On the other hand, there is a complete religious institution in full scale melt down from the insidious nature of rampant homosexuality, the Catholic Church. Why would anybody with a brain, support any advance towards more of it, by accepting the lie that gay marriage is an issue of equality.
But they do.
And so the issue of gay marriage is one of radicalism. Aren't we in this country under the threat, (supposedly), from fundamentalist Islamic ideology? Why is the radical homosexual lobbying by this small group, given "credence and clear water" (pun intended) by any major political party.

So in the end, it is a test of Democracy, that we witness such a non important social issue elevated to the status of importance overarching all other issues. There is the real issue!
Which then leads to the point of the article; for Turnbull to accept this issue as fate accompli in the real sense of the word, will I sincerely hope, sink his boat, along with his political party, being branded as truely Labor-Green Lite, by more damning evidence!

The “familiar call” from “mainstream political journalists” is a load of rubbish. Those scribblers don't know what they are talking about, and nobody listens to them. They need to get back to reporting facts and allowing other people, politicians included, to make up their own minds as to what is right or wrong, and what should be done about it. The final arbiters are not media grunts, but every day voters.

The idea that the Liberal party should be bothering itself with SSM and other minor deviations from common sense and real life is ridiculous. Pyne's latest gaffe is ridiculous. Leave such trivial trash to the weirdo parties to kick around, and see how much support they get.

As it now stands, the Liberal party has trashed itself, and removed choice from about half the population. No self-respecting conservative would vote for it. Mind you, there are plenty of people out their without any self-respect, so the death of the Liberals is probably not as imminent has some predict; it takes a long time for things to sink into the brains of average Australians, who think it is something commendable to be disinterested in politics.

I've probably read less persuasive, patent partisan propaganda from the far right, but can't remember when!

If Malcolm Turnbull has a problem now or at the next election?

Then it will be because of the vexatious mischief making of the Abbott/Newman camp and their born to rule mindset!?

Newman and Abbott both at the helm of one election win as their principal claim to fame along with a host of politically unpalatable ideas/broken promises!

As for reversing a policy, when has a political promise not been a non core promise able to be back flipped on when and if political expediency demanded it?

In any event, the next election will indubitably be a plebiscite on marriage equality and come into play in more than a dozen critical marginal conservative seats.

And a shame really because Labor are bereft of as much as a single worthwhile nation building idea, will run up the deficit, and spend like a drunken sailor, trying to shore up support?

I believe Tony Abbott needs to be disendorsed/forced to seek shelter with the likes of Cory Bernard and take his chances with the electorate!

It's my view that the conservatives, who just don't get why they are so on the nose, could cost the coalition any prospect of winning the next election!

Therefore the only doable remedy for this divided rabble is a divorce, which will ensure the conservative element spends its remaining time, in the political wilderness, along with the also bitterly divided democrats and defunct Dodos.

And essential if the liberal party is to survive as a party of the genuine middle! Or ever win another election! How can you govern a nation when you can't even govern the party!?
Alan B.

the Christophobe bigots are really afraid of a vote as their conduct can be seen by the way they have treated Margaret Court, prevented peaceful meetings from taking place and have had their child grooming (safe schools) program uncovered. On top of this the number of homosexual priests that have offended against kids should alert the public. Instead the getup clowns want to deny the public a vote.

Ttbn.

I respect your thinking on most issues, this one included.
Your view here on the influence of the MSM in the political debate, is clear and agreeable.
I'm personally excited with a Trump USA . finally it is under strong and open leadership. His view of the MSM is exquisitely honest and very relevant.

Turnbull should take note: And also take note for the good of his political career and the Coalition, of the diplomatic snubs towards him from Trump. Trump (by past evidence), sees Turnbull as most Australians observe him, weak, self interested and unreliable.
The new political direction for Australia should follow the Phillipines, US and the Russian under Putin example, of raising the middle finger to outside influence on its leadership.

If that happens at a party level; observed now in the Liberal ructions under Abbott, new and stronger leadership can thrive for the actual good of Australia.

It matters not what (stuck in the stone age) "Islamic homophobes" think, do or say!

The overwhelming christian majority view will win the day, either when a binding plebiscite is proposed or at the next election, where the results will speak volumes about real community values and or the level of acceptable discrimination for a, God given accident of birth!

Even formerly bitterly opposed Christian clerics have looked at the emerging DNA/genetic evidence and have been forced to recant formerly irreversible views! If God didn't create this DNA/genetic anomaly/aberration?

Then pray tell who did? Or are you saying there is no Creator, nor divine purpose? Or that he/she makes mistakes?

Or are you unable to change your brainwashed mind, even in the face or irrevocable overwhelming reported/published scientific evidence there for anyone who wants to, can look at and see! Even here, chapter and verse, in earlier versions of OLO!

There are none so blind! And, cast not your pearls!
Alan B.

