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 > History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step > Comments

History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step : Comments

By Rebecca Ananian-Welsh and Chris Peppel, published 17/8/2017

Our own history calls the necessity of this plebiscite into question, and shows that a postal vote regarding marriage equality signals a new era in Australian plebiscites.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. All
*…Australians have been polled on their views on same-sex marriage repeatedly over the course of years, and the results are clear…*

Sorry, but the results are not clear.
The mail survey is a welcome inclusion into the manipulation of the gay lobby, and is good value at $120m .

It is time for a clear and honest view of a “broader” public opinion on this very divisive issue: Is this then, really the problem that underlies the objection to a plebiscite, by the narrow band of powerful and manipulative gay activists?

On another level, the mail survey on marriage definition, evinces a healthy sign of a working political model of Democracy, and is a refreshing sign to the beleaguered disassociated citizens of failing Democracies, such as Australia has become.
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 17 August 2017 9:17:41 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
Trigger warning: Two Left wing agitators contaminated by the university system.

Hello, ladies. There is to be NO plebiscite. A voluntary postal 'survey' (that's what the publicly funded advertisements are calling it) will take place unless the activist High Court knocks it in the head, and we go back to the whining and girlie viciousness until the next election.

The harangue about the three past plebiscites has nothing to do with “...same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step” because there will be no plebiscite on SSM, thanks to Labor, the Greens and other feral Senators.

These two people could have merely said, we are SSM activists and bullies, and we don't think the great unwashed Australian public should have any say in the matter. That would have saved a lot of time for everybody.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 17 August 2017 10:12:04 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
The plan for a plebiscite was based on the lie that a referendum would be unconstitutional.

In reality there's nothing in the constitution to prevent MPs from legislating for a referendum.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 17 August 2017 11:34:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step '

considering the people had a say on this issue to title in arrogant, undemocratic and misleading. See the great coverage the abc has given to the ' gay' terrorist who tried to bomb the Australian Christian Lobby building in Canberra. Oh that's right they are to busy demonising Margaret Court who has the opposite view to the abc's perverted narrative. How dumbed down can a country become? Demonising a national treasure is more important than exposing the hatred and violence of the ' gay ' terrorist.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 17 August 2017 12:04:03 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
Democracy is diminished when a university law lecturer and a student threaten “a new era in Australian plebiscites with serious economic, social and political consequences”. Apparently, they prefer that a prime minister should make an off the cuff decision to engage in an atomic war with North Korea, and not get the opinion of the Australian people.
Posted by Leslie, Thursday, 17 August 2017 1:13:10 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
The Star Observer gay magazine reports 32% of those polled (presumably in the gay community) will boycott the vote.

Their chance to have a say and a third can't be stuffed!?

I hope they don't think that after a failed vote there will be any further initiatives on this issue.

They're like pouting brats, refusing to eat their dessert, because they want "green jelly" and they're being offered "green sugar glump" instead.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 17 August 2017 1:27:33 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
Rebecca Ananian-Welsh and Chris Peppel: *…Australians have been polled on their views on same-sex marriage repeatedly over the course of years, and the results are clear…*

No it not. If you conduct the Polls in Gay Bars & GLTB&A Groups on Campus then, of course the majority will be in favour. Were any polls done in Culamulla, Home Hill, Geralton, Strawn. Stirling. I don't think so.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 17 August 2017 2:23:52 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
Thanks to small but noisy pressure groups the social issue of whether or not to amend the marriage act to accommodate gay couples now overshadows all the other real problems facing our country. The Government must deal with this matter quickly and decisively so that it can focus on the vastly more important economic and political problems facing us.

With both sides of the debate loudly claiming to represent the majority view the only way the Government can be sure of what the mostly silent majority of Australians want is to ask them via a plebiscite or a second-best postal survey.

Mr Shorten, the Greens and a grab-bag of left-wing intellectuals obviously do not want this because, in their arrogance, they believe only they have the wisdom to make the correct decision.

The churches and ultra-right conservatives will oppose it as that is their default setting.

I believe we Australians are collectively mature and intelligent enough to have an open and constructive debate on this issue so let’s bring it on. Let both sides present their arguments for and against and give all of the Australian people the opportunity to tell the Government what they want
Posted by madmick, Friday, 18 August 2017 10:07:17 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
Another vapid article by self-confessed SJW. How on earth does a Plebiscite held in 1940 for conscription compare to a plebiscite on SSM in 2017?

The point of a Plebiscite is to determine exactly how people feel over the country and in each electorate and to guide the voting of the MPs when it does actually come to a vote, and to convince the losing side of the weight of public opinion in a way that unreliable polls cannot.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 18 August 2017 11:11:25 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
The plebiscite is unnecessary because the question itself is unnecessary. Governments should not be sanctioning people’s emotional relationships one way or the other. It is not necessary for them to do so. Couples do not need government sanctioning of their relationships and it is not the business of government to do what it is unnecessary to do.

Individuals should have a right to appoint another individual to have power of attorney over them should it become necessary. Individuals should also have the right to legally appoint the beneficiary of their material possessions if they die. Both of these things are probably already possible to achieve so marriage is not required in order to have these rights. There should be no rights which depend on being married.

There is no need for legislation regarding marriage since no one needs government sanction of their relationship. Amending legislation to include same-sex couples only makes a bad situation even worse and for this reason it should be resisted.

Whilst the postal vote should be unnecessary it will go ahead and the only logical vote is a NO vote because it exacerbates a bad situation.

Everyone should be concerned about government involvement in relationships which is totally unnecessary and irrational.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 18 August 2017 11:51:03 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
Madmick: The churches and ultra-right conservatives will oppose it as that is their default setting.

That's right & most, but not all, will Vote, No. The vast majority of Australians are variations of Atheists. Their vote will be mixed. but more than likely mostly, No. Then, as were are told there's the 500000 moslims who will vote, No. But the GLTBP&A's support them.

I guess it will be GLTBP&A & Parents & close friends that will Vote, Yes.

It should be an interesting Poll. I can see why the GLTBP&A's don't want it conducted.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 18 August 2017 12:09:19 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
The question is not about “marriage equality”
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and there is no question about the equality of these parties. Relationships of perverts are not marriage, and the question being put is whether the definition of marriage should be changed , by law, to effectively include the relationships of perverts in the definition of marriage.
This is in response to the campaign of nonsense and lies by a minority of 1.3% of our population.
It is outrageous that this minority has sustained an attack on the important institute of marriage, a relationship between a man and a woman.
Same sex relationships are not marriage, and until recently involved the criminal offence of unnatural sexual intercourse.There is not even a name for the unnatural relationship of perverts. It is certainly not marriage.
The unscrupulous, lying, dishonest political wing of the perverts persistently and baselessly refers to a relationship of perverts as “same sex marriage”
The authors obviously back the perverts movement, and, contrary to their assertions, believe that the plebiscite result will support the status quo, so they are against it.
Hopefully they are right, and the attempt to pervert the institution of marriage will be defeated.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 18 August 2017 3:04:45 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
Poor Leo Lane - you really are full of hate, aren't you? First, the Australian legal definition of marriage was changed without any public consultation by Howard in 2004. Second, how does the marriage of two "perverts" as you put it, change your life in the slightest?
Posted by HereNow, Friday, 18 August 2017 3:29:51 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
Hownow: how does the marriage of two "perverts" as you put it, change your life in the slightest?

Well, obviously what two perverts do to each other sexually offends her. Like it does to most Australians, except, of course, poofs, etc. It offends me too. As lefties & the Politically Correct know, anything that offends people should be stopped.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 18 August 2017 3:55:03 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
Herenow, your false assertion, based on your spite matches your ignorance of the law of marriage.
The law of marriage was not changed. What was legislated by Howard simply affirmed the law as it stood. He codified the existing law.
Let us know what you think the law was before it was “changed", as you falsely assert.
If your statement was not based on ignorance then it was based on your dishonesty, because it is untrue.
I will ignore your stupid question. A change to the very basis of marriage affects every citizen
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 18 August 2017 6:41:25 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
Technically, I have no problem with gay marriage, but I see no point in the grandstanding as all government departments and major corporation already recognise same-sex partners as "de facto" anyway.

