Just more ad hominems, phanto?

<<Only about the motivations of those who abuse the forums.>>

Well, if you can show how I have abused these forums, then I will gladly apologise and walk away with my tail between my legs. How’s that for a deal?

<<That is a rather perverse sense of fascination.>>

No, there is nothing “perverse” about being intrigued with the ability of some to cling to irrational beliefs.

<<Shouldn’t you be concerned about the harm rather than the ‘desperate clinging’?>>

Indeed, I am. My fascination is an aside, not a motivation. I think I made that quite clear.

<<Why are you fascinated by the act of someone clinging? Do you enjoy watching people who are desperate?>>

Cute, but, no. It’s because I can’t relate to it.

<<In real psychology that is called projection.>>

Perhaps if I were getting upset, you’d have a point.

<<So it is a reasonable thing to do just because you do it after something else?>>

Only if that “something else” is addressing the arguments of one’s opponent. I explained that.

<<Why do you need to do it all?>>

Because bigotry is harmful.

<<Either your arguments are not good enough or your arguments are just a cover for your obsession with bigotry.>>

No, I’m satisfied I’ve discredited your arguments thoroughly. Your resort to character assassination is a testament to that.

<<The fact that you do this is to try and hide your obsession with bigotry.>>

And your evidence for this is..?

<<Either talk about same-sex marriage or start up you own discussion on bigotry.>>

There is no reason I can’t do both if bigotry is relevant to the same-sex marriage debate.

<<You must be the only one who has worked this out. What is your point exactly?>>

You would have seen it had you not been so busy selectively editing what I said. Go back and read it. Sarcasm doesn't become you.

<<If something is harmful then we should stop it? Why do you need to state the bleeding obvious?>>

If it’s so obvious, then why are you still bigoted?

Phillips:

For all your huffing and puffing on this topic over the years you have not come up with a reasonable argument as to why legislation should be changed to allow same-sex marriage.

You have resorted to the staple diet of all those who simply cry bigotry! Like the coliseum you just bay for the blood of the bigots because you are too afraid of those around you not to do so. You cannot prove that anyone is a bigot but proof is not really part of your values in this regard.

I don’t think you will ever come up with a reasonable argument because then there would be no reason to join the mob at the arena and you are too emotionally dependent on that mob.

I always enjoy your emotive choice wording, phanto.

<<For all your huffing and puffing on this topic over the years …>>

“Huffing and puffing”. As if I were getting all fired up. I like that.

Speaking of which, what happened to focusing on my alleged obsession with bigotry? (As if one could ever be too obsessed with fighting bigotry. But, anyway...) Finally realised that character assassination isn’t the way to go, did we?

Good on you. Now that WOULD be an abuse of the forum.

<<… you have not come up with a reasonable argument as to why legislation should be changed to allow same-sex marriage.>>

Oh, I have. Many, many times:

Equality.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336385
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336466
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336576
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336691
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333380
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327646

You have never once countered this. In fact, up until recently, you were getting all concerned about equality yourself (but not for gay people, naturally).

<<You have resorted to the staple diet of all those who simply cry bigotry!>>

No, I have resorted to nothing. Please show me where I have ever done this?

<<Like the coliseum you just bay for the blood of the bigots because you are too afraid of those around you not to do so.>>

That doesn’t make much sense. Care to re-phrase it? Perhaps you should calm down a little before you do, though?

<<You cannot prove that anyone is a bigot …>>

(I was waiting for this one.)

Yes, I can. We’ve even discussed how I can here (where the same reasoning applies for the label ‘bigot’):

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229170

Which is why I happily use the term to describe those for whom it is fitting.

<<I don’t think you will ever come up with a reasonable argument because then there would be no reason to join the mob at the arena and you are too emotionally dependent on that mob.>>

Well, that was a bad prediction now, wasn’t it? Not to mention, a poor psychological diagnosis. You never learn, do you?

Tell me, what is the problem you have with homosexual people? Why are they the only group not deserving of equal treatment, in you eyes?

There is no such thing as homosexual people. Just people who indulge in homosexual behaviour. That does not make you a homosexual person. There are only persons, not homosexual persons or heterosexual persons or any other type of sexual persons. Just persons who indulge in sexual behaviour.

There is no such thing as a sexuality and so you cannot discriminate on the basis of something that does not exist.

Well, that's got to be the biggest sidestep I've ever come across, phanto. Not to mention the most absurd.

<<There is no such thing as a sexuality ...>>

What is your evidence for this claim?

There's no evidence that such a thing exists.