Alan B:

Every time this issue is raised you raise the issue of the 'accident of birth' and yet it is totally irrelevant to whether or not same-sex marriage is reasonable. Whether homosexuals are born or made does not matter. What matters is why they should be given a government issued marriage certificate.

No one should be given such a certificate. It is not the government's place to be issuing such certificates. Governments should not be in the business of affirming or denying emotional relationships nor should they be even seen to be doing so. This is not a role that anyone needs to play. It is for the individuals themselves to affirm or deny their own emotional attachment.

Whatever their sexuality might be is irrelevant.

Dear phanto,

What governments should or shouldn't do is beside the
point. The fact is marriages to be recognised legally
in this country with all the legal rights included require
a marriage certificate. That is the law as it stands.

The Marriage Act clearly states that marriage is between
a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. This
is the change that same-sex couples are asking for. They
want to be able to have the same choice that heterosexual
couples have in our society - and that is the choice of
being able to have their marriage recognised legally.

It does matter that homosexuals are born not made! Given one section of a brainwashed from birth, made homophobes! Will never ever accept anything that conflicts with their brainwashed from birth, MAN MADE belief system!

And when the evidence conflicts with that MAN MADE belief system, they trot out disingenuous garbage that claims, born or made just does not matter! And true for them, given born is not something that can be modified except by brainwashed from birth, bastardry!

It is an important distinction, given as long as this errant, indoctrinated from birth inculcated belief system remains. It will remain alone, the ongoing and continuing single remaining reason, justification or excuse for unending gay bashing, discrimination and worst of all, ostracising estranged members of one's own family!

There are none so blind, as the brainwashed from birth, cult members!
Alan B.

Methinks all you undeserving 'n commenting Sinners should pay homage to His Eminence, Cardinal Pell a great MAN* of the Church. I hear he supports Gay marriage.

He is a humble man in all things, totally misunderstood, who puts his Australian and Vatican flocks before his own affairs.

So let's hear it for His Eminence.

* Um, woman in that church, being the God-ordained focus of temptation for MAN, can't even rise in priesthood.

Amen, Amen, Ar, Ar, Ar, Ar MEN.

Setting to one side the pro- and con- arguments and returning to the politics of the gay marriage, there should be concern that a reportedly very small number of activists have been able to bring about such mammoth social and political change and so quickly, almost before the public has been able to comprehend what they are about and the impacts are known, or even identified.

This is not to enter into whether it is all good or bad. -Simply to say that where a small number of activists can cause an abrupt change in social direction and with legislative effect to reinforce their will, what is to stop other activists, possibly with nasty intent (and totalitarians spring to mind), from applying the same formula and doing the same?

This article, although somewhat slanted in one direction (which is why independent university research is needed), is interesting in that it attempts some analysis of the 'dark arts' of manipulating the media, public and politicians,

http://www.thetrumpet.com/10772-the-shrewd-strategy-behind-same-sex-marriage

Perhaps some aware of the same model, tools and strategies in use elsewhere and working powerfully and seemingly impervious to debate/challenge.

Foxy:

What governments do is never beside the point. What they do should always be for good reason and there is no good reason why they should affirm or deny the emotional relationships of anyone.

“They want to be able to have the same choice that heterosexual
couples have in our society - and that is the choice of
being able to have their marriage recognised legally.”

How do you know that is what they want? They could also want the government to affirm homosexual relationships regardless of the legality of marriage. Perhaps they don’t want legal marriage at all. The legal aspects of marriage might simply be irrelevant to them. They just want the government to say that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. How could you tell the difference in their motives?

It would be extremely naive to believe them when they say they want the same legal rights as heterosexuals. It would be much more likely to presume they are after something else altogether which is government affirmation of homosexuality since the ‘legal rights’ are hardly of any great importance to even heterosexuals who marry.

leoj:

Manipulation is the key word. They have been able to manipulate society by seeking sympathy. As if not being able to marry ever caused anyone real pain. If ‘love is love’ then it exists whether or not you are married but they have tapped into the whole love and marriage meme. There is a multi-million dollar industry dependent on maintaining the connection between love and marriage and they have a lot riding on keeping that connection alive.

It is about society’s skewered attitude to love and marriage that has enabled SSM homosexuals to have such power and influence. Stupidly they see it as an affirmation of homosexuality when in fact it is about adding fuel to the love and marriage neurosis. It is not really about them at all.

Dear Phanto,

How do I know what it is that they want?

Because that is what they tell me.
And I take them at their word, the same as
I take most people at face value until they prove to
me that I'm wrong to do so.

phanto,

I was thinking more of this as the key manipulation strategy,

"Another form of the Hegelian Dialectic is Problem – Reaction – Solution. Most of us unwittingly fall victim to it all too often and sadly if we don’t stop, we will continue to lose our free will and liberties. It has been widely used by our governments and corporations around the world. You could say that in terms of controlling the masses, and society in general, it’s deployment has been an effective tool in keeping humanity in check.