What most people think of as "marriage" is actually "weddings".
The ceremonial act can be engaged in right now by *anyone*. It has nothing to do with the law.

I am only opposed to legal reform, as it's currently being used as part and parcel of the leftist utopian dictatorship, and anything they support MUST be opposed, until such ideology disappears from this planet.

I am also aware that everywhere it has been introduced, critics and "non-compliants" are sued, fired, fined, picketed, etc.
The "rights" of all other parties are negated, and only the gay couples "rights" are validated.

Only if there were a legal guarantee that "non-compliants" will be safe from prosecution can this reform be acceptable.
I won't hold my breath.
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 19 August 2017 11:31:39 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
.
.
.
who
.
.
.
cares
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 19 August 2017 11:52:55 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
A lot of people, Joe. Why should they not care?
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 19 August 2017 11:56:31 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
Herenow by her comment, has shown herself to be spiteful and ignorant, but one should not expect otherwise of a pervert supporter.
By failing to respond to my comments, she also shows herself to be ill-bred and uncivil.
I have asked straightforward, relevant questions, directly relating to her baseless statements. She ignores this, but thought it acceptable to ask the irrelevant question she put, in her post. She does not conduct herself in a manner appropriate to this forum.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 19 August 2017 5:00:42 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
Good to see so many NO comments. Some clarification in case the yes people still keep attacking the nay sayers. 'Here Now' asks how two poofs change our lives. It just does because it creates the same reaction as a couple of drunken thugs walking towards you. It is intimidating and makes you uncomfortable. And don't you dare say 'that's your problem, not mine'. What no-one is saying, and I wish more people would point this out, that what the males engage in is disgusting. To be precise, sodomy and buggery. And they want to expose children to these disgusting acts, suggesting that the children would not be exposed to it. My God they are living under the same roof. The sad part is that for the most part this illness or brain/chemical disorder can be corrected medically, but it seems it's 'cool to be queer', as the saying goes. I also agree that the word 'marriage' is already taken. There are a myriad of other words to choose from. Knock yourselves out. Another valid point and of utmost importance/relevance. I am sick and tired of an extremely small minority going on and on and demanding they be accepted. Well it ain't gunna happen. I would much rather you go back in the closet and do all your dirty deeds inside that closet. I back the truth and what is right. Political correctness has no place in my life as I have found that it's ultimate meaning is defined as a 'LIE'. The facts as presented by the, oh BTW I'm taking back the word 'GAY', we used to use words like queers, poofs, homo's and so on, but apparently you can't do that today. I'm offended, get your own bloody word instead of taking a beautiful and happy word like gay and attaching it to such foul and depraved behaviour just to help jack up your selfish agenda.
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 20 August 2017 2:37:45 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
Part of the lying nonsense of the perverts is that traditional marriage will not be affected. Many perverts do not share this view.
Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community:
“those advocating for gay marriage have long stated that the issue will not harm traditional marriage. Ms. Gessen’s comments on the subject seem to contradict the pro-gay-marriage party lines.
Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;
• “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/news/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
• It is important to vote NO
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 20 August 2017 12:40:07 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
Hi Leo,

So ..... if someone thinks that marriage is a bourgeois institution that should be torn down, Gramsci-style, they should vote NO to homosexual 'marriage'.

: If someone thinks the plebiscite proposals don't go far enough, they should vote NO.

: If homosexuals think that marriage is irrelevant, they should vote NO.

: If homosexuals are happy to stay in a sort of de facto relationship, even in multiple de facto relationships, and don't want the hassles of divorce, they should vote NO.

: If someone couldn't give a toss, they should vote NO.

Yep, that all sounds fair enough.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 20 August 2017 12:47:12 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
Thanks, Joe, what you put is very reasonable and sensible.
It will not appeal to the perverts, who blame their status on society, and wish to be revenged.
Their satisfaction would come from a successful yes vote, and the unhappiness it would cause those who gain support from society’s institutions and their stability
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 20 August 2017 2:47:27 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
Leo Lane, please enlighten us all as to how allowing same-sex marriage will affect every person in society.

Your continual reference to 'perverts' shows you are full of hate as identified by Herenow.
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 21 August 2017 12:21:08 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
Minotaur says:” e enlighten us all as to how allowing same-sex marriage will affect every person in society.”
You do not have to ask stupid questions, Bullhead, you have convinced us in previous posts of your stupidity. Marriage is one of our basic institutions, and is a relationship between a man, and a woman. The basis on which every married person has entered into the covenant is proposed to be changed to include perverts.
It would change the basis of the institution of marriage, for people who have already entered into the covenant on its then basis, so the rights of every citizen will change, some retrospectively, and some prospectively.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Relationships between perverts are not marriage.
My posts, Bullhead, are fact based.My reference to perverts is factual, not pejorative.
Your baseless assertions when you attempt to insult me are lies. It is all you have, because same sex marriage is a nonsense which does not exist, and marriage inequality is a lie.
When faced with the truth, your only response is baseless insults, because you have no valid or truthful answer
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 21 August 2017 3:31:10 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
LOL - you claiming other's posts are insulting. Why so much hatred?
Gay marriage is real, whether you can cope with it or not. It's legal in 25 countries. It will be legal here very soon. It's a matter of equality for all consenting adults. After it's legal here, the world will trundle on just as it always has. Even you won't notice the difference.
Posted by HereNow, Monday, 21 August 2017 3:52:08 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
As usual Leo Lane responds with verbose obfuscation and shows that his assertions are nothing more than uninformed opinion. And hateful, homophobic opinion at that. Although no doubt Mr Lane takes being called a hateful homophobe as a compliment.

Once state recognised same-sex marriage becomes a reality in Australia there will be no great social upheaval as same-sex couples already exist; they already have families; they are part of society as a whole. What will change is that those who choose to marry (there is no compulsion for it) will finally have the same legal protections and rights as heterosexual couples.

The likes of Leo Lane can continue to live in their medieval worlds and keep hating gay people. And also continue to keep writing rants of nothingness.
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 21 August 2017 4:39:39 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
Let us all be not too precious.
We all know why the Green/Labour knocked the plebiscite on the head.
For those that have been on Mars for the last year;
It was thought to be too likely to fail to pass the SSM proposal.
So someone dreamed up this postal ballot.
No matter which way it goes the losing side will dispute the result.
It is full of security holes.
Such simple tactics as raiding the unit block letter boxes.
You may not be aware that the crims have master keys to most types of
locks. A retirement village had to change 180 locks for a more secure
types and another where my son lives had to all be changed.
What a gold mine for the crims they will sub contract to the gay
movement to supply ballot papers. My guess is a dollar a ballot paper.
Then of course there will be the postie followers.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 21 August 2017 6:22:15 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
The same sex marriage re arrangement is of immense benefit to the legal system. If you think the court calendar is choked now, imagine what it's going to be like after with more trying to claim their 'rights'
Other than that, biases will remain and the general opinion of the masses on the matter will remain intact despite vocal claim to the broader mind.
Nothing else will change save for the delusional belief of social equality, which starts in the mind, not in the statutes.
Posted by ilmessaggio, Tuesday, 22 August 2017 7:47:01 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
Joe,

The idea that people who do not care should vote 'no' is dumb. If there are people who don't care, then they shouldn't vote at all. Why would they vote 'no'? There's no logic isn that.

Sounds to me like you're still just trying to convince yourself that you don't care.

--

ALTRAV,

Wow, what a hateful person you are! Sounds like you have some serious psychological issues there.

Sounds like a possible case of repressed homosexuality, too:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lester_Wright_Jr/publication/14430824_Is_Homophobia_Associated_with_Homosexual_Arousal/links/54d4e9840cf25013d02a25fa.pdf

No evidence for you claim that gay people suffer from a mental illness, of course. Just a grand display of your own.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 22 August 2017 8:55:42 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
A J Philips, if I am a 'hateful person' it is because you and your lot have become such a pain in the arse with your banging on and on about why you should all be taken seriously. Well as long as you keep pushing your un-natural and un-wanted agenda, me and the rest of the normal people out there will cut you off at every opportunity. Oh and as for your rejection of the comment 'that queers suffer from mental illness', by suggesting it you have made my case for me. Stop deflecting. We are not going to give you a 'get out of the closet free' card. Hateful? Nah, just fed up with you lot for continually deflecting and living a lie then trying to tell us we MUST accept you because you say so. I note you didn't respond to my comments where you engage in buggery and sodomy as a matter of norm, because you 'love' each other. Well I'm giving you a chance to rebut this. Oh and by the way it is a sickness in the form of mental dis-order. If you weren't sick you would agree.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 22 August 2017 10:28:43 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
I’m not gay, ALTRAV.

<<if I am a 'hateful person' it is because you and your lot have become such a pain in the arse with your banging on and on about why you should all be taken seriously.>>

But even if you’re just talking about anyone who supports marriage equality, then please, by all means, tell me why we shouldn’t be taken seriously.

<<Well as long as you keep pushing your un-natural and un-wanted agenda …>>

What does nature have to do with anything, and how do you know that homosexuality isn’t natural?

<<Oh and as for your rejection of the comment 'that queers suffer from mental illness', by suggesting it you have made my case for me.>>

Really now? So, anyone who rejects that a certain population have a mental illness actually confirm it by doing so? What kind of screwy logic is that?

<<Stop deflecting.>>

From what? You’re the one who made the claim.

<<We are not going to give you a 'get out of the closet free' card.>>

Why not? I'm letting you.

<<Hateful?>>

Yes, hateful. Your vitriol is unjustified. Therefore, it comes across as “hateful”.

<<Nah, just fed up with you lot for continually deflecting and living a lie then trying to tell us we MUST accept you because you say so.

Deflecting from what, and living what lie?

<<I note you didn't respond to my comments where you engage in buggery and sodomy as a matter of norm …>>

That’s because I don’t. (Do you realise that it’s no longer an insult to refer to someone as a homosexual?) I take it, then, that you are fine with lesbians, and reject the marriages of opposite-sex couples who engage in anal sex?

<<Well I'm giving you a chance to rebut this.>>

Done and done.

<<Oh and by the way it is a sickness in the form of mental dis-order.>>

Still waiting for evidence for this.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 22 August 2017 10:46:28 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
//Sounds like a possible case of repressed homosexuality//

Nah, I doubt he's gay. He sounds more like your common or garden variety internet troll to me: no girlfriend, no mates, no life. Desperate for attention, but the only way he knows how to get it is carrying on like a pork chop behind a cloak of of anonymity, secure in his parents house where he still lives. Probably still a virgin.

