you do your research you will find that it is all part of the same agenda)dragged before courts, fined thousands of dollars or threatened with jail. Lets not forget that the issue came before the supreme court in America ( and SSM was legalised only by the narrowest of margins) only because many states held referendums on it and the majority said No but the Gay lobby would not accept the will of the people in a democracy. That is one reason it is important to note that most of the hate and intimidation in this debate is coming from the supporters of SSM because it is the behaviour of intolerant bully-persons who won't allow dissenting voices or people who know they are wrong and trying to hide that from coming out.
Oh, and: "fallacy" (noun)- 'incorrect, misleading opinion or argument, flaw in logic' That defines AJP's assertions, not mine, sorry.

The gullibility of those (including politicians, journos, business leaders) who capitulate to the homosexual lobby push for SSM, never ceases to amaze.

Oh boy, the comedy factor of this forum just ratcheted right up...phanto you pale into insignificance thanks to maricus who uses Leo Lane as a poster boy of great and convincing argument. Things get even better when stating AJ Philips has flawed arguments and maricus doesn't. Well, that claim does have some truth to it given maricus has no arguments of substance.

Then to top things off, just when you thought it couldn't get anymore absurd, along comes Raycom with nothing but an empty statement. Phanto, you have been saved by those with such a lack of substance you can almost feel the vacuum of intellect!

Yes, Bullhead, your lack of education really shows you up. Research the meanings of “definition” and “axiomatic” so that you can understand how ludicrous your assertions are.
The perverts are agitated about their situation, and want to blame someone.
They can attack traditional society, which to them is the obvious culprit by attacking its institutions. Despite their hatred and contempt for the institution of marriage, they have to pretend that they wish to be part of it to gain a position where they can more effectively attack it.
They will not even name the same sex union, which ceased to be a criminal offence some time ago.
I have a name for it:”perviage”
All we need now is legislation to enact that perviage shall be the union of two people where those people are not a man and a woman

The comedy routine from the anti same-sex marriage brigade continues courtesy of homophobe Leo Lane. And yes, by calling gay people perverts clearly exposes your homophobia. Hey, didn't Paul Hogan have a character called Leo...I do believe so and OLO won't let me print his last name, although a simple google search will reveal all. Taking inspiration from Paul Hogan and channelling his character are you Leo Lane?

Seriously though...do you (and any of your 'supporters') have any sort of coherent argument against same-sex marriage? Marriages that are currently not illegal but simply not given legal recognition under the Marriage Act. There is a difference, although I doubt you have the capacity to see it, let alone comprehend it.

And I'm still waiting (and thankfully not holding my breath) for any sort of substance to the claims the anti same-sex marriage proponents make about 'major changes' to social fabric should legal recognition be given. Then again, maybe I'm just too Bullheaded to see it.

Minotaur:

They might lack substance and intellect but they are not as gutless as you are.

I asked you to put up or shut up but you do not have the strength of character to do either. You are too busy deriding other posters and using your attack on them to also camouflage another attempt to belittle me. You are too gutless to answer my questions without qualification and you are too gutless to shut up since it could be a sure sign of you guilt and your pathetic failure to address your own evasive responses to my initial questions.

I would much rather listen to people who I disagree with but who have the courage of their convictions than an insecure bully like you.

So the views of others are a comedy routine but yours are not? Is this another attempt to bully others? If you can’t beat them at least you can ridicule them. If you were convinced of your own views then you would not need to deride other people or their arguments or even their homophobia.

If you truly were convinced of your views you would have left this discussion long ago since nothing new has been said and so there is no need for you to respond. Another case of put up or shut up for you.

phanto, go back and read my comments and while you're at it take off your blinkers that only allow you to deride and you'll see I did indeed 'put up'. I even addressed your diversionary argument. Maybe it was too complex for you despite being suitably succinct.

No you did not 'put up' - you were just trying to allay your boredom. If you were sincere in putting up then you would not have needed to try and justify your post by telling me you were bored.

Bullhead, you say:” same-sex couples can and do get married. “
By definition, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, so what you assert is nonsense, based on your uneducated ignorance, as is your scurrilous name-calling, asserting that any one who tells the truth about perverts is a homophobe

Surely it's not unreasonable to refer to someone who calls homosexual people "perverts" as a homophobe.

EmperorJulian:

Why would you need to since it is totally irrelevant to the discussion?
What matters in the discussion about SSM is who has the better arguments not what people feel. There is no need to focus on someone's phobias at all only on their arguments for or against SSM. Everyone is entitled to their own feelings and to their own opinions but the only thing that should be considered in this debate is their opinions.

A phobia is a feeling and not an opinion.

//So the views of others are a comedy routine but yours are not? Is this another attempt to bully others? If you can’t beat them at least you can ridicule them.//

Phanto, you can't expect people blessed with a sense of humour to not laugh at stuff they find amusing. It's part of the human condition. If something is funny, why is it unreasonable to laugh at it?

//Why would you need to since it is totally irrelevant to the discussion?//

Why does Leo Lane need to refer to homosexuals as perverts since it is totally irrelevant to the discussion?

More importantly, why is it only Emperor Julian who receives your censure for using irrelevant terms of abuse in the debate, but never Leo Lane even though he does so far more frequently?

//What matters in the discussion about SSM is who has the better arguments not what people feel.//

I agree. I've seen valid arguments in favour of abolishing marriage completely, and valid arguments for allowing SSM. I have yet to see an argument in favour allowing OSM but disallowing SSM which isn't fallacious. It's a bit sad really - all the time and effort that people pour into repeating fallacies over and over again in the hope that they'll magically transmute into valid arguments if they're repeated enough could be so much better spent going back to the drawing board and formulating a new, valid argument. But they just don't want to - can't be bothered, I guess.

It's their loss. If they could be bothered to formulate a valid argument, they might find that they gain a bit more traction in the debate.

ToniLavis:
I don’t think he meant funny in the sense of it being laughable. It was a put-down and not an attempt to express his sense of humour. If you find something genuinely funny then the natural reaction would be to laugh and then move on. Why would you need to tell others on this forum what you laughed at? Who cares what you laugh at? We only care what your opinions about SSM are.

“Why does Leo Lane need to refer to homosexuals as perverts since it is totally irrelevant to the discussion?”

You should ask him that. He is expressing an opinion. You are free to challenge his opinions but I do not think you are entitled to challenge his feelings. Unless you can get inside his body you will never know whether he feels afraid of homosexuality or not. Just like you cannot challenge the feelings of people who claim to be hurt or offended by not being able to get married. How do we know they are really hurt?

“More importantly, why is it only Emperor Julian who receives your censure for using irrelevant terms of abuse in the debate, but never Leo Lane even though he does so far more frequently?”

I didn’t censure him. I have no power to do so even if I wanted to. He just asked what is wrong with it and I told him why I thought it was wrong. Leo Lane has not asked that kind of question of the forum in general.

Emperor Julian.
“Pervert” is a truthful description of homosexuals. “Homophobe” means a person who fears or dislikes homosexuals, which is an untruthful description of me. It is a politically correct reaction to me which is not truthful, valid or reasonable. You should know better, EJ.
Toni Lavis: everything I have said is valid, relevant and truthful. I do not use terms of abuse.Your comment:” never Leo Lane even though he does so far more frequently? “ is inappropriate, and incorrect.,like your recent attempt to turn my comment on the nature of an “axiom” into a discussion of parallel lines.
Bullhead has failed to make any valid response to my demonstration that he is talking nonsense.

//“Homophobe” means a person who fears or dislikes homosexuals, which is an untruthful description of me.//

If you don't dislike them, why do you insult them by calling them perverts?

//I do not use terms of abuse//

Liar.

//everything I have said is valid, relevant and truthful.//

Liar.

//Your comment:” never Leo Lane even though he does so far more frequently? “ is inappropriate, and incorrect.//

Liar.

//like your recent attempt to turn my comment on the nature of an “axiom” into a discussion of parallel lines.//

//The statement is one of fact, and definition, like the statement that two parallel lines never meet. It is axiomatic//

Amnesiac liar.

//Just like you cannot challenge the feelings of people who claim to be hurt or offended by not being able to get married. How do we know they are really hurt?//

Sorry, I missed this on my first skim of your post. In the first sentence you say you can't challenge the feelings of people who claim to be hurt by not being able to get married. And then in your very next sentence, you challenge their feelings. WTF? Do you want some time to decide what it is you actually believe, and then get back to us?

//I didn’t censure him.//

I meant censure in the sense of 'express disapproval of'. Which you did. I realise their are other senses of the term, and that I chose my language poorly. Mea culpa.

//He just asked what is wrong with it and I told him why I thought it was wrong.//

No he didn't. Do you see a question mark at the end of his post? He was expressing an opinion, just like Leo does. Although his opinions tend to be better informed.

One more time for AJ and his ilk, who practices ad hom instead of learning from educated debate.

Currently society and its traditions are under attack from LW Progressives from 2 fronts re sexuality and society's response to it.

They want SSM to be recognised in law.
They want sexuality to be recognised as fluid and not set by your physical nature.

Hence we have the push to deny the majority of Australians a say in SSM and we have to pernicious agenda of the LW Progressives and some homosexuals to deny the natural order of sexuality where heterosexuality is the norm in order for a minority to feel "normal".

So what does this world look like?
It looks like a place where anyone can marry anyone no matter what sex they are because sex is not defined by how you are born. Physicality has no influence on your sexuality because sexuality is fluid. You can be born male but choose to be female and vice versa.

This is their future... a world where heterosexuals are just part of the mix, where you can be indoctrinated into various forms of sexuality and none are more correct than another.

A world where heterosexuals will be propositioned by homosexuals and made to feel bad if they reject them. A world where the birthrate will slow and in time fall. The third world population the only place birthrates will continue to rise.

Children will be educated and indoctrinated into a non-discriminatory sexual existence where all sexual orientations are the norm and choosing one sexuality is discriminatory. A childhood that is more confusing than ever before, where feelings and crushes etc are misinterpreted and children sexualised before even entering puberty.

Where children have sexual reassignment before they even really know what sex is.

Oh and AJ I have many gay friends and you have no idea about my sexuality and like religion I'm not about to ram it down your throat so take it as the truth, I'm not prone to falsehoods.

o sung wu,

I don’t know why you would think that theory and practice never meet. They meet all the time in science.

I don’t know why you would call me ‘intransigent’ either. As someone who was once a Christian, anti-abortion, anti-anything-gay, I would have to be one of the most transigent people you could meet. If I’m wrong about something, then someone need only explain that with a reasoned argument. As it is, we have three here who are overlooking my points, with two of them stuck on repeat. So why they don’t get on your nerves is beyond me.

As for speaking as though what I say is always right - don’t we all? No one thinks that what they say is wrong, after all. There is nothing wrong with speaking as though you’re always right, so long as you always back your claims with reason and evidence.

<<… you strongly assert that position by employing an immense reservoir of academic argument that tends to leave the reader profoundly stunned.>>

So it should, if it goes against one’s initial, naïve beliefs.

<<Whereas words are just that, mere words. It's personal opinions, experiences, our own and others views, that's the stuff of sound argument!>>

No, they’re not just words. They’re sound argument through reason and evidence. As any sound argument should be. Personal experiences are unreliable due to the cognitive biases that distort them.

maricus,

I don’t see where Leo Lane has provided any such thing.

<<It appears Leo Lane is providing evidence of my negative social change assertions …>>

All I can see is the flawed argument that the current definition of marriage determines both what it is now and what it will be forevermore, and that it’s axiomatic that marriage is only being between a man and a woman so that he doesn’t have to justify his assertion. Presumably he’s taking about the legislative definition, too, because the dictionary definition has already changed.

