//Don’t you just love it when SSM advocates feign injury//

You seem to be mistaking genuine amusement for feigned injury. I am falling about - but it is with laughter, rather than wounds sustained from the searing burns you launch through your devastating rhetoric.

//“I am much too weak to go on with this discussion”//

Nah, you'll be back. The Phanto, Ghost who Struggles With Rhetoric, The Man that Cannot Argue Well, Guardian of the Courting Same Sex Heterosexuals always comes back.

//I’m confused now.//

Told you so. I've been reading The Phanto for so long that I can predict the plot pages in advance.

//Two sexualities are being denied and yet you acknowledge that only one is being denied.//

And we're back to gnomes.

Hey, did I ever tell you guys the joke about the sadistic necrophiliac arrested for bestiality, or would that just be flogging a dead horse?

I figured you had the wrong thread before, phanto.

<<... you never give up and you never admit defeat.>>

I give up, admit defeat, and even alter my views accordingly when I am shown to be wrong. I've done it before, even on OLO. The reason why is because I care about the truth of my beliefs and want to hold as many true beliefs, and as fewer false beliefs, as I possibly can.

I look on in fascination at how some here can cling to a belief that has clearly been shown by another to be false. And even repeat it in a later discussion. I guess I just don’t become so emotionally attached to a belief, or define who I am according to them. Perhaps that’s a protection mechanism I developed after the confusion and anguish I experience when I discovered that my religious beliefs were false?

<<You simply just out last everyone else.>>

Not if I'm shown to be wrong about something. I will stay for so long as I have a valid response to offer (or until I get bored).

<<… you always find a way of side-stepping or changing the subject or manipulating language.>>

If you can find one example of that. I will acknowledge it and walk away now with my tail between my legs. But it is unfair and discourteous to talk of alleged occurrences and not afford those whom you accuse the ability to rebut, by conveniently failing to offer an example.

<<People argue because they want to see the truth come to the fore …>>

Most don’t, actually. That’s very rare. And even when it’s presented to them in black and white, they still don’t believe it.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

<<When people walk away in frustration you interpret that as being caused by your superior intellect.>>

No, you’re thinking of LEGO. He’s the one who gloats and parades around like a narcissist when someone gives up and walks away because of the sheer futility of the situation.

<<… you take advantage of the forum format to hide behind that illusion.>>

How so?

//Historically the family has been seen as the basic institution and building block of society.//

Really? How far back in history are we talking? I'm guessing about 50 years ago when you were a kid and the world was a better place. The world was better place when I was a kid too. It is always is. Peter Pan was right.

But you should be aware that the middle ages, for example, were a good deal more unpleasant than what you see on Game of Thrones. And that up until quite recently, there was a staggering mortality rate for women during childbirth not to mention the staggering mortality rate from other causes like smallpox, bubonic plague etc. Children often grew up without the nurturing influence of dear old Mum or Dad because she died giving birth to a potential little sister (also dead) and he got a cut working the farm and it went septic. And you know what? They still did OK. They must have, or we'd not be here.

Look, it's great that you have such a Mormonic view of the importance of family. I love my family too. But don't imagine for a second that the nice cosy picture of the nuclear family you value so much is the historical norm, because history will take a big steaming dump all over any Disneyesque notions like that.

//The past 50 years//

Well that's just spooky.

//but sexual activities between same sex attracted couples must by its very nature raise questions if we are honest.//

I concur. Why do lesbians always have such long fingernails? It just seems impractical. Giggity.

And regarding oral sex - can you tell the difference in the dark?

//I have a degree of understanding of same sex attraction issues and I am not homophobic but I see no biological or social sense that justifies same sex marriage.//

The social sense is easy to see: more freedom for people, at no harm to anybody. Exactly what J.S. Mill would have wanted. I'm not sure what biology has to do with a social construct like marriage.

Dear JF Aus,

«But I would say do it at the correct time so as to allow existing marriage to adopt or dismiss amendment to Marriage Act, if that was to be voted for.»

Sorry, but I don't understand your statement:
First, grammatically, how can a marriage adopt anything?
Second, how can a repealed Act have amendments?

Repeal means repeal: not replaced, not amended - gone, forever!

You can have any relationships you like and call it by any name(s) of your choice, but the state is to stay out, completely out of any and all private/personal relationships and no laws should ever even mention them.

Now you asked me a question, so I am obliged to answer despite not finding it related to my previous post:

«All persons are equal, aren't they?»

Obviously not. Observe it from any perspective, nothing is equal about persons: both their bodies and their minds are different in thousands if not billions of ways. Where did you get this strange idea from?

It so happens that repealing the Marriage Act will result in treating people more AS IF they were equal: homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, long, short, fat, skinny, bipeds, quadrupeds, whatever - the law will treat them all equally as far as their relationships go and this will be a good thing, yet it won't mean that people have suddenly become equal: had they indeed been equal, then one sample would be sufficient.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Sorry, I was trying to say too much in one sentence on a smartphone.

An existing heterosexu marriage is between two people.
Accordingly I think a majority of those people would need to agree in a vote to amend OR repeal present Marriage Act law.
Then they would need to agree or disagree to change to their own agreement between each other, because their marriage is between two people.
In other words, both the law and personal agreement has to be modified or changed.
There would need to be mutual understanding that their vow in their existing marriage m be ayvirtually amended, to comply with, say a new 'Matrimony Act'.
Of course they would/could still love each and adhere to their marriage vow.

Existing marriage could gain from such change, not lose.
For example the male could gain equal custody right.
The children could benefit from equal custody.
The woman could benefit from rest during fair/equal custody time.

Where did I get the 'strange idea' from?
On page 7 AJ Philips refers to equality in a humanitarian sense.
Indeed, I think all we humans are equal in a humanitarian sense.
Do you think otherwise, Yuyutsu?

At present heterosexual males are not treated equally in Court.
Children that belong to both parents are virtually stolen by Court order that can be based on a lie in an Affidavit, a lie that the male is given no court time to challenge there and then during the sitting.
Proof should be required to verify a sworn statement but the Family Court system does not have required resources and time available for that purpose, does it?

From a humanitarian perspective, fathers should have equal right to raise their children that are not just the children of the mother.

There are also deep divisions in heterosexual marriage law that should not be glossed over either in debate and drafting of legislation or in Court.

Spellcheck drama in my post above. Jumping cursor. Due climate change maybe! LOL