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?