The adverse effects of same-sex marriage you mention have nothing to do with same-sex marriage intrinsically. Same-sex marriage is the marriage of two people of the same sex. That's it. If there are people who are being unfairly threatened with fines because they want to discriminate against same sex couples, then that is a separate issue. But it is not impossible for same-sex marriage to exist without such threats and fines.

<<… [fallacy] defines AJP's assertions, not mine, sorry.>>

It seems you still don’t know what the Appeal to Nature fallacy is. And here I even provided a link for you. Dearie me. Could you point out the fallacies in my arguments? I don’t think you can.

--

Leo Lane,

What is the evidence for your assertion that gay people are perverts? I challenge you to try answering that without fallaciously appealing to nature. Let me guess. It’s axiomatic? You know, it is still possible to explain why axiomatic things are the way they are. So, how about you give it a go?

--

T800,

That’s the way, when faced with questions and points that discredit your arguments, just dig your heels in a re-assert them.

Apparently you don’t know what an ad hominem is. For your convenience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

<<Oh and AJ I have many gay friends and you have no idea about my sexuality …>>

I never said anything about your sexuality.

Really AJ? wasn't it you that said I didn't really have gay friends?
Wasn't it you that cast aspersions on my reliability and truthfulness...

As for facts and refutation... rotflmao... when you actually provide some then I can stop posting mine... you seem to spend as I said a lot of time playing the man and not debating facts and you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, even considering your history of flip flopping through life... now that is funny.

Since we have so little number of posts per day, please stop wasting my time.

phanto proves he cannot comprehend a logical argument. Leo Lane once again demonstrates his homophobia. T800 shows they have no argument but lots of bluster. As usual the anti same-sex brigade just flip and flop like the fish on the wharf drowning in oxygen. Its mouth moves a lot but nothing of substance comes out of it.

Yes, really, T800.

<<Really AJ? wasn't it you that said I didn't really have gay friends?>>

Yes, it was. O-o-o-o-oh, have I incorrectly assumed that you were straight? Sorry. But you’ve got to admit, it’s a bit out of the ordinary for a gay person to mention their gay friends before their own status as a gay person in a debate like this.

<<Wasn't it you that cast aspersions on my reliability and truthfulness... >>

Yes. What relevance does this have to your sexuality, though? Or are you now referring to my supposed ad hominem? Sorry, but an ad hominem fallacy is a personal attack in lieu of a reasoned argument. If I provide a reasoned argument, then any insinuations from me are no longer an ad hominem fallacy.

For your convenience, again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

<<... you seem to spend as I said a lot of time playing the man and not debating facts… >

Less than half, actually. Not at all, most of the time. I don’t think that would constitute “a lot” to most.

<<Since we have so little number of posts per day, please stop wasting my time.>>

Me waste your posts? You’re the one who simply dug their heel in and repeated their assertions without addressing any responses or challenges to them. And now that you’ve appealed to repetition, you’re going to pretend that what I've said is amusing somehow. How about you spend a post addressing my response? Now that wouldn't be a waste.

Oh, and a rofflemayo to you too.

So you now admit you lied about what you said about me... good o.
Stop wasting my posts.

You also deny the facts re "gay" people who support SSM... but hey for a flip flopper like you facts don't matter apparently.

Bring on the Plebiscite.

I have not lied about anything, T800. Let alone admitted to it.

<<So you now admit you lied about what you said about me... good o.>>

Lied about what, by the way? About your sexuality? About all your gay friends? Do you not understand the difference between a mistake and an intentionally false statement? The latter is a lie, the former is not.

<<Stop wasting my posts.>>

Again, you are the only one wasting your posts with your evasiveness. No one is forcing you to respond.

<<You also deny the facts re "gay" people who support SSM... >>

And what facts would they be? I’m aware that there are some self-loathing gay people who are against same-sex marriage. You’re the second one I’ve encountered on OLO. The first was indoctrinated to the point of abuse by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He also denies evolution despite being an atheist.

<<… but hey for a flip flopper like you facts don't matter apparently.>>

Where are you getting this flip-flopping business from? From the fact that I used to be a conservative Christian? What, is no one allowed to change their mind regardless of what the evidence says? It’s no wonder you’re still where you are. How does changing one’s mind negatively affect their credibility?

You same-sex marriage opponents have some pretty screwy logic.

<<Bring on the Plebiscite.>>

The plebiscite was defeated in parliament. Common sense won the day.

A.J.PHILIPS...

No, most ordinary folk don't think they're always correct, 'all' the time. That's merely a myth that's had it's genesis in your own head A.J.P.? Anyone who paraded about with that erroneous notion, would find themselves socially isolated, in very quick time. Particularly in most structured and disciplined organisations like the Armed Forces, or any of the emergency services.

It's abundantly clear, you know very little about policing or the operational functions of detectives per se. Probably because this strata of law-enforcement is yet to realistically appear on the radar, of the science of criminology?

For this and many other disparate reasons, perhaps you're on the wrong Site altogether A.J.P? With your 'superior' intellect, I was wondering if you'd not be happier among your own peer group, rather than being intellectually muzzled by continuing to associate with us. After all, we're simply ordinary, mostly average types. Many of whom with just a working class persona.

Would you be better suited somewhere else, which would be more academically challenging for you do you think? I was thinking , for a purely intellectual challenge, might I suggest Chatham House, situated somewhere in the Home Counties, England? Or to fulfill your fascination in criminology and/or criminogenic interests. Than you might consider the good folk at the Vidocq Society, they examine (by request) unsolved homicide matters. And their HQ is located in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love?

I feel sure if you make contact with either their current Commissioner William (Bill) FLEISHER or Deputy Commissioner, William (Bill) GILL, I'm sure they can furnish you with their eligability requirements. Though I should caution you, they're an awfully tight, concerning admission?

ToniLavis:

“Sorry, I missed this on my first skim of your post. In the first sentence you say you can't challenge the feelings of people who claim to be hurt by not being able to get married. And then in your very next sentence, you challenge their feelings. WTF? Do you want some time to decide what it is you actually believe, and then get back to us?”

What I meant was that there is no way of proving whether or not what they say they feel is truly what they are feeling. So yes you can challenge but it is pointless unless you can prove it whereas the expression of an opinion is there for all to hear.

“No he didn't. Do you see a question mark at the end of his post? He was expressing an opinion”

No there was no question mark. It could have been interpreted as a rhetorical question since he used the word ‘surely’ as if he was not certain about his opinion. It does not matter either way. I was simply disagreeing with his opinion and gave reasons why.

Minotaur:

“phanto proves he cannot comprehend a logical argument.”

And minotaur who has neither the courage to put up or shut up resorts to nagging such is his desperation to avoid examining his own behaviour. How many more manifestations of your guilt can you provide?

AJP in village idiot mode:” What is the evidence for your assertion that gay people are perverts? “
If they are homosexuals they are perverts. What evidence is required? Do you think you have asked a trick question? It is just a stupid, pointless question, idiot boy.

Toni Lavis, did you ingest something which induced the putrid state of mind which produced your last post?
You have a comprehension problem, which explains some of the stupidity of your posts. I introduced the parallel lines as an example of an axiom, you tried to make it an off topic point of discussion.
You must be aware of your deficiency, but you assert stupid nonsense because you are frustrated by the fact that you cannot think straight, and in standard lefty form, lash out with baseless, unjustifiable insults, as if your ridiculous assertions could have any effect. other than demonstrating how cornered and foolish you feel..

//putrid state of mind//

//the stupidity of your posts//

//You must be aware of your deficiency//

//you assert stupid nonsense//

//you cannot think straight//

Ace :)

I love it when they go all rabid and start attacking your intellect. It's fun to watch and when you can goad them into attacking your intellect rather than refuting your arguments, that's a win.

//lash out with baseless, unjustifiable insults, as if your ridiculous assertions could have any effect//

And not a trace of irony...

Life is good :)

//What I meant was that there is no way of proving whether or not what they say they feel is truly what they are feeling. So yes you can challenge but it is pointless unless you can prove it whereas the expression of an opinion is there for all to hear.//

Thankyou for the clarification.

//It does not matter either way.//

No, I suppose not.

Now, back to topic:

Leo, I notice that in the middle of your little tantrum you forgot to answer my question:

If you don't dislike them, why do you insult them by calling them perverts?

//One more time for AJ and his ilk//

Oh for heaven's sake... we're getting reruns now? Jesus, if I want reruns I'll watch Red Dwarf for the umpteenth time. At least I know they'll be quality reruns.

I'm assuming I'm one of the ilk here, given that I wasn't convinced by your prognostication the first time round. What on earth leads you to imagine it will be any more convincing the second time round?

But since it is the silly season and apparently we're doing reruns, I guess I might as well jump on the bandwagon and quote one my previous posts.

//It's a bit sad really - all the time and effort that people pour into repeating fallacies over and over again in the hope that they'll magically transmute into valid arguments if they're repeated enough could be so much better spent going back to the drawing board and formulating a new, valid argument. But they just don't want to - can't be bothered, I guess.

It's their loss. If they could be bothered to formulate a valid argument, they might find that they gain a bit more traction in the debate.//

Toni Lavis says they:” start attacking your intellect.”
I would have to find it first. It would be like treading on a cockroach..
I did not consider your question to be serious. You say:” why do you insult them by calling them perverts?
Why do you think it is an insult when they go to so much trouble to ensure that everyone knows they are perverts. Try to explain that.
I am truthfully describing them, not insulting them. Apply your tiny intellect to that.

Phanto again proves that he has no substantive basis to argue from and keeps up the distractions. This time resorting to a weak attempt to ascribe some sort of guilt to me. Really? Deplorable desperation at its worst.

Leo Lane keeps reinforcing his homophobia and inability to put forth anything but denigrating comments.

It's all getting rather tedious really as the anti same-sex marriage brigade clearly demonstrate they have no arguments and in denial of reality.

o sung wu,

Of course no one seriously thinks they’re always right all of the time. Well, most anyway. I’m not so sure about Leo.

<<No, most ordinary folk don't think they're always correct, 'all' the time.>>

But people do tend to think they're right when they express a belief. That's why they believe it. If you think that I speak as though I think I'm always right all of the time, then that is your own subjective interpretation. I don’t think I’ve said anything to suggest that. I’ll admit I’m very confident on certain topics, but that’s only because I’ve tested and refined my opinions on them over and over again.

<<It's abundantly clear, you know very little about policing or the operational functions of detectives per se. Probably because this strata of law-enforcement is yet to realistically appear on the radar, of the science of criminology?>>

I think I have demonstrated otherwise. Modern policing methods and approaches are based heavily on criminological theory. We’ve even discussed some aspects of it. And like I've said several times before, there are quite a few criminologists who are former/retired police. So if what you said were correct, then that would be fixed real quick. On the contrary, however, they never seem to have any complaints.

<<Would you be better suited somewhere else ...>>

Maybe, but I still enjoy OLO and learn from others here.

--

Leo Lane,

Every time you’re cornered, you resort to abuse. “Village idiot” and “idiot boy”. They could at least be witty.

<<If they are homosexuals they are perverts.>>

Wow. So that’s all you’ve got: they are because they just are.

<<What evidence is required?>>

Gee, I dunno. How about we start with evidence that they’re perverts?

<<Do you think you have asked a trick question?>>

No, but it is a question that I knew you wouldn’t be able to answer if I pre-empted the fallacious Appeal to Nature.

<<It is just a stupid, pointless question, idiot boy.>>

Asking someone to justify a claim is never stupid or pointless, and you’ve just helped me to demonstrate why.

A.J.PHILIPS...

What ! I really needed to re-read part of your concluding sentence. '...I still enjoy OLO and learn from others here...'? Other than your endeavor to 'learn' your pseudoscience, the verb 'learn' wouldn't normally form part of your vocabulary A.J.P !

And, as I've mentioned to you before, in my entire 32 years in the job, particularly when serving as a detective, there was not one single member, who either embraced or availed themselves to any theoretical component of your calling 'criminology', in order to discover the author of a crime.

There were a few of them, who pursued a qualification at the Uni. of Sydney, titled 'Diploma of Criminology', and as an approved course, the Department met all the Fees. There was a period when the more pieces of paper you had the greater the chance to advance yourself in rank. However A.J.P. with a change of Commissioner, who happened to be somewhat more pragmatic in his approach in his efforts in the interdiction of crime, fees for many of these external courses were subsequently extinguished.

However, courses that had a more direct, practical application to the job were encouraged - Accounting (Fraud Squad) and several science degrees, involving precise investigation in QDE.; ballistics; auto. engineering and others were vigorously encouraged, A.J.P.

I have no doubt, criminology might represent a great fictional, even mythical study of crime. Could even be juxtapositional to that of the inimitable Sherlock Holmes. But in the real world how many villains can you tell me, that've been locked-up as a direct result of criminology?

Moreover I'd like to see a Criminologist march into a pub, identify a couple of crooks consorting, and then pinch 'em., that'd prove an amusing sight, don't you reckon eh A.J.PHILIPS?

AJP seems to have difficulty with the fact that homosexuals are perverts.
The definition of perversion is the starting point:
Perversion:Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion.

On the basis that the original course of the anus is to function as an aperture for discharge of body waste, the insertion of a penis in the waste duct is a
corruption of the original course, or state, thus a perversion. The persons committing the act are perverts. The evidence is their own coming out as homosexual.. The acts of perversion will vary with different individual homosexuals, but they are all perverts.

Your purporting to limit the basis of my answer was of no consequence, AJP, I simply felt disinclined to bear the tedium of answering a question to which the answer is self evident to any rational person. You are not entitled to object to the description of “idiot boy”. It is appropriate and accurate, in light of your idiotic pressing of the question.

Am I a pervert if I receive fellatio?

o sung wu

That shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

<<What ! I really needed to re-read part of your concluding sentence. '...I still enjoy OLO and learn from others here...'? Other than your endeavor to 'learn' your pseudoscience, the verb 'learn' wouldn't normally form part of your vocabulary A.J.P !>>>

I've said that a couple of times before. The fact that you could be so surprised just goes to show how little you know me. This is why I don't take offence when you tell me how much you hate me: because it is not me you hate, it's a fictional caricature that you have invented and convinced yourself is me. Our dotty old Albanian friend, Misanthrope, does the same thing. If you can invent a persona to apply to me, and blame the discomfort that what I say brings you on that instead, then you don't have to ever admit that you might be wrong about some things. It's a basic defence mechanism.

As someone who didn't understand what peer-reviewed work was (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6653#201527), or what a scientific theory is (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310303), I hardly think you are in a position to judge what is and is not science. I understand that the study of crime rubs you the wrong way, but that hardly renders it a “pseudoscience”.

<<And, as I've mentioned to you before, in my entire 32 years in the job, particularly when serving as a detective, there was not one single member, who either embraced or availed themselves to any theoretical component of your calling 'criminology', in order to discover the author of a crime.>>

No, I don't think you've mentioned that before. But now that you have, I can say that police approach matters in ways that are grounded in criminological theory all the time, more and more as time goes on too, whether or not they realise it. I know profilers certainly understand that.

<<There was a period when the more pieces of paper you had the greater the chance to advance yourself in rank.>>

That's certainly understandable.

Continued…

...Continued

Police with higher education tend to stress less, and are less likely to need to use force when placed in similar situations.

<<However, courses that had a more direct, practical application to the job were encouraged - Accounting (Fraud Squad) and several science degrees, involving precise investigation in QDE.; ballistics; auto. engineering and others were vigorously encouraged, A.J.P.>>

I would think that having a better sociological and psychological understanding of the people one is dealing with would be very practical. That is, after all, one of the reasons why police with higher education stress less, and need to use force less often in similar situations.

<<I have no doubt, criminology might represent a great fictional, even mythical study of crime.>>

Do you have any example to back your claim that criminology is “fictional” and “mythical”? Perhaps you could give an example of a criminological theory that is applied on a daily basis and how applying it has been a hindrance to police work? I don't think you can.

<<Could even be juxtapositional to that of the inimitable Sherlock Holmes. But in the real world how many villains can you tell me, that've been locked-up as a direct result of criminology?>>

Directly? None, since it's the police doing the work on the ground. Indirectly? It would be most.

<<Moreover I'd like to see a Criminologist march into a pub, identify a couple of crooks consorting, and then pinch 'em., that'd prove an amusing sight, don't you reckon eh A.J.PHILIPS?>>

Why would that be amusing? And would it be any less amusing if they used to be a high-ranking officer?

--

Leo Lane,

Well, you were going to go down the tiresome old ‘anal sex’ route, but you seemed to pull yourself up half way through your post when you realised that that wouldn’t apply to all gay people. So now you’ve made up some nonsense about gay people coming out being the evidence of perversion, without explaining how coming out is a perverted act. So you still haven’t provided any evidence for your claim at all.

Try again, ol’ son.

AJP says:” going to go down the tiresome old ‘anal sex’ route”.
As I explained, I was asked a stupid question, by you, and bore the tedium of a full reply, because you pressed a question which has a self evident answer,.
To assist your poor comprehension, the “coming out” is evidence that they are homosexual, and being homosexual is evidence of perversion.
I have proved what I asserted.
You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, AJP.
I accept that you have no valid answer to my assertions, just pointless baseless, irrelevant criticism, which is the best an idiot can do, I suppose.

Leo Lane seems to engage with perverting definitions to suit a failing agenda. Let's amuse ourselves with his perversions and ask, are heterosexual people who engage in certain sexual practices perverts too? What about homosexuals who do not engage in anal sex? According to LL they are not perverts. The same would apply to lesbians...oh but hang on, what if some of them too enjoy a little anal stimulation?

What LL has clearly demonstrated is that it is not possible to have a rational discussion, let alone any form of coherent argument, with those who pervert definitions to suit their flawed agendas. That is also evidenced by their responses that resort to insulting people as some sort of means of having a 'comeback'. It is also perverting the course of the discussion to take the focus away from same-sex marriage and focus on sexual activity. That's just perverted fodder for the psychiatrist...but thanks for showing where your mind is at LL.

Minotaur:

Why does the sexual behaviour of same-sex couples seem relevant to you? Why are you so concerned about Leo Lanes’s description of homosexual people? Why does it matter?

Same-sex marriage is about two people of the same sex being able to marry – not two people of the same sexuality. Do same sex couples have to be homosexuals or should two heterosexual people also be able to marry others of the same sex. If it is about gender then why bother arguing about sexuality. You do not have to prove the validity of homosexuality – just prove the gender.

I do not see the point of arguing the toss about homosexuality when gender is the issue.

Phanto, I was responding to Leo Lane who seems to believe sexual acts are very important. Take it up with him.

If they want equality, they already have it... they simply have to marry someone of the opposite sex, because that is what marriage is about.... The Union of a man and a woman.

We don't call Tennis, Cricket or Golf, Soccer... they are all different things and Marriage is and has been for millenia the Union of a man and a woman, why would anyone want to change the definition and tradition for a handful of delusional people and the social agenda of the progressive Left?

Clearly it has been shown in 2 major studies that the majority of homosexuals are not interested in marriage or a change in lifestyle.

Leo Lane,

Again, asking one to justify one's claim is never "stupid".

<<... I was asked a stupid question, by you, …>>

It can prevent oneself or others believing baseless claims. Like yours.

<<... because you pressed a question which has a self evident answer.>>

Yes, an answer so self-evident you apparently can't provide it. Go on, resort to abuse again.

<<... the “coming out” is evidence that they are homosexual, and being homosexual is evidence of perversion.>>

So I gave you too much credit then. Your argument is still just that homosexuality is perversion because it just is.

<<I have proved what I asserted.>>

No, you have only asserted and re-asserted. You have still provided no evidence whatsoever.

<<I accept that you have no valid answer to my assertions …>>

Oh but I do. It's that you have no evidence for your claim, and we're both demonstrating that now.

--

T800,

So gay people have to marry people that they will not be emotionally or sexually attracted to?

<<If they want equality, they already have it... they simply have to marry someone of the opposite sex …>>

That’s not equality.

<<... because that is what marriage is about.... The Union of a man and a woman.>>

Social constructs are continuously evolving. I sense a fallacy coming on...

<<... Marriage is and has been for millenia the Union of a man and a woman …>>

There is it. The Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

<<... why would anyone want to change the definition and tradition for a handful of delusional people ...?>>

For better equality. You haven’t demonstrated that supporters of same-sex marriage are delusional. Nor that the social agenda of some is deleterious or sinister.

<<Clearly it has been shown in 2 major studies that the majority of homosexuals are not interested in marriage or a change in lifestyle.>>

It doesn't matter if none of them want it. All that matters is the possibility that some might one day want to marry.

--

phanto,

Why don't you ever reprimand those with whom you agree? Don't look down. Your insincerity is showing.

ROTFLMAO AJ... honestly, you take the cake mate.

"It doesn't matter if none of them want it. All that matters is the possibility that some might one day want to marry."

So lets call Cricket Soccer in case some Soccer players want to play Cricket one day? Huh? You call that logic? You call that a reason for redefining something that has been accepted for millennia? Really?
ROTFLMAO...

Let them call it something else. Problem solved.

//If they want equality, they already have it... they simply have to marry someone of the opposite sex, because that is what marriage is about//

So the heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone they love, but the gays can only have loveless sham marriages? Is that what marriage is about? Doesn't sound very fair, does it?

It's certainly not very fair on the heterosexual partner in the sham marriage: when the truth comes out and they discover that their marriage is a lie and they've just wasted however many years of their life with someone who could never really love them, how do you think they will feel? Why would you want to inflict this sort of misery on people?

//We don't call Tennis, Cricket or Golf, Soccer//

On the other hand, we do call rugby league and aussie rules 'football', when football is and has been for centuries a game played with a round ball that you're not allowed to pick up. And we call football 'soccer', which I find a bit queer.

I'm just saying that maybe sports aren't the best analogy to use. Sports evolve over time and change the rules when it's appropriate to do so. They've only had the third umpire in cricket since 1992, and it hasn't ruined the game.

//why would anyone want to change the definition and tradition//

Because it's the right thing to do.

//for a handful of delusional people and the social agenda of the progressive Left?//

An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not the identity of those making it.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

//Clearly it has been shown in 2 major studies that the majority of homosexuals are not interested in marriage//

That's OK, they won't be forced to if they don't want to. The idea is to make it optional, not compulsory - like it is for heterosexuals who are free to not get married if they don't want to, but also to get married if they want to.

A.J.PHILIPS...

So you contend that having a better understanding or appreciation of sociological and psychological factors would make it easier for police making a pinch, is that what you reckon A.J.P ? You're quite right, in perhaps 10 even 15% of the time - otherwise (and this is further evidence of your profound naivety) it's completely useless, most violent encounters happen very quickly, and when they do you need to have all your ducks in a row; position of advantage, seen, or suspected weapons, evidence of intoxication - drugs or alcohol, known facts, all this amounts to 'officer survival'. This again is insurmountable evidence that you know precisely nothing, nought, zip, about operational police work!

(i) '...we leave the ground work to police...' ?

(ii) police with higher education 'stress less' ?

(iii) how little I know you, that's why you hate me so ?

The remarks tabled at; (i) (ii) & (iii) I do find immensely amusing A.J.P.!

(ii)Police stress less when better educated - I'm dumbfounded - from what dusty, out of date tome, did you extract that nonsense? I'd like to meet you, I'd introduce you to a level of stress, where you'd immediately soil your pants!