Almost all major events in history employ the Hegelian Dialectic of:
Problem – manufacture a crisis or take advantage of one already in place in order to get the desired Reaction of public outcry whereby the public demands a Solution which has been predetermined from the beginning."
http://realnewsaustralia.com/2013/08/09/the-hegelian-dialectic-and-its-use-in-controlling-modern-society/

But do you or others here think that a small number of gay activists acting alone and with total disregard for the traditional homosexual rejection of the conventions and limitations of 'straight' society (they regarded themselves as 'outlaws' with freedom to choose) and especially its marriage, could get the wheels rolling so easily and with such gathering force?

Or was it the more organised feminism, that was running things and the gays were just a useful stepping stone, a source of trouble and strife that somehow got out of control, as activists do?

Maybe democracy is more fragile than many believe? Is it apathy that is the Achilles Heel? And the digital revolution makes it far easier for those hidden persuaders to herd the young, immature and (life) inexperienced as a complaining and swinging (on single issues too?) voting bloc?

Foxy:

That is all well and good but governments do not have that luxury of being able to believe people until shown otherwise. They have an obligation to make sure that the Marriage Act is not abused. It is quite possible that the changes to the Marriage Act are about getting the government to acknowledge homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships. The government cannot afford to be seen to be making such value judgements. These judgements do not need to be made by anyone else except the individuals who are in relationships.

The only way that the government can be seen to be impartial is to not make any judgements at all in relation to personal relationships.

leoj:

I don’t think ‘gay activists’ have a particular agenda in regard to society. I think they are far too insular to be concerned. Their main objective is to try and convince themselves of the validity of their sexuality and this takes most of their energy.

Wow. So much rubbish to debunk, so little time.

I did note, however, that plantagenet has committed the Association fallacy:

<<Methinks all you undeserving 'n commenting Sinners should pay homage to His Eminence, Cardinal Pell a great MAN* of the Church. I hear he supports Gay marriage.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

That one stuck out like dogs’ balls to me because it’s not a fallacy that is usually committed by those on the opposing side of this debate. The fallacies in this debate are usually limited to the appeals to tradition, nature, extremes and the slippery slope.

I see phanto’s at it again, too.

<<… yet [an accident of birth] is totally irrelevant to whether or not same-sex marriage is reasonable.>>

No, phanto, onus is on the opponents of marriage equality to provide a reasonable argument as to why same-sex marriage should not be legislated for. Those in support of it have already provided a sufficient reason for their position:

Equality.

<<Their main objective is to try and convince themselves of the validity of their sexuality and this takes most of their energy.>>

Do you have an example of this?

phanto,

Sorry for the misunderstanding I may have created. It isn't that I thought that gay activists had another agenda but that others may have hobby-horsed a ride on gays for their own agenda whatever that was.

I am more interested in the change processes.

Philips:

"Those in support of it have already provided a sufficient reason for their position:

Equality."

Homosexuals do not want equality - they want the government to acknowledge their sexuality. Heterosexuals do not need this.

"Do you have an example of this?"

Do you have an example which shows it is untrue?

Really, phanto? Every last one of them?

<<Homosexuals do not want equality - they want the government to acknowledge their sexuality.>>

What is your evidence for this claim?

<<Do you have an example which shows it is untrue?>>

This is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy, and an appeal to ignorance.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Do you have evidence against Russell’s Teapot? How about universe-creating pixies?

No AJ, homosexuals do not want equality, they want their relationship to be seen the same as a heterosexual one.
If homosexuals were at all interested in equality they would be supportive of all forms of marriage between consenting adults, but they are not.
Nor are most of the heterosexual supporters of SSM.
Mention adult incest, group marriage, polygamy and all you get are reasons why they are not beneficial to society. Mind you, they haven't come up with any ways SSM is beneficial to society but thats beside the point isn't it. And I get a lot of amusement from watching the contortions of people trying to justify refusal of adult incest marriage. Things like the risk of genetic disorders in children, when there is no restriction on marriage between people with known genetic disorders now. When we have really efficient contraception and even more laughable, if the couple were same sex, as in brothers or sisters and can't procreate.
When proponents of " marriage equality" support all forms of marriage I will reconsider my position.
I notice that in recent times the terminology has changed from same sex marriage to marriage equality, in an effort to evoke even more feelings of guilt in opponents.
Sorry, doesn't work.

That looks to me like equivocation, Big Nana.

<<... homosexuals do not want equality, they want their relationship to be seen the same as a heterosexual one.>>

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation.

The same, as in a committed relationship with the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples, yes. That’s equality. But if by “same” you mean identical in every respect, then no, that would be delusional. Clearly there are differences.

<<If homosexuals were at all interested in equality they would be supportive of all forms of marriage between consenting adults, but they are not.>>

Really? All of them? And what if those, who are not supportive of other forms of marriage, are not so because they believe they will have deleterious effects on society? That WOULD be a valid reason to exclude them, after all.

