The rectophobe reminds us of his confusion and ignorance. He thinks that “ rectophobe” has something to do with rectum. What a sad mess his illiterate mind must be.
Recte means “right”, phobe means "hates or fears".
A rectophobe hates or fears what is right. You had the gall to call me a homophobe, without cause. I accurately call you a rectophobe. You wanted name-calling, so now you have it. You have no aptitude for it, but you practise it and you invited it, so do not complain.
I showed clearly that your assertions are nonsense or lies. Your whining about name-calling does not change that. There is no substance to your assertions, and you have no answer.
Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. There is no inequality in the law of marriage, and there is no such thing as same sex marriage. You have no answer to that.Whining about name-calling is not an answer, just an evasion from the situation in which you have cornered yourself, with your nonsense.

Wrong...again LL

Marriage has never been exclusively between men and women until the 12th century when the Roman Church got involved and as was their wont, declared it subject to God's sanctity.

Long before that emperor Nero was married to not one man but two. The practice of homosexuality and marriage was "de rigueur" throughout the Roman empire.

Polygamy was the most common form of early man and women marriage and is even mentioned in your guide book the Bible. It was also possible "in tradition" to marry someone who was actually deceased as this tied families together for political purposes.

So as AJ has said numerous times come up with a coherent and viable argument as to why marriage should not evolve as all other customs in society have and we might listen.

Yes, Leo Lane, and it was a reasonable assumption, too, given what rectophobia is.

<<He thinks that “ rectophobe” has something to do with rectum.>>

http://www.phobiasource.com/rectophobia-fear-of-rectum-or-rectal-diseases

There was no literary failing on my behalf.

<<You had the gall to call me a homophobe, …>>

You’ve got that right, and with good cause, too. No gall required.

You see, if you call gay people “perverts”, without rationally justifying such an offensive term, this indicates that you have a fear or hatred of homosexual people.

Again, you are a homophobe.

<<I accurately call you a rectophobe.>>

No, you are yet to demonstrate how I am wrong, let alone how I fear what is right.

<<You wanted name-calling, so now you have it ... you invited it, so do not complain.>>

No, I didn’t want or invite name-calling. I simply stated a demonstrable fact (albeit in a direct tone). What you do, on the other hand, is mere name-calling.

<<I showed clearly that your assertions are nonsense or lies.>>

No, I countered them. You are yet to show how my rebuttal is incorrect or invalid

<<There is no substance to your assertions, and you have no answer.>>

Says the person who cannot respond to my rebuttal, but merely assert now that he is the one who is right.

<<Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.>>

Currently, yes, but there is no reason why that should not or cannot change. You are yet to present one.

<<There is no inequality in the law of marriage, and there is no such thing as same sex marriage.>>

Yes, there is inequality for so long as same-sex couples cannot marry. Your claim, that same-sex marriage is not even possible, is something you are yet to justify.

<<You have no answer to that.>>

Yes, I have. See above.

Phillips’ knowledge of the rectum is superior to mine, and my use of “rectophobe” is inapplicable. A better term is “pervertophile, a lover of perversion.
His claim that he countered my assertion that there is no such thing as same sex marriage is nonsense. He says:” , yes, but there is no reason why that should not or cannot change. You are yet to present one.”
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The falsely termed “rebuttal” has no substance. We are talking about current circumstances, not imaginary ones. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and no valid reason for change has been put forward. “Inequality” is a baseless lie. You have given no basis on which the law of marriage can have any application to same sex relationships.
. A relationship between same sex couples was until recently a criminal offence, and you can give no reason why it will not in the future become a criminal offence, but I do not dishonestly raise that as an argument, as you dishonestly raise a non existent possibility.
I gave a definition, and showed that homosexuals are perverts. Your response was to post a different definition and assert a blatant lie that it was the definition that I had posted. I showed that homosexuals are perverts, which is self evident anyway. You did not counter it, and have no basis to do so.This is not denying that it is possible, as you falsely assert I said, but currently, the perverts are devoting their efforts to avoiding a plebiscite, which it seems they would lose.
As to calling me a homophobe, I object to your use of the pejorative term, directed by the perverts to someone who tells the truth about them

You’re damn right I do, Leo Lane?

<<He says:”, yes, but there is no reason why [marriage] should not or cannot change. You are yet to present one.”>>

Every reason you have presented thus far, including in our past discussions, has been discredited.

<<Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.>>

Currently it is, yes.

<<The falsely termed “rebuttal” has no substance.>>

Well, it shouldn’t be too hard to counter then, should it? We’re full of assertions at the moment, aren’t we?

<<We are talking about current circumstances, not imaginary ones.>>

Are we? What about possibilities? You know, the possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated for? That is, after all, what the discussion is about.

This statement from you highlights your problem in this debate: you switch back and forth willy-nilly between ‘There is currently no such thing as same-sex marriage’ (presumably you’re only talking about Australia) and ‘There can never be any such thing as same-sex marriage.’

<<Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and no valid reason for change has been put forward.>>

Equality.

<<“Inequality” is a baseless lie.>>

Really? Do tell.

<<You have given no basis on which the law of marriage can have any application to same sex relationships.>>

It’s simple. They go through a little ritual and then sign documents.

<<A relationship between same sex couples was until recently a criminal offence, and you can give no reason why it will not in the future become a criminal offence, …>>

How presumptuous of you. Actually, I can. If we continue to promote equality and become a more educated society, then we are unlikely to revert to our past discriminatory, supersticious ways. It would likely take a catastrophic event, plunging us into another Dark Age, for homosexuality to be criminalised again.

<<... but I do not dishonestly raise that as an argument, as you dishonestly raise a non existent possibility.>>

You have not yet explained why the possibility is non-existent. How have all the other countries with marriage equality managed it?

Continued…

…Continued

<<I gave a definition, and showed that homosexuals are perverts.>>

No, you didn’t. You gave a definition suggesting that people who engage in anal sex are perverts. Your definition didn’t account for lesbians or male homosexuals who don’t engage in anal sex.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333352

I suppose people who engage in oral sex are perverts, too, going by your standards?

<<Your response was to post a different definition and assert a blatant lie that it was the definition that I had posted.>>

No, it wasn’t a “blatant lie”. It was an honest mistake that I cleared up at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333491, and went on to explain how your chosen definition still didn’t help didn’t help your case anyway.

It seems we forgot about that part. Is it any wonder why you don’t like back to these comments?

<<I showed that homosexuals are perverts, which is self evident anyway.>>

No, you didn’t. And if it’s so self-evident, why can’t you just explain it now instead of ducking and weaving?

<<... the perverts are devoting their efforts to avoiding a plebiscite, which it seems they would lose.>>

All polling suggests otherwise.

<<As to calling me a homophobe, I object to your use of the pejorative term, directed by the perverts to someone who tells the truth about them>>

You have not yet demonstrated the truth of anything that you have said. So, until you do, you’re a homophobe.

Put up or shut up.