(iii) Correct ! I don't wish to know you A.J.P. And incorrect ! I don't 'hate' you, I've never met you?

However, the more academic detritus you peddle, the greater the figure of derision, mockery and contempt you've become. I do feel an element of regret for you. You remind me of the little boy at night, looking wistfully into a shop window, wishing he could have a puppy. I know you'd love to be a copper, but you'd never make the cut.

And; (i) You leave the 'ground work' to police -

Of course you do, you wouldn't know what to do, or how to do it. You're like a pulp fiction author, who pens adventure comics, but has never participated in anything more then what's homogeneous with the hero(s) in your comics. Have you got yourself a suitable sobriquet? How about; 'A.J.PHILIPS the Chuckling Caped Crusader'

T800 shows the absolute confusion of the anti same-sex marriage crew. Firstly, same-sex couples are not barred from marrying their partner. The issue is one of legal recognition and to not have that and the rights and protections that come with it is an inequality. Heterosexual marriages are privileged over same-sex marriages. That is discrimination.

Trying to argue that 'marriage' is restricted to a union between a 'man and a woman' because it is 'traditional' is a fallacy. 'Traditions' change and new ones get established. That is happening with marriage all over the world in progressive countries.

The assertion that same-sex marriage shouldn't happen due to some gay people not wanting to marry is akin to arguing against marriage totally because some heterosexual people don't want to marry. What an absurd line of argument. Then again, that's all that we get from the anti-same sex marriage mob.

//Let them call it something else. Problem solved.//

No, it doesn't the solve the problem. It still means that you have one set of rules for us mob, and one set of rules for them mob over there - that's the problem that SSM proponents are trying to solve.

o sung wu,

May I ask what any of your last few posts have had to do with the topic being discussed? Why not start a new thread in the general discussion section if this topic bores you?

T800,

No, I never implied anything of the sort.

<<So lets call Cricket Soccer in case some Soccer players want to play Cricket one day? Huh? You call that logic?>>

Why would we do that, and how is that analogous to extending the definition of marriage?

--

o sung wu,

Your tone is taking a turn for the worse.

<<… having a better understanding or appreciation of sociological and psychological factors would make it easier for police making a pinch …>>

That, and avoid even having to in the first place. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02806696)

<<… in perhaps 10 even 15% of the time - otherwise … it's completely useless, most violent encounters happen very quickly …>>

But I’m not just talking about arrests, and this is the evidence of YOUR profound naivety. Sometimes situations end in arrest when they didn’t have to. I’m sure you already know about the infamous 'trifecta', don’t you?

<<This again is insurmountable evidence that you know precisely nothing … about operational police work!>>

Apparently not.

<<The remarks tabled at; (i) (ii) & (iii) I do find immensely amusing A.J.P.!>>

Well, I never said (i). You’ve re-worded something else I said to insinuate an offensive intent that doesn’t exist. In response to (ii): it comes from current research, actually. See the above link. Here’s some more:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=police+and+%22higher+education%22+%22stress%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

<<I'd like to meet you, I'd introduce you to a level of stress, where you'd immediately soil your pants!>>

Is this a threat or an insult?

<<However, the more academic detritus you peddle …>>

You still haven’t demonstrated that it’s “detritus”. I asked you to in my last post, even suggesting how you could, but not to my surprise you have apparently declined.

<<I know you'd love to be a copper …>>

Again, no I don’t. How do you “know” this?

<<… but you'd never make the cut.>>

I thought we agreed that it was actually you who would not make the cut nowadays, not me. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328258)

Anyway, I suggest you heed Toni Lavis’s advice and take your insecurities, and this unresolved bugbear of yours, to a more relevant thread.

A.J.PHILIPS...

Thanks for the 'Springer' link. Once I opened, I immediately regretted having done so. Filled as it was with endless passages of words, and more words with endless views and opinions. All emanating from some pin-headed academic in the United States.

But I thought I'd at least persevere a little longer, in an effort to establish what it is that attracts individuals of your persuasion and immeasurable egos, to ardently follow it's message, as if it were holy scripture from some mythical God of the 'Left' ?

Mate, my eyes are watering, my tiny mind is in turmoil, and my age related dementia, diagnosed early 2015, has taken a severe turn for the worse. How in hell do you manage to read, understand, then consume, and later, recall such utterly boring 'dust dry' material. Without the need for a long refreshing sleep, has buggered me A.J.P.

Several years ago I attended the PTSD programme run by the then, 'Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service', a branch of DVA. Thereat I attended the 'nightmare group' for Vets who experienced nightmares. We were instructed in adopting various strategies to lessen or remove the effect of nightmares - If I was to study any of your material, even to merely read it, I'd have a nightmare to end all nightmares. I've never read so much gobbledygook, such 'bone dry' and mind altering stuff at anytime in my adult life. The North Koreans would do well to adopt your 'manuscripts' instead of relying on their out of date 'water boarding' techniques.

I don't know your age, perhaps late thirties early forties, I don't know, nor care. I'm closer to eighty. If I was mandated to embrace your material, as a component of police recruit training, you're right, I wouldn't make the cut.

Nor would I want to. This stuff is just another example of the trendy 'Left' with their 'Safe Schools' programme; or gender recognition or reassignments; gay marriage, or left handed pencils, for right handed indigenous people, or any other hair-brain' plan, calculated to destroy the fabric of the entire community.

T800,

Sorry, my last response was inadequate due to word restrictions. I’ll try again.

<<… honestly, you take the cake mate.>>

Yes, I certainly would if your analogy were in any way accurate. As it turns out, you’re the only one with cake here. Or fighting Leo over it, at least.

<<So lets call Cricket Soccer in case some Soccer players want to play Cricket one day?>>

No, because if a cricket player wants to play soccer, they can do so without confusing labels. Furthermore, this implies that same-sex marriage is not a valid concept (since cricket can never be soccer), an assertion that you mob are yet to justify.

<<Huh? You call that logic?>>

No, I don't. But your false analogy has added yet another fallacy to your growing list.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

<<You call that a reason for redefining something that has been accepted for millennia?>>

No.

<<Really?>>

Really, no.

<<Let them call it something else.>>

Thankfully others have spared me the effort of having to discredit this flawed ‘find another word’ demand. It’s only ever made because unions between gay couples are seen to be unworthy and lacking legitimacy.

--

o sung wu,

Unfortunately that article is not a free one, so the link only provides the abstract and reference list.

<<… endless passages of words, and more words with endless views and opinions.>>

Yeah, they were references, not opinions. Mere opinions don’t make it into peer-reviewed work. You made this mistake once before. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6653#201527

<<But I thought I'd at least persevere a little longer …>>

Reading a reference list would have taken some perseverance, yes.

<<How in hell do you manage to read … such utterly boring 'dust dry' material.>>

You don't, unless you're interested in the sources.

<<I've never read so much gobbledygook …>>

Yes, a reference list certainly would look like gobbledygook if one didn't know what it was.

<<This stuff is just another example of the trendy 'Left' … calculated to destroy the fabric of the entire community.>>

Apparently not.

You conservatives would sooner assume a sinister conspiracy than ever change your minds. Sad.

Good evening to you too TONI LAVIS...

Thank you for your query, I might also suggest,you should perhaps direct the same query to other fellow confederates and collaborators hereon? However you're quite correct when you draw my attention to the fact that I've failed to properly consign my remarks to the topic. For that you have my profound apologies. That it's a well know fact, that it generally takes two hands to clap?

Perhaps then in order to establish some balance, you should once more don your moderator's cap, and remind my esteemed antagonist and fellow subscriber A.J.PHILIPS, that he too is obliged to faithfully adhere to the topic under discussion.

And to address your question, made yesterday evening, c.1920h - whereas you asked whether you suffered from a perversion if you received fellatio ? What do you think Toni? Why precisely did you ask? A somewhat odd question from a normal person on such a public Forum notwithstanding our anonymity prevailing.

It would seem you're relatively uncomfortable with ordinary sexual interaction ? What exactly is troubling you ? Your obvious inexperience with partners of either gender; your confusion with the usual steps of a normal sexual union, again with either gender; or something as simple as your confusion and perplexity with trying to decide your preferred gender as an ideal sexual partner; a very common instance of bemusement over your own gender proclivities.

What ever it is Toni, there's always help available in matters of sexual confusion or male dysfunction. In any event I hope our brief chat is some benefit to you, and goes in someway in assuaging you of any further anxiety.

A.J.PHILIPS...

Without your (poorly educated) police, anarchy would prevail, our neighborhoods and public places, would become impassable. Violence and crime would interrupt the process of good governance. Neither males or females could venture upon the streets without a substantial guard to accompany them. There'd be no schools, colleges or tertiary centres operating. Limited access to retail establishments. The hospitals would overflow, very limited public transport; most airlines would suspend services; and so on it would go!

Without your criminologists; your psychologists; and other ineffectual and unavailing academics...nothing would happen, nobody would know, nor care!

A question for you A.J.PHILIPS, what precisely is your job, how do you earn your salary as a criminologists ?

AJP says:” asking one to justify one's claim is never "stupid".
You have just supplied us with an instance where it is stupid..
I have supplied the appropriate definition and have correctly applied it to prove my assertion.
You say:”Your argument is still just that homosexuality is perversion because it just is.” Are you lying or mistaken AJP. You could not have missed that I supplied a definition of “perversion” and showed how it applied to the male homosexual act. Female homosexual acts are different but still fit the definition.

o sung wu,

Why would police need to be poorly educated to prevent any of that?

<<Without your (poorly educated) police, anarchy would prevail ...>>

This sounds to me like an assumption based on inaccurate stereotypes. My “chuckling” cousin is 6’2” and twice the width of me. And without being fat, I’m not exactly a short or weedy person myself. Bigger than most.

<<Without your criminologists; your psychologists; and other ineffectual and unavailing academics...nothing would happen, nobody would know, nor care!>>

I know. Although why you would refer to them as “ineffectual” and “unavailing” while acknowledging that they raise such awareness is beyond me. So far you have demonstrated that you haven’t the slightest clue what any academic does, so how you could make either of the contradictory claims in this statement is beyond me.

<<A question for you A.J.PHILIPS, what precisely is your job, how do you earn your salary as a criminologists ?>>

I started typing my resonse but on second thoughts, I’m not sure it would be wise of me to tell you. I know, going by experience with another similar personal question from you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6635#200328), that it would be used as the basis of another round of baseless personal attacks, or as a means of ad hominem suggestions questioning my ability to understand the topic we’re discussing.

No, let’s just say that I’m not a criminologist by profession and leave it at that. We’ll let my arguments stand or fall on their own merit. At least for now.

As for your response to Toni Lavis regarding our off topic discussion. I’d just like to say (in defence of Toni Lavis and myself) that I think people should be allowed to defend themselves against baseless and unwarranted attacks (as I am currently doing) without fear of censure from others for being off topic.

--

Leo Lane,

That’s a bit more subjective than self-evident. Don’t you think?

<<You could not have missed that I supplied a definition of “perversion” ...>>

Perversion:
”Sexual behaviour that is considered abnormal and unacceptable”
(http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion)

So who decides what is “abnormal” or “unacceptable”?

//remind my esteemed antagonist and fellow subscriber A.J.PHILIPS, that he too is obliged to faithfully adhere to the topic under discussion.//

No need. In his previous six posts, he's been consistently on-topic except when defending himself against your sad attempts at trolling.

None of your last six posts have touched on the topic; five have been trolling AJ and I'm thrilled to see that your having a go at me now. Kinda sad that you've got nothing better to do than hang around here all day trying to get AJ to pay attention to you.

//Female homosexual acts are different but still fit the definition.//

How is cunnilingus any more perverted for lesbians than it is for heterosexuals? It's still the same sexual act.