You really want to go down this road again? We’ve done it a couple of times before.

<<Nor are most of the heterosexual supporters of SSM.>>

As above.

<<Mention adult incest, group marriage, polygamy and all you get are reasons why they are not beneficial to society.>>

No, more why they’re harmful. This is a straw man you've set up to present your next bogus argument.

<<Mind you, they haven't come up with any ways SSM is beneficial to society but thats beside the point isn't it.>>

To some extent it is, yes. However, greater equality is, in itself, beneficial (provided no harm will result from it). History and multiple studies demonstrate this.

<<And I get a lot of amusement from watching the contortions of people trying to justify refusal of adult incest marriage.>>

I bet you do. Are you suggesting an insincerity? Maybe they’re just not aware of your arguments for incest and polygamy, or believe they can counter them?

Did that ever occur to you?

Of course not. You're determined to interpret their motives as cynically as possible.

<<I notice that in recent times the terminology has changed from same sex marriage to marriage equality, in an effort to evoke even more feelings of guilt in opponents.>>

Perhaps. The term is still accurate, though.

Dear phanto,

The Howard government had already made a value judgement.
They were the ones that changed marriage in the Marriage Act to
be "between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all
others." Therefore this can easily be changed back to its
original form which did not specify anything of the kind.

Foxy:

Just because the Howard government changed the law does not mean it was reasonable for them to do so. It is not reasonable for them or any government to make value judgements about emotional relationships.

Governments do many things which they should not do and endorsing or rejecting emotional relationships is beyond what they need to do in order to govern. Only the two people involved can say to what extent their relationship has value. Such a thing cannot be measured nor is it discernible to exterior parties such as governments. If you cannot make a judgement then you should not make a judgement but the government is making judgements and we should be concerned that it is going beyond its reach in doing so.

Dear phanto,

The fact remains that the Government has effectively
changed the Marriage Act under Mr Howard and it is
up to the government to correct it.

Foxy:

That presumes that there should be a Marriage Act. Why do you think there should be a Marriage Act? Why should governments administer marriages? Just because they do so does not make it reasonable.

Unless you have a good reason why governments should be involved then SSM just makes a bad situation worse and voting for it would be illogical. You can't just agree with SSM without agreeing that it is reasonable for governments to legislate in regard to marriages.

It is illogical for same-sex couples to pursue government sanction marriage unless they can show that it is logical for governments to sanction marriages. You cannot sanction marriages without also sanctioning the emotional attachment of the two participants and governments should not have anything to say about emotional attachments.

The legal aspects of the relationship need to be detached from the emotional aspects and this is a problem that governments and couples of any sexuality need to solve. Marriage only solves the situation for the couple but not for the government and for taxpayers who demand that their government act logically.

The Parliament is often amending Acts, hopefully proactively as it was in this case, where its law officers have advised it necessary because of the likelihood of appeals that might get around or frustrate the purposes of the legislation. Where there is a gap in the fence, fix it.

How many gay marriages were there up to that amendment?

What about the homosexual judges and senior counsel? Were they all stupid? Or there was no demand for it and no-one was interested?

Howard changed nothing.

Hi Foxy, John Howard didn't amend the law, he codified it. The law in Australia and the UK and everywhere else under common law had been that marriage was between a man and a woman. The Labor Opposition also supported this codification. It was basically unanimous. And all it did was state in the legislation what the common law was.

I'm in favour of gay marriage in the sense that I don't think it is the business of the government to tell people what to call their relationship, and if gays want their relationship registered, it's no big deal. I would however prefer that the government didn't register anyone's relationship, and they were free to keep whatever registrations they wanted outside of the government, as used to happen.

I also think one shouldn't discriminate against polygamous and polyandrous relationships. It's part and parcel of the same issue. We used to persecute Mormons for polygamy and that was wrong, and we should allow Muslims to practice the same. And if there are women who want multiple husbands, well, they have a right to be regarded as a married whatever, and they would be under all the laws, such as the family law, succession and for the purposes of the social security act, apart from the Marriage Act.

GrahamY:

“keep whatever registrations they wanted outside of the government, as used to happen.”

This is the best solution. Every person who wants to should be able to register their preference as to who they would like to act on their behalf should they become unable to act for themselves. This could be anyone and there does not need to be any declaration as to the emotional attachment or otherwise they have with that person. The government could facilitate such a system and legislate to protect it in law. Since they already do this it will be no great burden on the taxpayer. This way the government is not seen to be endorsing emotional attachments since it has no information either way to make such a judgement.

People would still be free to marry in the same way they now do but without government sanction.

This should make everyone happy except those who are trying to get government sanction of their emotional relationships for any reason.

I am surprised that singles, large in voting numbers, have yet to rise up to claim the discrimination against them that requires that they subsidise the 'love' choices of others.

Particularly since 'de facto' is 'married' and the Gillard government added gay de factos as well. Although their radical feminist idealism had them choking up and calling it 'relationship' instead.

