//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?