Sorry AJ but you are still losing the debate... ignoring facts and just saying NO doesn't make you right... just saying... in case you weren't sure.

You don't change marriage in case someone who doesn't fit the criteria for marriage wants to get married, especially when there is so very bloody few of them... that is the height of stupidity. You seem to be right at the apex on that score.

T800 states that AJ Philips is losing the debate and then proceeds to offer up no substance but the obligatory insult. That clearly demonstrates who is losing the debate and it isn't AJ Philips!

A.J.PHILIPS and ors...

I've quickly read your latest posts and I acknowledge their various contents. My only question to you (at this time) A.J.PHILIPS, why would anyone be ashamed of their employment; their job or work? I've heard you waffle on with some absurd excuse, so I must ask myself why?

I've always maintained the belief, regardless of what type of work an individual has, whether menial, humble or manifestly low status - all work is good and demands respect, provided it's honest.

Now gentlemen and A.J.PHILIPS, I must excuse myself momentarily, as I have some very important news from our Veterinarian, which simply takes priority over this, and all other things.

AJ Phillips, having lost the debate, attempts to mislead.
The definition he posted as mine is not the definition which I posted. He is upset that the truth has prevailed, and is trying to lie his way out of it. Get used to it AJ, the truth will often win. When it does, you will lose.
Bull head is demonstrating his uneducated ignorance again. The same bullhead who asserted that he is aware of same sex marriages taking place. Even an ignoramus should know that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Union between same sex couples is perviage, not marriage.

Leo Lane is big on definitions but when one tries to find one for 'perviage', well, none exists. Therefore the term has no relevance (apart from in the strange imagination of Leo Lane).

There are definitions for 'marriage' though and the Dictionary.com defines it as thus: "any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:"

According to that definition same-sex marriages in Australia do have legitimacy, albeit without the legal recognition under the Marriage Act that heterosexual marriages currently receive. However, that does not mean they do not exist as it is not illegal for same-sex couples to 'marry' and conduct themselves in precisely the same manner as heterosexual married couples (some of whom practice sodomy...oh no, those perverted people!).

This uneducated Bullhead is not so ignorant to have his horny head so far up his ahhhs, sandpit, that he cannot recognise reality or progressive change to social 'norms'. Unlike many of those in the anti same-sex lobby.

T800,

And yet somehow, I don’t need to resort to abuse!

<<… you are still losing the debate…>>

Says the one who cannot provide a rational argument.

<<ignoring facts and just saying NO doesn't make you right...>>

You've got that right! I’m not sure why you’re telling me this, though.

<<You don't change marriage in case someone who doesn't fit the criteria for marriage wants to get married …>>

Well if we change it, then they will fit the criteria. Problem solved.

This argument, that only a small percentage of gay people want to marry anyway (assuming it's even true), is bunk. Why would we deny them the right to a legally recognised union just because they are a tiny percentage of the population? What kind of stupid logic is that? Particularly when there are only benefits to be had.

Let’s not find cures for rare diseases because only a tiny percentage of people are affected by them.

<<You seem to be right at the apex on that score.>>

Another insult. You lot really come out swinging when you're cornered, don't you?

--

o sung wu,

I'm not ashamed of what I do. I just think you can deal with my arguments on their own merit rather than wasting our time and word limits by fallaciously appealing to authority, as you so often do. There's nothing absurd about that. You still haven't told me why you want to know, either.

--

Leo Lane,

Yes, “lost the debate”.

<<AJ Phillips, having lost the debate, attempts to mislead.>>

Says the one who hasn’t yet justified their position. I like how you guys just assert that you've won the debate when you have nowhere left to turn.

<<The definition he posted as mine is not the definition which I posted.>>

Yes, it was. Your link once again: http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion

Is it any wonder why you don't clarify what definition it was that you were referring to?

<<He is upset that the truth has prevailed …>>

How could that be the case when you lot haven't yet presented a rational argument against same-sex marriage?

Getting married is only for a man and a woman not for the homosexual
people. But God wants people to marry but only if one man and one woman only. Not ever the Gay people unless there are cured than OK.

I don't like this guy Osungwu because he is a police and dangerous if they do not like you. Same all over the world and in Albania is the police dangerous and not be ever trusted. But this AJPhilips is in love with himself and knows everything all the time. But not like Osungwu, who is nasty and has revengeful against people, sure all police are the same. Bad and revengeful must never to be trusted.

AJP
This is the definition I posted:” Perversion:Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something:
The link has alternate definitions, but was given only as the source of the one I posted, not to give you a choice. I made no reference to the definition you posted, at any time.
Very careless of you, but dispels any idea that you are lying. It demonstrates simply that you do not know what you are talking about. No wonder you lost the debate.

Leo Lane,

My apologies. I’ve gotten into a habit of skimming your posts because, usually, they’re all the same post.

<<The link has alternate definitions, but was given only as the source of the one I posted, not to give you a choice. I made no reference to the definition you posted, at any time.>>

However, this doesn’t resolve your problem for two reasons. Firstly, by referring to gay people as “perverts”, you were referring to the definition I quoted:

Pervert:
A person whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pervert)

So again, who determines what is “abnormal” and “unnaceptable”?

Secondly, your ambiguous defining of “perversion” qualifies as equivocation. Another fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Your use of the label, “pervert”, implied the second definition of ‘perversion’ (the one I quoted), but then, when asked to provide evidence that homosexuality was a perversion, you switch to a different sense of the word. That's equivocation.

<<It demonstrates simply that you do not know what you are talking about.>>

No, it just demonstrates that I didn’t read that part of your post carefully enough.

<<No wonder you lost the debate.>>

That’s the way, Leo. When you can’t demonstrate that you’ve won the debate, just dig your heels in and re-assert that you have. You’re the only one between the two of us who has committed a fallacy. Heck, I pre-empted the Appeal to Nature for you and you still managed to fine another fallacy to invoke!

Anyway, there have been so many fallacies in this debate, I think it’s high time we did a count of them.

- The Appeal to Nature
- The Argumentum ad antiquitatem
- The ad hominem
- The Shifting of the Burden of Proof
- The Argument from Self-knowing
- The False Analogy
- Equivocation

That’s seven fallacies from the anti-same-sex-marriage brigade, yet those for it are the ones who are supposedly losing this debate?

You guys are a riot!

A.J.PHILIPS...

I note you're again on the lecture circuit, with your devoted acolytes sitting patiently at you knee, in order they not miss a skerrick of 'wisdom' that pours forth from your mouth? If any of your arguments as you put it, had merit, perhaps then I'd respect what you say. And 'appealing to an authority' - what absurdity is that, when asked what you did for a living ?

It's abundantly clear, you're either ashamed or self-conscious about your job. That's OK but why? You in turn inquire why I do I wish to know? That's easy - to confirm a suspicion.

In one of your earlier posts, you claim to have a good understanding of, operational police procedure? And I say to you A.J.P. 'bunkum'! However as you claim that everything you say is factual and rational, so we'll play it your way shall we - lets see how the criminologist deals with a routine operational deployment?

You're mobile, with yourself and another male as crew:

*there's an all cars message; *inquiring as to the closest sector car to a particular address; *you respond; *Dispatch directs you to that address, advising of a reported domestic; you know from previous experience, it's a well known Gay retreat.

Seems to be a relatively routine job, you'd agree?

Question: What is the first thing you would do ? Remember it's procedure.

And as you've averred, on two past occasions, '...modern police methods are based on criminological theory...' or similar language. The above routine scenario should be easy for your academically deductive, analytical mind to embrace eh A.J.P ?

Sorry AJ no amount of disingenuous prattle or obfuscation will change the result... You are losing the argument.

Not rocket science, pretty simple really...

In Australia Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman.
The Australian people not a handful of LW progressive pollies should have a say on this issue... therefore a plebiscite is required.

As for you Minor Taur.... yapping like Chester around Spike's ankles and lying about what has been said because you are 1/ dishonest or 2/ ignorant of previous posts... will do you and your argument no good either.

You and AJ have arguments that ignore facts and in reality are "reductio ad absurdum" so puhlease enough of the crap you spout re types of argument... you both bore me with your arrogant denial of reality.

o sung wu,

I wouldn’t exactly call it “wisdom”, but thank you all the same.

<<And 'appealing to an authority' - what absurdity is that ...>>

When you attempt to cast doubt on what I say by pointing out that you're the one who was a “copper for 32 years”, that’s fallacious.

<<It's abundantly clear, you're either ashamed or self-conscious about your job.>>

If one ignores my reasoning for not stating it, sure.

<<However as you claim that everything you say is factual and rational …>>

When have I claimed that?

<<… you claim to have a good understanding of, operational police procedure?>>

No, I just claimed to know more than “nothing, nought, zip”. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333419)

As for your pop quiz, my answer is the same as the one I gave at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6653#201811.

--

T800,

Still claiming to be winning the argument despite your generous contribution to your mob’s list of fallacies?

<<Sorry AJ no amount of disingenuous prattle or obfuscation will change the result... You are losing the argument.>>

So what is it that I’ve said that is disingenuous and an attempt to obfuscate? Your response was conveniently light on those details.

<<In Australia Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman.>>

Correct. Not sure what most of those capital letters were about, though. Was it to make the statement look more official?

<<The Australian people not a handful of LW progressive pollies should have a say on this issue... >>

So how is this so different to the other decisions that we elect our members of parliament to vote on? You gave some doom-and-gloom predictions earlier, but never responded to my criticisms of them.

<<You and AJ have arguments that ignore facts …>>

Which facts are these?

<<… and in reality are [arguments that are] "reductio ad absurdum" …>>

Really? Which arguments were those? You conveniently forgot to mention them.

I suggest you read up on what the reductio ad absurdum is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

The only examples of reductio ad absurdum I see in this thread are the hysterical predictions of the sky falling in.

AJ you say: by referring to gay people as “perverts”, you were referring to the definition I quoted:”
Now you have said many things to deserve your description as idiot, and this one earns a place on the list. As I said, I did not quote or refer to that definition at any time, so your assertion is baseless and idiotic.
You say:” Your use of the label, “pervert”, implied the second definition of ‘perversion’ (the one I quoted), but then, when asked to provide evidence that homosexuality was a perversion, you switch to a different sense of the word. That's equivocation.”
I implied no such thing, I explicitly set out the definition upon which I relied. You could not be stupid enough to believe that I implied anything by use of the word “pervert”,my statement was obviously overt, and complete.
So you are lying again, just as you are lying about not having lost the debate

Leo Lane's equivocation can also be entitled verbal sleight of hand.

//The Australian people not a handful of LW progressive pollies should have a say on this issue... therefore a plebiscite is required.//

And there's a non-sequitur. The Australian people can, and already do, have a say on this issue without a plebiscite.

May I ask what it is you imagine all the RW conservative pollies will be doing when this issue is being voted on? Ducking out for a quick smoke and leaving the bill to be passed unopposed? That doesn't sound like the Cory Bernardi I'm familiar with. Are you sure there aren't any politicians on your side of the debate?

//You and AJ have arguments that ignore facts and in reality are "reductio ad absurdum"//

They're really not. A reduction ad absurdum is an argument in which you disprove a statement by showing that it leads to an absurd or impossible conclusion. For example, we can consider the following argument:

1. Women who enjoy cunnilingus are perverts.
2. Lesbians enjoy cunnilingus.
3. Perverts shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Therefore: Lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry.

All seems OK so far, right? Problem is that premise 2, whilst true, is not the whole truth - it's not just lesbians that like having their pussy eaten. All the straight women like it too. So now our argument looks like this:

1. Women who enjoy cunnilingus are perverts.
2. All women enjoy cunnilingus.
3. Perverts shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Therefore: No women should be allowed to get married.

Which is an absurd conclusion, because if all women are denied marriage rights then what's the point for anybody except gay males? Clearly, something is wrong with one of the premises.