But the point should be made by singles and many of them are struggling young workers often with HECS debt, that they should not be subsiding for examples, the private health cover of 'marrieds' and employment entitlements such as accompanied spouse travel. Why should the employment agreements for workers give 'marrieds' at all? What about children (maternity leave)? Why should one worker be forced to subsidise the choice of another?

Julia Gillard, who did not believe in marriage and imagined it as embedding patriarchal (gender) discrimination against women, was not backward in claiming the benefits of 'married' (de facto), or as her idealism and law re-jigging had it, 'relationship' with the 'best bloke'.

On the other hand, where the age pension is concerned it is appropriate that the economies of living together are considered.

None of this is to say that there shouldn't be conditions as parental leave. However when 'rights', 'equality' and so on are being sold by the fast-talking and self-righteous, their 'never you mind' usually conceals the granting of valuable entitlements to a well-educated middle class that is already advantaged. And there is always a cost and someone has to pay, even if that is by more user pays for government services, or in the case of the elderly, reduced and poorly coordinated aged care.

But young workers, usually single and the elderly, many of whom are singles too, know that neither side of politics gives them anything but empty rhetoric and considers them unorganised and cannon fodder.

Dear phanto,

We can continue to argue on what should or should not
be the case however the fact remains that at present we
have a Marriage Act that locks down this country's
marriage laws. Governments are currently administering
marriages. And, the Act of Marriage is enshrined as the
sole preserve of heterosexual couples.

Dear Graham,

In 2004 the Howard Government moved to lock down this
country's marriage laws. In a new bill, the Act of
Marriage was enshrined as the sole preserve of heterosexual
couples. Like many Australians John Howard had a clear view on
what marriage is. However, the country's Marriage Act
previously never spelt out in black and white exactly who was
qualified to enter into a union.

After 2004 it did.

Foxy,

What was your understanding of marriage previously?

Pink is changing the language. GOD (Oxford dictionary) or more usually COD, will now be obliged to change this, why?

“formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife.”

Can't agree there leoj. Your so called struggling young singles, particularly those with HECS debt have the capacity to earn more than most. That capacity has been paid for by often young families, struggling to support a family.

It is entirely reasonable those better educated at tax payer expense should start repaying their debt to the taxpayer sooner rather than later, & do so as an expression of gratitude for the long support they have received.

Foxy:

"We can continue to argue on what should or should not
be the case"

You are not arguing - you are just stating the fact that there is a Marriage Act and Howard altered it. As I have said just because governments administer marriage does not make it reasonable. Why do you think governments should administer marriages? You obviously accept that they should but what are your reasons?

<<I notice that in recent times the terminology has changed from same sex marriage to marriage equality, in an effort to evoke even more feelings of guilt in opponents.>>

<<Perhaps. The term is still accurate, though.>>

No it is not "perhaps". If one types in (via a google search), the words 'marriage equality', versus 'same sex marriage' one will clearly see the differences.

It's clearly a matter of fact. If one chooses to avoid that, well that is their choice.

leoj,

Before the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 there was
no definition of marriage. The Act lacked a definition
at that time. You can Google this
information in Wikipedia.

Dear phanto,

All societies that we know have definite rules about
marriage because there is a strong body of evidence
that in general marriage promotes a more healthy,
stable and prosperous society. The government obviously
finds value in supporting these outcomes, therefore it
naturally follows that it should regulate marriage.

Also lets not forget that -
marriage is a contract. It creates rights. It may involve
things like property, children, and it is the task of
governments to protect those rights. Therefore marriage needs
to be protected by the law.

I'm sorry I didn't Google it, NathanJ.

The fact remains that "marriage equality" is still a valid term. What Big Nana did was presenting a false dichotomy by claiming that if there isn't total equality across the board, then there is no equality at all, and that, therefore, the whole campaign is disingenuous.

<<It's clearly a matter of fact.>>

Well, apparently it's not to everyone.

I Googled it and skimmed a couple of the articles that appeared in the search, and the only distinction they were making was the idea that 'marriage equality' is preferable because it acknowledges that it would all just be 'marriage', neither form with an appendage that may imply that one form is less legitimate than the other.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=marriage+equality+vs+gay+marriage

<<If one chooses to avoid that, well that is their choice.>>

Certainly. What makes you think I did, though? That's a rather cynical way to interpret my indifference to a point that I showed to be a secondary issue.

The reason the Abbott-Santamaria government's Turnbull caretaker is bleeding voting support is not the issue itself of SSM but the dysfunctional mob are handling it. It is clearly an issue for what is laughingly called a “conscience” vote (based on the silly assumption that pollies are guided by conscience). If Turnbull was more than a mere caretaker he would simply give the nod for the LNP pollies to vote freely as they saw fit. The failure to deal with the SSM issue in this standard way turns off voters both for and against the issue itself and steers them to Shorten.

This is why supporting SSM is not a silver bullet.

