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.