//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.