Foxy:

“All societies that we know have definite rules about
marriage because there is a strong body of evidence
that in general marriage promotes a more healthy,
stable and prosperous society. The government obviously
finds value in supporting these outcomes, therefore it
naturally follows that it should regulate marriage.”

But it does not need to regulate marriage. If marriage is of such benefit to society then it will be so whether or not governments are involved in it. If marriage has to be regulated in order to achieve those supposed outcomes then there is something quite amiss with marriage. Governments might have to frame laws about who should act on the behalf of someone else when they cannot act for themselves but this can be done quite apart from any marriage laws. You don’t have to be married to someone to give them that power.

Marriage does not have to be a legal contract. Things like property and children can be resolved without marriage laws. Not everyone who has property or children is married and somehow it all gets sorted out under other laws which are irrespective of marriage.

Dear phanto,

And just like that,
I lost interest ...

Foxy:

I think you are a liar.

There can be no discussion on gay marriage by those who refuse to accept homosexuality as normal and acceptable...
Many, such as myself, refuse to to cower to a radicalised group of homosexuals, with the sole intention of upending societal norms!
Normalising the abnormal is madness!

Pope describes the process this "evil in our midst" has taken!

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Dear phanto,

Be careful.

The mind is everything.
What you think,
You become.

phanto,

Not everyone leaves because they can’t refute what you’ve said. Perhaps Foxy just lost interest because she’s seen how obtuse you can become in this debate? (Presumably to get your opponents to give up so that you can feel like you won, too.) Or perhaps she could see that you were about to cover old ground that you and I have covered many times before, and doesn't have the time or inclination to watch you debate yourself into one mighty tangle again?

--

There could be, diver dan.

<<There can be no discussion on gay marriage by those who refuse to accept homosexuality as normal and acceptable...>>

All you have to do is provide a rational reason as to why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

<<Many, such as myself, refuse to to cower to a radicalised group of homosexuals, with the sole intention of upending societal norms!>>

Really? All of them? How do you know it’s not about equality for some of them?

<<Normalising the abnormal is madness!>>

What do you mean by abnormal? If you just mean uncommon, then why would normalising the uncommon in this case be madness?

<<Pope describes the process this "evil in our midst" has taken!>>

Who cares what the pope says? He is not an authority on anything that is not make-believe, in a criminal organisation that has been demonstrably far more damaging than what marriage equality is proving to be.

Philips:

"Perhaps Foxy just lost interest because she’s seen how obtuse you can become in this debate?"

If I am obtuse then why would she engage with me in the first place? Either I am not obtuse as you commonly assert or she is just stupid. Either way she either does not agree with you or you have exposed how stupid she is just to attempt to deride me. You are using her to attack me.

Being used is worse than someone expressing the opinion that you have lied

Well, you weren’t necessarily being obtuse at first, phanto.

<<If I am obtuse then why would she engage with me in the first place?>>

If you think you were, though, then that’s a question you will need to ask Foxy. Assuming I was even right about her motives, that is.

You see what I mean, though? I’m only one sentence into your post to me, and already the conversation has become bizarre. What motive does anyone have to discuss anything with you?

phanto: "So why do you bother then?”

Good question, phanto. Because, as you have demonstrated with your accusing Foxy of being a liar, I know you’re the type who thinks they've won the argument if they can get the last word in. You don’t seem to care how bizarre and contradictory your arguments get, you just try to wear your opponent out so that they leave.

False dichotomies are a favourite tactic of yours…

<<Either I am not obtuse as you commonly assert or she is just stupid.>>

Or a whole range of other possibilities: I may have been wrong about Foxy’s motives; you may not have been your usual obtuse self at first; Foxy may have hoped that she could inspire a more honest phanto… The possibilities are endless.

<<You are using her to attack me.>>

Yes, and I bet she just feels all chewed up and spat out right now. You know, with me having defended her by listing other possible reasons for her announced departure and all, other than "lair".

Now you're just presenting a false 'monochotomy'.

<<Being used is worse than someone expressing the opinion that you have lied>>

You are yet to demonstrate that I have indeed used anyone.

Foxy:

“Be careful.

The mind is everything.
What you think,
You become.”

I don’t need you to tell me that I should be careful. That is patronising.

I am also not afraid of being a liar. I am afraid of not having the courage to own up to it if I am.

Philips:

“All you have to do is provide a rational reason as to why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.”
Same-sex marriage is allowed unless you are talking of government approved same-sex marriage. They are not the same thing.

Why should governments either allow or disallow marriages? Marriage is a declaration of emotional attachment for most people as well as an opportunity to participate in rights associated with relationships. Why should the government be seen to sanction both things by sanctioning marriage? Why are governments seen to sanction emotional relationships when no one needs to have their relationship sanctioned by anyone? As adults we are all free to enter and leave whatever relationships we like. We do not need approval or sanction by anyone least of all by governments.

People already in a relationship can participate in the rights granted to those people without being married so why does the government sanction marriages at all?

