//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.