The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time for compromise on same-sex marriage > Comments

Time for compromise on same-sex marriage : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 22/6/2017

The lull in the debate over recognition of same-sex marriage provides a valuable opportunity to consider the ‘end game’ to this long-running controversy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
The rectophobe’s pathetic statement:” . What constitutes a marriage has always changed.”, reminds us how bereft of substance his assertions are.
They are also uniformly dishonest. There is no honesty to be found in any of his assertions in support of the small minority attacking the institution of marriage.
In our society , there has been no change in the meaning of the term and its meaning was codified and confirmed by legislation. It means, and has always meant, the union of a man and a woman. It does not mean, and has never meant, a relationship between people of the same sex.
AJPhillips term, “same sex marriage”, is an unsustainable nonsense.
Another of his lies is “marriage inequality”. No one is treated unequally by the law in respect of marriage.
Marriage between persons of the same sex is not possible, because marriage is, and always has been a union entered into between a man, and a woman.
The rectophobe’s lies do not affect the fact that there is no valid basis for the pervert’s claims, which consist, as I have shown, of nonsense, based on lies.
There is nothing to compromise.
Marriage supporters have full justification for their position, the perverts have none.
The rectophobe's nonsense about fallacies, does not rate a mention.
cont
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 3:25:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont
Let us remember what the perverts say about their desire to access the institution of marriage.
The lesbian activist Gessen says:”” Gay marriage is a lie.”
• “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
• “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
“Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen's candid sentiments: "Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it," he once wrote. "James Dobson was right about our evil intentions," he quipped. "We just plan to be quicker than he thought."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/matt-barber/2015/08/17/the-gay-marriage-gauntlet-time-to-choose

This is from an address by John Murphy MP in 2012
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (12:11): I rise to speak against the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012. …… Supporting Altman's call to remove the words 'a man and a woman' as a first step to abolishing the Marriage Act, prominent gay writer Masha Gessen attacked those who claim that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will not diminish the importance of traditional marriage, saying: 'It is a lie to say the institution of marriage won't change … We want to abolish marriage.' Her words confirm my previous speech in this House, when I said redefining marriage would change the meaning of marriage for all Australians. Effectively, it would make marriage meaningless.
http://australianmarriage.org/parliament-gay-marriage-debate-opens-we-want-to-abolish-marriage/
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 3:28:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane,

Are you capable of communicating with anyone without the use of abuse and name calling? And what’s this nonsense about me being a rectophobe? Unlike some on OLO, I don’t oppose same-sex marriage just because I might be a bit squeamish about the anal region.

You first claim that I’m being dishonest in pointing out the fact that what constitutes a marriage has always changed. Then you narrow the state of marriage to our young 229-year-old society here in Australia to exclude other cultures and eras and prove that it has not changed.

Now THAT is dishonest.

<<It does not mean, and has never meant, a relationship between people of the same sex.>>

Not in Australian at least, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

But so what, unless you’re fallaciously appealing to tradition here?

<<AJPhillips term, “same sex marriage”, is an unsustainable nonsense.>>

Firstly, it’s not just my term:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=same+sex+marriage

(Oh, would you look at that! Forty-five million hits.)

Secondly, you haven’t explained why it’s “unsustainable”.

<<Another of his lies is “marriage inequality”.>>

You have not demonstrated that what I said was intentionally dishonest.

<<No one is treated unequally by the law in respect of marriage.>>

Erm, yeah, they are. Same-sex couples aren’t allow to marry. That is, by definition, inequality.

<<Marriage between persons of the same sex is not possible, because marriage is, and always has been a union entered into between a man, and a woman.>>

Not only is this the Appeal to Tradition fallacy, but it takes the fallaciousness a step further by claiming that marriage equality is not even possible (as opposed to just ‘preferable’).

As for your referring to gay people as “perverts”, I discredited that at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333515.

<<The rectophobe's nonsense about fallacies, does not rate a mention.>>

“Does not rate a mention”, “cannot be countered”… What’s the difference, eh?

<<Let us remember what the perverts say about their desire to access the institution of marriage.>>

This is the Cherry Picking fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking).

The “evil intentions” quote was satire, you dill. Who actually refers to their intentions as “evil”?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/12/892597/-

Don't we feel stupid now?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 8:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While realizing the import of the blog title OLO; that posts here are "opinions", it never fails to disappoint, amaze, frustrate and deter frequent visits to read or interact with the posts.

Other than AJ Philips and AussieGeoff, not one other poster has a cogent argument for their opinions;nothing but sophistry, diatribe, waffle (to quote one of the offenders) and certainly zero interest in having a thoughtful dialog.

All posters, save AJP and AussieG, FAIL, SAD, BIGGEST LOSERS
Posted by Peter King, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 10:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are out of your legue here Peter king.
Go somewhere that does not require the ability, which you lack, to tell the difference between nonsense and lies, supplied by the rectophobe, and cogent argument, which you are incapable of recognising.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 3:22:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still resorting to personal abuse and name-calling, are you Leo Lane? And with that bizarre and nonsensical insult, too, I see.

You must have quite a thing for backsides.

I also note you have no actual rebuttal, just more assertions of supposed ‘lies’ and ‘nonsense’ that you apparently cannot identify.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 5:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy