Sorry AJ but you are still losing the debate... ignoring facts and just saying NO doesn't make you right... just saying... in case you weren't sure.

You don't change marriage in case someone who doesn't fit the criteria for marriage wants to get married, especially when there is so very bloody few of them... that is the height of stupidity. You seem to be right at the apex on that score.

T800 states that AJ Philips is losing the debate and then proceeds to offer up no substance but the obligatory insult. That clearly demonstrates who is losing the debate and it isn't AJ Philips!

A.J.PHILIPS and ors...

I've quickly read your latest posts and I acknowledge their various contents. My only question to you (at this time) A.J.PHILIPS, why would anyone be ashamed of their employment; their job or work? I've heard you waffle on with some absurd excuse, so I must ask myself why?

I've always maintained the belief, regardless of what type of work an individual has, whether menial, humble or manifestly low status - all work is good and demands respect, provided it's honest.

Now gentlemen and A.J.PHILIPS, I must excuse myself momentarily, as I have some very important news from our Veterinarian, which simply takes priority over this, and all other things.

AJ Phillips, having lost the debate, attempts to mislead.
The definition he posted as mine is not the definition which I posted. He is upset that the truth has prevailed, and is trying to lie his way out of it. Get used to it AJ, the truth will often win. When it does, you will lose.
Bull head is demonstrating his uneducated ignorance again. The same bullhead who asserted that he is aware of same sex marriages taking place. Even an ignoramus should know that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Union between same sex couples is perviage, not marriage.

Leo Lane is big on definitions but when one tries to find one for 'perviage', well, none exists. Therefore the term has no relevance (apart from in the strange imagination of Leo Lane).

There are definitions for 'marriage' though and the Dictionary.com defines it as thus: "any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:"

According to that definition same-sex marriages in Australia do have legitimacy, albeit without the legal recognition under the Marriage Act that heterosexual marriages currently receive. However, that does not mean they do not exist as it is not illegal for same-sex couples to 'marry' and conduct themselves in precisely the same manner as heterosexual married couples (some of whom practice sodomy...oh no, those perverted people!).

This uneducated Bullhead is not so ignorant to have his horny head so far up his ahhhs, sandpit, that he cannot recognise reality or progressive change to social 'norms'. Unlike many of those in the anti same-sex lobby.

T800,

And yet somehow, I don’t need to resort to abuse!

<<… you are still losing the debate…>>

Says the one who cannot provide a rational argument.

<<ignoring facts and just saying NO doesn't make you right...>>

You've got that right! I’m not sure why you’re telling me this, though.

<<You don't change marriage in case someone who doesn't fit the criteria for marriage wants to get married …>>

Well if we change it, then they will fit the criteria. Problem solved.

This argument, that only a small percentage of gay people want to marry anyway (assuming it's even true), is bunk. Why would we deny them the right to a legally recognised union just because they are a tiny percentage of the population? What kind of stupid logic is that? Particularly when there are only benefits to be had.

Let’s not find cures for rare diseases because only a tiny percentage of people are affected by them.

<<You seem to be right at the apex on that score.>>

Another insult. You lot really come out swinging when you're cornered, don't you?

--

o sung wu,

I'm not ashamed of what I do. I just think you can deal with my arguments on their own merit rather than wasting our time and word limits by fallaciously appealing to authority, as you so often do. There's nothing absurd about that. You still haven't told me why you want to know, either.

--

Leo Lane,

Yes, “lost the debate”.

<<AJ Phillips, having lost the debate, attempts to mislead.>>

Says the one who hasn’t yet justified their position. I like how you guys just assert that you've won the debate when you have nowhere left to turn.

<<The definition he posted as mine is not the definition which I posted.>>

Yes, it was. Your link once again: http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion

Is it any wonder why you don't clarify what definition it was that you were referring to?

<<He is upset that the truth has prevailed …>>

How could that be the case when you lot haven't yet presented a rational argument against same-sex marriage?