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