AJ you say: by referring to gay people as “perverts”, you were referring to the definition I quoted:”
Now you have said many things to deserve your description as idiot, and this one earns a place on the list. As I said, I did not quote or refer to that definition at any time, so your assertion is baseless and idiotic.
You say:” Your use of the label, “pervert”, implied the second definition of ‘perversion’ (the one I quoted), but then, when asked to provide evidence that homosexuality was a perversion, you switch to a different sense of the word. That's equivocation.”
I implied no such thing, I explicitly set out the definition upon which I relied. You could not be stupid enough to believe that I implied anything by use of the word “pervert”,my statement was obviously overt, and complete.
So you are lying again, just as you are lying about not having lost the debate

Leo Lane's equivocation can also be entitled verbal sleight of hand.

//The Australian people not a handful of LW progressive pollies should have a say on this issue... therefore a plebiscite is required.//

And there's a non-sequitur. The Australian people can, and already do, have a say on this issue without a plebiscite.

May I ask what it is you imagine all the RW conservative pollies will be doing when this issue is being voted on? Ducking out for a quick smoke and leaving the bill to be passed unopposed? That doesn't sound like the Cory Bernardi I'm familiar with. Are you sure there aren't any politicians on your side of the debate?

//You and AJ have arguments that ignore facts and in reality are "reductio ad absurdum"//

They're really not. A reduction ad absurdum is an argument in which you disprove a statement by showing that it leads to an absurd or impossible conclusion. For example, we can consider the following argument:

1. Women who enjoy cunnilingus are perverts.
2. Lesbians enjoy cunnilingus.
3. Perverts shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Therefore: Lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry.

All seems OK so far, right? Problem is that premise 2, whilst true, is not the whole truth - it's not just lesbians that like having their pussy eaten. All the straight women like it too. So now our argument looks like this:

1. Women who enjoy cunnilingus are perverts.
2. All women enjoy cunnilingus.
3. Perverts shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Therefore: No women should be allowed to get married.

Which is an absurd conclusion, because if all women are denied marriage rights then what's the point for anybody except gay males? Clearly, something is wrong with one of the premises.

I would say that premise 1 is rubbish - to declare the entire female population perverted robs the term 'pervert' of any real meaning. They can't all be weird sickos just because they like cunnilingus.

Premise 2 is also probably bollocks. I haven't polled every woman (no pun intended), and there are doubtless exceptions that prove the rule. But if you're going to limit marriage to only those women who don't like cunnilingus, it's going to complicate matters enormously.

And premise 3 is definitely shite because we let heterosexual perverts get married without taking an undue interest in their sex lives, because it's creepy. How on earth would you manage a no-marriage-for-perverts policy? Groups of upstanding, decent, community-minded citizens peering in through couples windows late at night... just to make sure they're not doing anything perverse, of course ;)

Bullhead could not find “perviage” in the dictionary.
If he were not so determined to preserve his abysmal ignorance, he would have read my recent post, which is the only reference, so far as I know, to “perviage”.

“They will not even name the same sex union, which ceased to be a criminal offence some time ago.
I have a name for it:”perviage”
All we need now is legislation to enact that perviage shall be the union of two people where those people are not a man and a woman
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 December 2016

You should notify the dictionary you consulted of its deficiency, bullhead.

Leo Lane,

More insults from a desperate and intolerant person with apparent anger issues.

<<As I said, I did not ... refer to that definition at any time, so your assertion is baseless and idiotic.>>

Yes you did, when you referred to gay people as “perverts“. So again, who decides what is “abnormal” and “unacceptable”? Stop dodging the question.

<<I implied no such thing, …>>

Yes, you did. With your use of the label, “pervert”. I've already explained this. You’re just ducking and weaving now.

<<I explicitly set out the definition upon which I relied.>>

I know. Hence the equivocation. Or as EmperorJulian aptly put it, ‘verbal sleight of hand’.

A ‘pervert’ is,
“[a] person whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.” (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pervert)

‘Perversion’ can be defined as,
“[s]exual behaviour that is considered abnormal and unacceptable.” (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion)

Yet, you opt for the other definition (“Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something”) as your evidence that homosexuality is perversion. That’s equivocation. Are you denying the relevance of the sense that I quoted? I doubt it. I think you’re just dodging my question because it would be acknowledging that there is nothing “self-evident” about your assertion.

Either way, your chosen definition does nothing to help your case for reasons Toni Lavis has pointed out numerous times now. Care to address these at any point?

<<You could not be stupid enough to believe that I implied anything by use of the word “pervert”,my statement was obviously overt, and complete.>>

Good point, your use of the word, “pervert”, explicitly relied on the second definition that I quoted. Either way, it was still equivocation.

<<So you are lying again, just as you are lying about not having lost the debate>>

Apparently not.