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.