I would say that premise 1 is rubbish - to declare the entire female population perverted robs the term 'pervert' of any real meaning. They can't all be weird sickos just because they like cunnilingus.

Premise 2 is also probably bollocks. I haven't polled every woman (no pun intended), and there are doubtless exceptions that prove the rule. But if you're going to limit marriage to only those women who don't like cunnilingus, it's going to complicate matters enormously.

And premise 3 is definitely shite because we let heterosexual perverts get married without taking an undue interest in their sex lives, because it's creepy. How on earth would you manage a no-marriage-for-perverts policy? Groups of upstanding, decent, community-minded citizens peering in through couples windows late at night... just to make sure they're not doing anything perverse, of course ;)

Bullhead could not find “perviage” in the dictionary.
If he were not so determined to preserve his abysmal ignorance, he would have read my recent post, which is the only reference, so far as I know, to “perviage”.

“They will not even name the same sex union, which ceased to be a criminal offence some time ago.
I have a name for it:”perviage”
All we need now is legislation to enact that perviage shall be the union of two people where those people are not a man and a woman
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 December 2016

You should notify the dictionary you consulted of its deficiency, bullhead.

Leo Lane,

More insults from a desperate and intolerant person with apparent anger issues.

<<As I said, I did not ... refer to that definition at any time, so your assertion is baseless and idiotic.>>

Yes you did, when you referred to gay people as “perverts“. So again, who decides what is “abnormal” and “unacceptable”? Stop dodging the question.

<<I implied no such thing, …>>

Yes, you did. With your use of the label, “pervert”. I've already explained this. You’re just ducking and weaving now.

<<I explicitly set out the definition upon which I relied.>>

I know. Hence the equivocation. Or as EmperorJulian aptly put it, ‘verbal sleight of hand’.

A ‘pervert’ is,
“[a] person whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.” (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pervert)

‘Perversion’ can be defined as,
“[s]exual behaviour that is considered abnormal and unacceptable.” (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion)

Yet, you opt for the other definition (“Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something”) as your evidence that homosexuality is perversion. That’s equivocation. Are you denying the relevance of the sense that I quoted? I doubt it. I think you’re just dodging my question because it would be acknowledging that there is nothing “self-evident” about your assertion.

Either way, your chosen definition does nothing to help your case for reasons Toni Lavis has pointed out numerous times now. Care to address these at any point?

<<You could not be stupid enough to believe that I implied anything by use of the word “pervert”,my statement was obviously overt, and complete.>>

Good point, your use of the word, “pervert”, explicitly relied on the second definition that I quoted. Either way, it was still equivocation.

<<So you are lying again, just as you are lying about not having lost the debate>>

Apparently not.

T800, please show where I have 'lied'.

Leo Lane, there is a good reason I have not taken any note of your creation of a word and definition for it...quite simply, like you, it is absurd, ludicrous, has absolutely no credibility and only deserves scorn.

Why does it matter whether or not homosexuality is a perversion? This issue is about same-sex marriage and not about same-sexuality marriage. Sexuality has nothing to do with it.

The law at present discriminates against people of the same gender marrying. It discriminates against same-gender couples whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Arguments put forward for change should be based on equality of gender and not sexuality. Why should people of the same gender be allowed to marry or not marry? That is the question.

People who try and dismiss homosexuality and those who support it are wasting their breath since sexuality is not relevant. Those in favour of same-gendered marriage have to come up with an argument for change without reference to sexuality. Anything else is pointless.

Those who claim to be concerned about equality and discrimination need to stop talking about sexuality. It is not the issue. If you really care about equality and discrimination you will want the law changed to include everyone regardless of sexuality. If that is what you truly want then you will stop arguing about the merits or otherwise of homosexuality.

I thought so A.J.PHILIPS, again you attempt to mask your obvious ignorance of basic police procedure by simply dismissing it as a mere quiz. Despite your claims to the contrary, with another 'flurry' of verbiage calculated to obscure your stupidity.

You are nevertheless a 'fraud' my lad! Carefully concealed as you try, but a fraud regardless. Masking your fraudulent assertions by continually claiming... I 'never' answer or respond to your many 'measured, and reasoned arguments. I do wonder whether this whole criminology caper is not just a figment of your imagination, another reason why you decline to inform us of your occupation?

Bleating on as you do, complaining of my dismissal and indifference to everything you say or have said, ostensibly because of my 32 years in the job? Naturally, who wouldn't? None of us seem to know who you are, that generally happens when branded a fraud A.J.P.

Reading your very first response to one of my Topics - I immediately formed the opinion that I disliked you ! Had no respect for either; your chosen career, or for you as an individual. You see it's extremely hard to respect a fraudulent individual A.J.P. especially one with an ego to match that of a Walter MITTY type that leaves us all confounded and confused

I wasn’t trying to mask anything, o sung wu.

<<… again you attempt to mask your obvious ignorance of basic police procedure by simply dismissing it as a mere quiz.>>

I thought it was quite obvious that I didn’t know the answer to your question. And why would I, given what I said in the comment that I linked to?

I didn’t try to dismiss it as anything. But now that you mentioned it, it was a “mere quiz”. I mean, you don’t think it was a formal exam, do you?

<<You are nevertheless a 'fraud' my lad!>>

Could you provide some evidence or an example of this?

<<Masking your fraudulent assertions by continually claiming... I 'never' answer or respond to your many 'measured, and reasoned arguments.>>

Where have I said anything of the sort?

<<I do wonder whether this whole criminology caper is not just a figment of your imagination …>>

It would be a pretty impressive one given that it leaves you baffled and causes you to eventually strike out with nothing more than insults and personal attacks.

<<Bleating on as you do, complaining of my dismissal and indifference to everything you say or have said, ostensibly because of my 32 years in the job?>>

No, but you don’t do yourself any favours by fallaciously appealing to authority - with yourself as the authority.

<<Naturally, who wouldn't?>>

Many. Most are at least smart enough to judge an argument based on its own merits. I take it I was right that you were trying to find an excuse to fallaciously dismiss what I say, though.

<<None of us seem to know who you are, that generally happens when branded a fraud A.J.P.>>

None of us really know who anyone else here is, but I don’t see you calling everyone a fraud.

I don’t take your insults too personally though, o sung wu. They’re directed at a fictional character that you put in place of me to attack because you feel that you’ve lost your position as OLO’s criminal justice expert, and that REALLY pisses you off!

No sympathy here.

A.J.PHILIPS...

Indeed, that's exactly what you are, a 'fictional' character ! But back to the 'quiz' - you claimed you're abreast of ordinary police procedure - or similar language. You're not! this is despite your many excuses. What you are acquainted with is 'words' masses of words. Merely repetitive verbiage, nothing else. Indeed you're a sad figure of 'make believe' A.J.P., who I suspect suffers with the 'Peter Pan' syndrome. With attempts to convey your thoughts with empty meaningless waffle, amounting to nothing of substance.

AJ,

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--HzffjeXY--/joqmja0vcavbrxmznblj.jpg

Thanks for the amusing reminder, Toni Lavis. Yes, I think it’s high time I walked away.

A.J.PHILIPS...

For someone who claims he doesn't believe in ad hominen behaviour directed toward another - you don't do too badly by concurring with TONI LAVIS'S boorish intimation do you?

In your last paragraph you stated inter alia...'I feel I've lost my position as OLO's criminal justice expert'. And (apparently) that really 'p....s me off'? Does it? What I do know A.J.P. 'is police work'; and you don't! So do I now assume that it's you, who's the 'Criminal Justice' expert?

Truly fascinating stuff A.J.P - Your only legitimate expertise lad, is in your own enigmatic world of 'make believe' together with your peculiar, inscrutable hubris !

It's interesting: as long as the discussion is focused on male-to-male anal sex, some people are very keen to join in. As soon as the discussion turns to the joys of cunnilingus, they lose all interest.

Oh well... whatever floats your boat, fellas ;)

Toni Lavis:

Perhaps they are not as amazingly liberated as you are when it comes to talking about sex? You are the envy of the whole forum.

One more time... yay.... and there will also be no relevant refutation... just like last time.

Sorry AJ no amount of disingenuous prattle or obfuscation will change the result... You are losing the argument.

Not rocket science, pretty simple really...

In Australia Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman.
The Australian people not a handful of LW progressive pollies should have a say on this issue... therefore a plebiscite is required.

As for you Minor Taur.... yapping like Chester around Spike's ankles and lying about what has been said because you are 1/ dishonest or 2/ ignorant of previous posts... will do you and your argument no good either.

You and AJ have arguments that ignore facts and in reality are "reductio ad absurdum" so puhlease enough of the crap you spout re types of argument... you both bore me with your arrogant denial of reality.

T800 states '...you both bore me with your arrogant denial of reality.' Now it knows how we've been feeling about its posts from the beginning. And notably when asked to put up about claims of lying then nothing was forthcoming. We can see who the dishonest and boring one is.

Minor Taur.. all my posts are factual... So don't lie.
Just for you again...

The reality is that a large number of LGBTIQ people are not committed to a long-term, monogamous relationship. Two recent national surveys, “Private lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians” and “Monopoly: A study of gay men’s relationships”, it is clear that a large number of LGBTIQ people prefer a more fluid lifestyle. All my Gay friends agree with that, none are interested in getting married.

In the 1st survey: Only 5-10% reported formalising the relationship with a marriage or commitment ceremony, while most others had no wish to do so. In the 2nd survey: Only a minority of men indicated they would like to marry their primary regular partner. To the question, “Would you marry your partner?” only 11% said yes.

While Turnbull favours a plebiscite, a policy largely endorsed by the Australian people in a survey, Shorten and Wong say they fear that debate will lead to gays and lesbians being vilified and attacked. Suddenly Australians have all become homophobic and hateful. Both are wrong to argue that those supporting "heterosexual" marriage are bigoted etc. The Left’s default position has been to engage in ad hom attacks.

While they both argue in favour of SSM a great many in the LGBTIQ community show no real interest in it. Also ironic that, after being elected as servants of the people, they wish to deny one of the basic tenets of democracy – the right of citizens to vote on issues. Surely this issue demands the people have a say. Without it, any change will have no credibility or authority.

97% of Australians identify as heterosexual, surely they have every right to express their opinion on whether the institution of marriage, a cornerstone, a bedrock of a stable, peaceful society, should be so radically redefined.

If only 11% of 3% want this change... just why are we contemplating it. Little wonder they refuse a plebiscite and seek a Progressive government consisting of a handful of pollies to over-rule the rest of us.

YAAAAAWWWWWNNNNN...the T800 tedium continues.

T800,

Instead of stubbornly digging your heels in and simply repeating your assertions, how about you actually try addressing my criticisms of them?

Fat chance of that, eh?

Apparently you can’t give an example of obfuscation or disingenuousness from myself; you’ve again stated the obvious by reminding us that “[i]n Australia Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman”, with some unnecessary capital letters; you’ve again assumed that all politicians are lefties without giving a reason (that has not already been discredited) as to why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote on this specific issue without a plebiscite first; and you again demonstrate that you have no idea what a reductio ad absurdum is.

<<Suddenly Australians have all become homophobic and hateful.>>

Well, a vicious hate campaign ensued in Ireland. In all jurisdictions that have held a public vote on the issue, the mental health of those in the gay community declined measurably during the debate.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.602.5629&rep=rep1&type=pdf

What do all your gay friends think of that?

<<… the institution of marriage, a cornerstone, a bedrock of a stable, peaceful society, should be so radically redefined.>>

And how will allowing same-sex couples to marry compromise any of this? The change is hardly "radical", too, by the way. I could think of changes far more radical.