There is an argument why government sanctioned same-sex marriage should not be allowed because it makes a bad situation worse. Governments should not sanction any marriage and therefore they should not sanction same-sex marriages.

We’ve been through this many, many times before, phanto.

<<Same-sex marriage is allowed unless you are talking of government approved same-sex marriage. They are not the same thing.>>

Sure. But we’ve always discussed the State-recognised form of marriage. The other form appears to have no practical advantage to anyone who is not religious, does not drink, or does not require a reason to get drunk.

<<Why should governments either allow or disallow marriages?>>

How about you go back and review some of our past discussions? We’ve discussed that in extensive detail multiple times.

<<Marriage is a declaration of emotional attachment for most people as well as an opportunity to participate in rights associated with relationships.>>

Correct.

<<Why should the government be seen to sanction both things by sanctioning marriage?>>

Again, we’ve discussed this in extensive detail multiple times. Ultimately, it’s beside the point, because the question is whether the government should do the same for same-sex couples, for so long as it does.

<<Why are governments seen to sanction emotional relationships when no one needs to have their relationship sanctioned by anyone?>>

No one has claimed that they do. This is a straw man.

<<As adults we are all free to enter and leave whatever relationships we like.>>

Yes, but that was never in question.

<<People already in a relationship can participate in the rights granted to those people without being married so why does the government sanction marriages at all?>>

Already discussed, and beside the point.

As you’re perusing our previous discussions, here are some keywords to search for (press CTRL+F):

Nationwide
Standarisation
Predictability
Packaged
Rights
Responsiblities
Emergencies

<<Governments should not sanction any marriage and therefore they should not sanction same-sex marriages.>>

But for so long as they are, they should do both. Again, this point is irrelevant.

Foxy:

“Be careful.

The mind is everything.
What you think,
You become.”

I don't agree that there was anything "patronising" in this.

However I think it tells only a bit of the story. The mind is not everything. Actions integrated with the mind are closer to everything.

Thus it is also true to say
What you have become
You think

Philips:

“Well, you weren’t necessarily being obtuse at first, phanto.”

So if I wasn’t being obtuse then why did you get involved?

“If you think you were, though, then that’s a question you will need to ask Foxy.”

Why would I ask her? You are the one who raised the issue of my obtuseness. Why would I assume she has a problem with my obtuseness just because you do? Maybe there is something wrong with you.

“What motive does anyone have to discuss anything with you?”

You don’t seem to have a problem with a motive. You can’t stop yourself discussing things with me.

“Or a whole range of other possibilities: I may have been wrong about Foxy’s motives; you may not have been your usual obtuse self at first; Foxy may have hoped that she could inspire a more honest phanto… The possibilities are endless.”

So why not check with Foxy about her motives instead of projecting your own derision on to her? If I wasn’t obtuse then why get involved? How can you speak for Foxy’s motives about wanting to ‘inspire’ me? Why would she care about my inspiration she only needs to choose to respond to what I write not whether or not what I write is inspiring?

“Yes, and I bet she just feels all chewed up and spat out right now.”

It doesn’t matter how she feels it only matters what your intention was. It is your aggression in using her that counts not her response.

“You are yet to demonstrate that I have indeed used anyone.”

You have yet to demonstrate the moral fortitude to admit that you have.

I said, “at first”, phanto.

<<So if I wasn’t being obtuse then why did you get involved?>>

You see what I mean? So obtuse.

<<Why would I ask her? You are the one who raised the issue of my obtuseness.>>

Because I can’t speak for her. The fact that I raised the issue is irrelevant.

<<Why would I assume she has a problem with my obtuseness just because you do?>>

I never suggested you should. I merely listed it as a possible reason for her departure beyond your apparent assumption that you had her cornered.

<<Maybe there is something wrong with you.>>

Why? Because I find obtuse behaviour annoying and dishonest? Hardly.

<<You don’t seem to have a problem with a motive.>>

Yes, and I explained why in my answer to your question that I pre-empted earlier.

<<So why not check with Foxy about her motives instead of projecting your own derision on to her?>>

Because I’m not too interested in why.

You, on the other, evidently needed the possibility of other explanations pointed out to you. Had I merely informed you of the existence of other possibilities, without examples, you probably would have then asked for examples; but since I pre-empted that, you instead turn my examples back on me.

And therein lies the problem in dealing with obtuse people. Nothing you do is ever good enough.

<<How can you speak for Foxy’s motives about wanting to ‘inspire’ me?>>

I wasn’t. I was listing possibilities.

<<Why would she care about my inspiration …>>

You’d have to ask her that. Provided that’s even the case.

<<It is your aggression in using her that counts not her response.>>

Again, you are yet to demonstrate that I have indeed used anyone. Or that I have been aggressive, for that matter.

<<You have yet to demonstrate the moral fortitude to admit that you have [used Foxy].>>

I’ll do that just as soon as you demonstrate the truth of your claim.