<<If only 11% of 3% want this change... >>

Actually, the figure consistently sits around the 70% mark, with all polls since 2004 indicating a majority in favour of same-sex marriage, and that’s still growing. Your flawed figure assumes that only gay people who want to get married support the changes. What about all the heterosexual people wanting the change? You’ve been debating the topic with some of them and still you fail to account for them.

AJ Philips you are wasting your time trying to any logic or coherent argument from T800. Just simply repeats its deceitful claims. Lets see how the deceit works.

T800: 'Only 5-10% reported formalising the relationship with a marriage or commitment ceremony, while most others had no wish to do so.' The wording of the survey, was such: '...the majority of respondents (between 52% of men and 39% of women) indicated no intention or wish to formalise their current relationship.' Note the word CURRENT. That means those who said 'no' could in the future change that answer. That's a moot point though. To try build a case against same sex marriage on the basis some don't want to marry their current partner is a fallacy. It is also ignores the extension that if some heterosexual couples don't want to marry then marriage should just be abandoned.

T800 then deceitfully tries to build an objection based on the statistic of 11% of gay men wanting to marry. When looking at the actual report the number of those who answered yes to the question ‘Would you marry your partner?’ 34.3% said yes and 34.6% were unsure. The 11% figure was from men with multiple partners. Ah, the deceit is simply growing and growing.

Exposing T800 as a deceitful fraud means it is no longer worth engaging with.

//Perhaps they are not as amazingly liberated as you are when it comes to talking about sex?//

They're amazingly liberated when it comes to talking about some types of sex. But not others. I just thought it was interesting to observe the types of sex they're more comfortable discussing. Not trying to make anyone envious.

//The Australian people not a handful of LW progressive pollies should have a say on this issue... therefore a plebiscite is required.//

Still a non-sequitur the second time round. Haven't we already discussed the futility of repetition? And it appears that the RW pollies are still playing hide & seek... little scamps.

//97% of Australians identify as heterosexual, surely they have every right to express their opinion//

Yes, they do. And they exercise it. Frequently. I'm surprised you haven't noticed anybody doing it around here, seeing as that is exactly what we've been doing. What did you think we were discussing? Sunflower cultivation? Art-deco design? Good chilli recipes?

//If only 11% of 3% want this change//

There is a difference between believing you should have the right to get married and actually wanting to marry somebody; you're falsely conflating the two. What percentage of homosexuals believe they should have the right to get married? And what percentage of the 97% want it? Or do their views suddenly not matter any more?

Phanto says:” Why does it matter whether or not homosexuality is a perversion? This issue is about same-sex marriage and not about same-sexuality marriage. Sexuality has nothing to do with it.He is correct.

AJP, in his desperation to distract from the true agenda of the same sex activists led the thread to a discussion about perversion., and has employed his nonsense “fallacy” arguments to attempt to keep it there.

As I said:” We should consider what the activist perverts say about marriage.
The lesbian activist Gessen says:”” Gay marriage is a lie.”
• “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
• “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
“Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen's candid sentiments: "Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it," he once wrote. "James Dobson was right about our evil intentions," he quipped. "We just plan to be quicker than he thought."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/matt-barber/2015/08/17/the-gay-marriage-gauntlet-time-to-choose

This is from an address by John Murphy MP in 2012
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (12:11): I rise to speak against the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012. …… Supporting Altman's call to remove the words 'a man and a woman' as a first step to abolishing the Marriage Act, prominent gay writer Masha Gessen attacked those who claim that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will not diminish the importance of traditional marriage, saying: 'It is a lie to say the institution of marriage won't change … We want to abolish marriage.' Her words confirm my previous speech in this House, when I said redefining marriage would change the meaning of marriage for all Australians. Effectively, it would make marriage meaningless.
http://australianmarriage.org/parliament-gay-marriage-debate-opens-we-want-to-abolish-marriage/

”

Toni Lavis:

“I just thought it was interesting to observe the types of sex they're more comfortable discussing. Not trying to make anyone envious.”

Why would that be interesting unless you were passing some kind of judgement about your comfort versus their comfort? Are you trying to tell us or are you trying to tell yourself that you are comfortable about discussing all types of sex?

Leo Lane:

“Sexuality has nothing to do with it. He is correct.”

Then why are you discussing sexuality? Why are you discussing something which is totally irrelevant to the topic? Why are you arguing about something which cannot be presented as an argument either way for or against same gender marriage?

As it stands the law says marriage has to be between a man and a woman so if that is what you want then you have already got what you want so there is no need to argue. It is up to those who want to change the law to present a viable argument in favour of changing the law to allow people of the same gender to marry.

If you have a problem with homosexuality then this is not the place to deal with it. Nor is it the place to try and justify it.

minotaur,

It’s all good fun. I know I’ll never convince those commenting here, but who knows who else could be reading. Besides, watching a someone as thoroughly unpleasant as ol’ Leo squirm and fumble is priceless.

--

Leo Lane,

No, you did. Remember?

<<AJP, in his desperation to distract from the true agenda of the same sex activists led the thread to a discussion about perversion.>>

“We should consider what the activist perverts say about marriage.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333128)

If you claim that an entire demographic of people are perverts, then others have the right to request a justification for that claim. That in itself doesn’t necessitate an attempt to distract.

<<… and has employed his nonsense “fallacy” arguments to attempt to keep it there.>>

How are they nonsense? You don’t know, do you? You just want to say something disparaging about them to give the impression that you’ve countered them.

I take it you’ve given up trying to justify the ‘pervert’ claim. Looks like you gave it a good couple of days’ thought there and then decided, “Nah, too hard. I’ll just make it look like AJ was creating a diversion out of desperation. Yes. Yes, that sounds good.” Fine by me. I knew you wouldn’t be able to justify the claim anyway.

<<As I said:” We should consider what the activist perverts say about marriage.>>

And those two people you quote speak for all people in support of marriage equality, do they? How do they know what motivates each individual? Because they’re gay? The majority of those who support marriage equality are heterosexual, some are even right-wingers, so if I quote a straight person contradicting those two, does that negate your Appeal to a Homosexual Person’s Thoughts?

Once again, your approach is fallacious.

YAAAAAWWWWWNNNNN...the T800 tedium continues.
Posted by minotaur, Friday, 16 December 2016 9:19:09 AM

If you have nothing except to ignore the facts then claim they are not posted then when I go to the trouble of reposting them for you... perhaps you need to debate a mirror.

AJ... Minor Taur... you both live in denial... stop wasting my time.
Oh and everyone elses... its obvious who the bigots are here.

wow - AJ Phillips, Minotaur's responses to O Sung Wo and T800 (and others) in relation to this thread - say's it all.

T800,

You’re the one wasting the time of others. Here we go to the effort of well thought-out responses to your repetition and you still provide nothing but the same discredited arguments as if they still meant something. Then claim that we can't face facts and slink off. Nice.

--

SAINTS,

Wow! I noticed you too couldn’t point to a specific example of what it is that is just ‘wow’. When you don’t have an argument left, just pretend to be shocked at something. It makes it look like you came across something that just... just... "says it all", and diverts attention from the vacuous arguments, barefaced assertions, and abusive trolling that has actually been going in the other direction.

Do you have a rebuttal, or are you just going to pretend like there was something there that said it all?

Maybe some posters should consider if SSM marriage sanctioned - the relevant "fall out" of their advocates proposals recently portrayed in newspapers.

I provide one example -

1. If in an instance of emergency (fire, flooding etc) transgender persons should be treated differently as they would require a separate toilet.

So my question being - what the F!@#!

Most human beings would be appreciative of any assistance in saving lives, by emergency assistance teams and don't look at any person and ask the question - are you gay7

The people I work with (including our gay/lesbian colleagues) are so over these "so called" advocates working on their behalf.

Minotour - come back to me as to your posting that "I lack credibility.

AJ Philips - I await your response.

AJP says:” you claim that an entire demographic of people are perverts, then others have the right to request a justification for that claim. “
I made no such claim. This is just another example of you lying about what I said, then making baseless assertions on what you falsely assert was said by me.
Your assertions are baseless because they refer to words never said by me, which are your own lies.
No wonder you lose the debate, you are incapable of telling the truth.
Bullhead has a different problem.
As an uneducated ignoramus, he seems unconscious of the fact that he is lying, while in your case your fabrications are a definite strategy.

SAINTS,

That’s a transgender issue.

<<If in an instance of emergency (fire, flooding etc) transgender persons should be treated differently as they would require a separate toilet.>>

Transgender people already exist, and will continued to do so with or without same-sex marriage.

<<The people I work with (including our gay/lesbian colleagues) are so over these "so called" advocates working on their behalf.>>

Well, all my gay friends and colleagues are sick of people acting like their gay friends and colleagues represent all gay people.

There, now where even.

<<Minotour - come back to me as to your posting that "I lack credibility.>>

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say to minotaur there, but I would agree with him/her that you lack credibility. I mean, confusing transgender issues with the same-sex marriage debate is a pretty basic mistake.

--

Leo Lane,

You have a short memory, don’t you?

<<I made no such claim. This is just another example of you lying about what I said, then making baseless assertions on what you falsely assert was said by me.>>

“AJP seems to have difficulty with the fact that homosexuals are perverts.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333352)

There you go. An entire demographic. All perverts, according to you.

<<Your assertions are baseless because they refer to words never said by me, which are your own lies.>>

What do you call referring to homosexuals as “perverts” then?

<<No wonder you lose the debate, you are incapable of telling the truth.>>

Apparently it’s not me who's having difficulty telling the truth. Or is it a memory issue? You don't sound to me like you're entirely 'with it'.

I like how you lot are still claiming to have won, though. I don’t think I’ve ever debated a bunch of people so determined to claim victory. It's like you lot are desperate for this to be over. I don’t blame you.

AJ has referred me to the comment upon which he based his assertion.
I withdraw my statement that I made no such claim. I misread his comment, posted in haste, and will repent at leisure.

After having another quick peek at Mr Lyle SHELTON'S article, and I'm not a Christian, nor do I support any of practices or ideologies of either homosexual men or women, why then don't we let the people decide through the process of a plebiscitary, the issue of 'same sex marriage', after all it's the democratic process, is it not?

Like most people I neither trust nor believe in many of the deeds from our 'treasured', elected representatives. So as this issue seemingly remains intractably unresolved, it continues to have a most deleterious effect, particularly emotionally, upon many of the Gay folk in our community.

Their situation does however remind me of an old saying, oft used in my former industry, illustrating - despite how tough, aloof or emotionally cold we may present to others; 'we all bleed when we're cut'! Outwardly many Gay people may simply laugh it off, inwardly however they may bleed? I wouldn't really know for sure, but from my experience with most of them, I can only suspect ?

Unquestionably this issue, being allowed to drag on ad infinitum, must have considerable impact upon many Gay men and women, some may be experiencing profound emotional consequences all as a result of these ridiculous delays?

By encouraging our ineffectual Prime Minister, to immediately introduce the necessary documentary 'letters patent', to the Governor General, and in doing so, allow the electorate to arbitrarily decide on this highly contentious 'same sex marriage' debate, one way or the other.

Whatever the electorate decide - same sex marriage will become law within ten years, of this I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Good grief...
This could be settle and easily with a plebiscite.
It should be settle with one as that is the only true way the people will get a real say on the issue. A say about their society and its traditions and institutions. A say about the makeup of our society.
Most gays are not interested.
Most gays are happy with their lifestyle.
We should not change the definition of marriage for the minority of a minority... that is just pure stupidity.
It seems that perhaps some little girls who were brought up to believe that Marriage is a the big goal of their lives and who suddenly realise they are lesbian want this change.
It seems that little boys who played with dolls and are effeminate have similar issues.
Both are in the minority within the gay community.
If they want to "marry" let them come up with some other TERM... let Marriage remain what it has always been THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, because those who cry and scream equality do not know what they are talking about. This is not about equality

Those whinging about needing a plebiscite need to get a grip on reality; it is dead and buried. And rightfully so as if a plebiscite were to be held it would set a terrible precedent for governments. People would be calling for plebiscites for any legislative change or new legislation they didn't agree with. The democratic process elects a government to govern; not to run to the people when it comes to a simple legislative amendment.

I'd still like to know what great societal change would occur once same-sex marriages are given legislative recognition? Gay people are already in relationships; gay people enter into 'marriages' (although not covered by legislation and the rights and protections that provides, which is what it is all about). Gay people have families, including children.

Trying to argue marriage is about 'tradition' is simply a fallacy. 'Traditions' change. It used to be traditional to have all football games played at 2pm on a Saturday (and for Rugby codes it was 3pm on Sundays). That has changed. It used to be traditional for those who did marry to stay married regardless of domestic violence and/or other abuses. It used to be traditional for women to leave the workforce once they married and be a 'housewife'. Just because something is regarded as 'traditional' doesn't mean it is 'good'. And society is not a static entity but one that is continually changing. Embracing change has been an overall good thing.

There is also the fact that the definition and concept of marriage has changed in many countries and jurisdictions to include same-sex couples. That has not resulted in any major change to those societies...other than that they have become more inclusive of married couples who are of the same sex.

To try an argue that embracing change to include same-sex marriages that would be covered by the Marriage Act is not worthy as it only affects a minority is also a fallacy. It is akin to arguing that Aboriginal people should not have been given the vote in Federal elections as they were only a minority.

Minotaur :

“I'd still like to know what great societal change would occur once same-sex marriages are given legislative recognition?”

So why bother with it then? What is in it for the country or the government or the rest of society? Why change something that does not need to be changed – which gives no advantage to anyone? What is the reason why the legislation needs to be changed?

I would have thought the answers to your questions were obvious phanto; it is about giving same-sex couples the same rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples that are provided by the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). That is where the equality issue comes in.

As it stands same-couples can be given recognition under various state Acts that cover 'unions' or de-facto couples. However, there is no uniformity to those Acts. That lack of uniformity used to apply to heterosexual marriages, which is why the Federal government of the day implemented the Marriage Act...to ensure that one law applied to all.

Now that society has progressed and no longer regards same-sex relationships as illegal (something I would have thought that had a greater influence on society than simply recognising marriages) then why not have the Marriage Act amended to reflect the change in attitude and acceptance?

“As it stands same-couples can be given recognition under various state Acts that cover 'unions' or de-facto couples. However, there is no uniformity to those Acts.”

The solution to that is to make those acts uniform. This would bring about the equality that you speak of. You do not have to change the Marriage Act to achieve that equality. Why should people have to get married to receive the benefits that others in neighbouring states get without getting married? Obviously those in neighbouring states are entitled to those benefits on the basis of their relationship and not on the basis of their relationship being certified as a marriage. It is undignified to have to go through a process just to get what others get without having to go through that process. Anyone with any dignity would fight for their rights unconditionally and not succumb to such unequal restrictions.

No phanto, making state and territory acts uniform (if ever a thing was achievable) will not create marriage equality as they still won't be marriages recognised by Federal law. The Constitution won't allow the states/territories to have like for like legislation and the High Court has already ruled that the Federal government is the only jurisdiction that can give legislative recognition for same-sex marriages. The states/territories have been sidelined.

You don't create financial/legal equality by redefining marriage. Most gays in Australia already have such things. Another reason not to do it.
Why denigrate in a religious way an accepted institution for no reason. Why "lessen" MARRIAGE by changing its definition.

Minotaur:

You said that the Marriage Act should be changed to give “same-sex couples the same rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples that are provided by the Marriage Act 1961.”

Then you said “as it stands same-couples can be given recognition under various state Acts that cover 'unions' or de-facto couples. However, there is no uniformity to those Acts.”

If same sex couples can be given recognition under certain state acts why can’t they be given that recognition in the other states which do not give them recognition? Why are not same-sex couples demanding the same recognition in all states without having to get married to obtain that recognition?

If it is recognition as a couple that you want then it can be had in some states. The task remains to make sure that recognition as a couple is available in all states. Your recognition as a couple has nothing to do with marriage and so the Marriage Act is irrelevant.

If it is marriage that you truly want then what is the point of bringing up the discrepancies between states in regard to recognition as a couple? Those discrepancies are irrelevant if your aim is to legislate for marriage. If you want to change the Marriage Act to include same-gender couples then you need to have a good reason to do so. Obtaining recognition as a couple is not a good reason since recognition as a couple is already acknowledged in some states. Where it is not recognised then it needs to be changed but that does not require a change to the Marriage Act.

So what is your reason for wanting to change the Marriage Act?

zzzzzzzzzzz

I thought it was pretty straightforward phanto...amending the Marriage Act to include same-couples will give them the same rights, protections and privileges that heterosexual couples get.

You can have all the state/territory 'recognition' available but none of them equate to having a marriage recognised under the Commonwealth Act. And that extends to having your marriage recognised in other countries.

One thing you do get right is that for people, including heterosexual couples, who don't want to be married and have that given Federal sanctioned recognition then the Act is irrelevant.

Minotaur:

So which rights, protections and privileges are people missing out on by being only recognised as a couple and not being recognised as married? How important can they be if so many couples are prepared to forego marriage?

There is not much point in just making the general statement about rights, privileges and protections if you cannot name any. It just sounds like you are avoiding the issue. Why would you avoid naming one or two of these things? Unless you can specifically point to advantages of a marriage certificate you have no argument. Just claiming that it is 'obvious' is avoidance.

EmperorJulian:

The discussion is obviously getting under your skin but you are too gutless to get involved.

Hi phanto, the question you pose there is perhaps the most pertinent one posed thus far in the 'debate'. I shall answer it tomorrow as I'm currently doing more than actually following OLO closely. Yes, believe it or not I do have a life :)

Cheers phanto and shall be back to you tomorrow!

What discussion?

Well if there is no discussion why is it bothering you so much that you feel the need to make any kind of comment at all? Don't you have better things to do?

Living in hopes that an actual,relevant, factual, reasoned discussion might eventuate. No sign I'm afraid. Just assertions and counter-assertions though I have to admit AJP makes strenuous efforts to actually discuss issues in the context of the rules governing logical reasoning. Wasted though. Nothing remains but endless cyclic repetition.

Oh, and I should have mentioned, while, the ad hominem keyboard warriors have been busily ducking one another's points about what marriage is supposed to mean, tha ball has passed straight through to stumps: Newer mind about gender, our tax money is being funnelled through Centrelink to supporting the multiple wives of polygamous Moslems.

"Living in hopes that an actual,relevant, factual, reasoned discussion might eventuate."

So what does a comment like -

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

contribute to that discussion?

If there is nothing to be achieved here then why are you here? Are you trying to convince yourself or the rest of us that it is all a waste of time? Your behaviour certainly does not match your rhetoric.

phanto, the most obvious 'benefit' from having a state sanctioned marriage is the state issued marriage certificate. It allows ease of next of kin allocation to the partner, unlike now. It also enables an easy name change if someone wants to take their partners surname (although why people want to do that in the 21st century escapes me). There is also the issue of adoption that becomes easier for married couples...and by that I mean becoming the adoptive parent to the partners children. Being married also means that it is recognised in other countries...and by amending the legislation those married in other countries would be recognised as such here.

There is also the issue of status...married couples have their relationship given a greater status to that of unions or de facto couples. It is seen by society to have a higher level of commitment...and there are no eligibility criteria that have to be met (such as de facto's where there has to be two years together or have children).

I think I'm about to run out of word space so I'll leave it at that for now.

minotaur:

“It allows ...”

Such allocation should be based on closeness of relationship. If the aim of marriage certificates is to give access to the most significant person in your life then there is no guarantee that the person you married is the most significant. If you have left your wife and became emotionally attached to another partner for thirty years but never married or divorced then who is the more significant person to you? How inhumane are those kind of laws that ignore emotional significance?

“It also enables...”

Why should you have to get married to change your name? It is a basic human right to call yourself whatever name you want. Anyone who gets married in order to change their name has no dignity. They should stand up for their rights to have their own name regardless of their marital status.

“There is also the issue of adoption ...”

That is just blatant discrimination. It should not be any easier for married couples. All couples should have equal access to adopting their partner’s children. Married couples do not automatically make better parents than non-married couples. Anyone who accepts that kind of discrimination has no self-respect and anyone who complies with it by getting married for that reason lacks dignity.

“Being married....”

Why do you need the recognition of other countries? If it is not necessary in Australia then it should not be necessary anywhere else in the world. If same-sex marriage is not reasonable here then it is not reasonable anywhere else. What other countries do is their problem. If they behave unreasonably it does not mean that we should go along with their unreasonableness.

“There is also the issue ...”

If any individual or society issues greater status to married couples then they are displaying bigotry beyond words. Such arrogance should never be the reason for doing anything. In the civilised world we do not have ‘status’. Every human being is considered equal and no piece of government issued paper can make you any more equal than anyone else.

Take it all up with the government and society phanto.

Aren't you a part of society?

A very tiny part...and probably not one who runs with the main pack.

They are not reasons for not responding to my arguments. They sound more like excuses.

phanto, I don't feel any need to respond to your arguments as I actually agree with you. It may seem contradictory given I support same-sex marriage but I don't actually believe in marriage. I believe it is an outdated and archaic institution that has no place in the 21st century...and marriage ceremonies (generally speaking), to me, have become a means of wasting of time and money. It seems to be a competition as to who can have the biggest and most outlandish 'wedding'...all in order to basically get a government sanctioned piece of paper.

However, as it does exist for heterosexual couples I can see no good reason or argument for it not to be extended to same-sex couples. Hopefully we can cease the to and fro-ing about it as we're getting nowhere! And it seems only you and I are the ones taking part in this part of the forum that has become the ultimate 'gift that keeps on giving' ;)

Cheers phanto...and merry xmas to you and your family :)

"It may seem contradictory given I support same-sex marriage but I don't actually believe in marriage."

It is contradictory and totally illogical. Whatever the government chooses to do should be logical and reasonable but you are advocating that they behave in a totally illogical way.

You can't see any good reason for marriage but you are saying that they should alter the marriage act to permit even more marriages to take place and yet you cannot see anything wrong with that?

Clearly you are not sure what you think.

Clearly you cannot comprehend complex thinking about issues phanto. I extend a courtesy and you respond with a shallow insult. Go and get...

AJ Phillips - your response on 16/12 -

Regarding my post the newspaper article related to transgender persons only.

Really - have you read more articles since?

AJ Phillips and any others

The author states

"We know this because a bright spark in Labor briefed the Sunday Telegraph’s Samantha Maiden about secret polling which showed they would lose.

Blowing up the plebiscite was never about protecting vulnerable gays from Christian hate merchants, it was about making sure the issue did not find its way into the hands of ordinary people who might not do as they are told."

This is so true, and is evidenced by a Christian Lobby group seeking to hold a peaceful meeting at a Sydney venue earlier this year, the meeting had to be abandoned due to “alleged” threats (newspapers report threats) to staff at venue by advocates of same sex marriage?

So what does that say for Australian democracy for those who wish to oppose SSM they can’t hold a meeting to discuss their views among Australian citizens – who have a right to hold a meeting

Do you wish me to go on as I can provide further information.

AJ Phillips

You advised my newspaper article referenced only transgender people is correct.

So my question to you being - as advocates wish to believe - that "transgender" people deserve "special" treatment in times of emergencies...why?

In times of any emergency, whether they be the (A-Z) community - WE ARE ALL ONE....Australians.

Minotaur

I get your "underlying" message.

I wish you, your family, including OLO circle of friends a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.