In the meantime, thank you once again for another bizarre exchange; and a classic example of how you debate yourself into a tangle.

Dear AJ,

I now feel obliged to re-enter this discussion
briefly because I seem to be the cause of some
argument.

Of course I lost interest
and left because I saw how obtuse phanto was
becoming in this debate.

I didn't see the point in wasting any more of my time.
I had hoped for some useful comments not the uniformly
dull and repetitive ones I was getting. So after a while
I'd simply had enough.

You're to be Congratulated for your patience and tenacity.

I look forward to reading your posts (as always) on
another discussion. This one for me has well and truly run
its course.

Dear Foxy,

Don’t feel like you’ve caused anything. No one’s forcing phanto to make strange comments (or forcing me to respond to them), and nor should anyone be expected to foresee them, given how off-the-planet bizarre they can get.

--

phanto,

Since I’m here, I’d like to revisit this accusation that I’m a user to highlight a common tactic of yours which I find rather dishonest.

According to you, going by all the previous debates we’ve had, I want to take away people’s human rights, I want to sexually assault women, I want to discriminate against de facto couples, I like to watch people suffer, I’m a pervert who gets off on other people’s stories, and now I’ve used someone.

Now, what’s more likely? That I (or anyone, for that matter) am actually guilty of all these things (which would make me one of the worst people on the planet)? Or that slander is just part of your modus operandi?

You can only throw absurd accusations around for so long before no one takes you seriously anymore.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Why should you care if anyone takes you seriously?

Boring.

Foxy:

Funny how you found your voice after Philips told you what to think.

Philips:

Poor little victim you.

Actually, phanto, I never thought of it that way.

<<Poor little victim you.>>

I was more interested in the dishonesty of your behaviour. But now that you mention it, I guess I am a victim, in a way. I suppose I never thought of it like that because no one's forcing me to engage in your bizarre discussions, or put up with your wild accusations.

Philips:

Honesty is in the eye of the beholder. Of course you are going to label me dishonest. The opposite is too unsettling for you to accept.

Erm, no, it’s not, phanto.

<<Honesty is in the eye of the beholder.>>

You’re thinking of beauty. Dishonesty will often be demonstrable, and I only make the accusation when I can demonstrate it.

<<The opposite is too unsettling for you to accept.>>

And what would this alternate conclusion be? That all your past accusations really do apply to me? Good luck in demonstrating that.

You’re at it again. The amateur psychology and slander, I mean. Although, they’re often the same thing, aren’t they phanto?

<<Dear Foxy,

Don’t feel like you’ve caused anything. No one’s forcing phanto to make strange comments (or forcing me to respond to them), and nor should anyone be expected to foresee them, given how off-the-planet bizarre they can get.>>

Please Foxy, DO NOT, fall for any of these people's postings on this topic. They are both using you for their own advantage, as they see this website as not much more than an a amusement ride at a country show.

You deserve better treatment than that!

There you go, phanto. There’s an actual example of someone using someone else. In this case, to take yet another irrelevant swipe at me because they’re still pissy about how a discussion went for them on a different thread.

--

NathanJ,

I have always given you the benefit of the doubt. You have always seemed to me to be such a sincere and thoughtful fellow that I have gone out of my way to brush your attacks off as merely a sign of you being a bit of a sensitive soul. But I’m growing rather tired of it all now.

If you have an issue with any of my claims, then, by all means, challenge me on them. But if you cannot do that, then it does not necessarily follow that my intentions are insincere, and I would challenge you to find an example of any insincerity on my behalf, with an explanation of why what I said or did was indeed insincere, rather than just sitting on the sidelines cowardly sniping at me like a stroppy child.

Grow up.

Thanks NathanJ for your good sense.

It's demeaning when Foxy's polite and reasoned posts are being met with such ignorant and issue-ducking ad hominem rudeness from a psycho troll by "You are a liar".

It's similarly a shame that AJP's patient, well-mannered explanations of what the English language actually means are drawing the same ad hominem rudeness from the same troll.

NathanJ:

It is very patronising of you to think that Foxy is incapable of speaking for herself.

EmperorJulian:

It is also patronising of you to think Foxy needs you help or are you just using the exchange between her an I to vent your spleen about something that may have happened to you. Likewise Philips does not need you to stand up for him either. You sound rather bitter and resentful despite the fact that none of this concerns you.

If you have a problem with me then confront me personally and stop being such a coward.

Phanto has at least two games of ping pong going already. I'm taking the old on-line advice - don't feed the trolls - and not participating in a third. Just expressing frustration at repeatedly opening a thread only to find it's nothing but wall to wall abuse of Foxy and AJP by phanto along with their polite replies, and not a syllable about the substance of the thread.
Google NPD for what I meant by "psycho".

EmperorJulian:

How you have suffered! Having to read a thread that you did not want to read! Surely you could appeal to the moderator? But then you would have nothing to whinge about and what else have you got to contribute?