You do have to pity such people, but showering them with the attention they crave is actually counter-productive.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 12:17:36 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
A J Philips, I have explained myself clearly on this topic, (several times). In case you're not familiar with the term 'deflect' it means you avoid responding to the questions or particular points, by commenting on some other non-related matter. The one point you must accept is that a person who is emotionally drawn to someone of the same gender IS what is patently clear to everyone else, and referred to by the medical profession, as something other than normal. I have used the example of others who fit into that category such as albino's and dwarfs. Now be a sport and simply accept who/what you are and leave it at that. As for me I don't mind being demonised and vilified, BUT, just remember I can take it. Apparently you and your lot can't.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 1:06:48 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
Now T Lavis, I'm a little slow but I'm not sure whether you're serious or trying your hand at humour. To clarify, in response to your comments. I had a little chuckle in that your description of me and my lifestyle, are well, quite the opposite. But it was fun reading them just the same. Toni, I respond to these articles as someone who has seen minorities and miscreants get away with 'murder'. (figuratively speaking) It has been my duty to stand against people who make selfish or stupid demands or worse. It's bad enough politicians these days are like prostitutes who sell themselves to the highest bidder, so it comes to people like me to 'stand and fight' as the saying goes. The bulk of the population are too busy watching sports or down the pub or who knows what. And it's because of the lazy she'll be right attitude of these cretins that we get these stupid and even insipid laws. So I am quite at ease with being abused and worse because I know that I have just hit a nerve. If I had no response it would also mean I was right. So you see Toni, if you are a YES person I can understand you want to be heard. Well Toni we hear you but we just don't like what you're saying.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 1:34:11 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
Intuitively, I know that the perverts will lose, but I have also given some conscious thought to the matter.
The fact that the perverts have nothing but lies and nonsense, as typified in AJ Phillips posts, is not an ultimate determining factor, since contests like this are often carried by lies and nonsense, as the perverts, or their advisers, are well aware.
I thought back to a dinner party I attended many years ago, and at the table I joined, one individual asked what everyone did by way of community service, as unpaid work.
He said that he attended gaols, to assist inmates in relation to parole and release applications.
One case he was currently attending was to assist a 19 year old youth whose sentence was for bashing a poofter to death. The difficulty in assisting him arose from his inability to see anything wrong in bashing a poofter to death.
Someone said, “Think back to when you were nineteen, could you see anything wrong with bashing a poofter to death then?” Not everyone laughed, and the topic then changed.. Reflecting on it, I realised that it was a common attitude among young fellows.. Reproduction of a human being is a complicated process, and it is little wonder that natural mistakes occur, like an individual with a male body being fitted with a female temperament.
It seems to me feasible that young men and others could have an instinct, or programmed urge to dispose of such a mistake of nature. It also seems feasible that existing negative programming of people in relation to perverts could govern the outcome of the postal vote..
It will be interesting to see the outcome.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 2:18:56 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
ALTRAV,

That depends on what you want to convey.

<<I have explained myself clearly on this topic …>>

If you want to show yourself to be a hateful bigot with no rational justification for his position, then sure, you’ve done a fine job.

<<In case you're not familiar with the term 'deflect' …>>

I am. So, again:

“From what? You’re the one who made the claim(s).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19225#341679)

<<The one point you must accept is that a person who is emotionally drawn to someone of the same gender IS what is patently clear to everyone else, and referred to by the medical profession, as something other than normal.>>

Yeah, you’ve said this a couple of times now. What I’m interested in is your evidence and/or reasoning for this claim. Simply inserting the word "patently" just ain't gonna cut it, I'm afraid. Because psychologists and geneticists clearly don’t agree with you.

<<I have used the example of others who fit into that category such as albino's and dwarfs.>>

So, you consider it a genetic defect then? (At least you don’t claim that it's a choice, I suppose.) Why, then, would you hate and vilify a group for what they cannot help? You are no better than a racist.

<<Now be a sport and simply accept who/what you are and leave it at that.>>

So, you have such a small mind that you cannot imagine that a heterosexual could be fine with homosexuality?

<<Apparently you and your lot can't [take vilification].>>

Well, it does tend to grind an entire demographic down when it’s been going on for millennia. Nothing particularly fragile about that.

--

Leo Lane,

Still claiming they’re perverts, eh?

<<… I know that the perverts will lose …>>

And still with no evidence or sound reasoning for that claim, too, I take it?

<<The fact that the perverts have nothing but lies and nonsense, as typified in AJ Phillips posts …>>

Oh, we’re going back to the ‘liar’ bit are we? Very brave of you, given that you were unable to substantiate that claim every other time you made it, too.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 6:33:01 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
Herenow "It's a matter of equality for all consenting adults."

Except polygamous and incestous partners.

Even if gay marriage is approved, I cannot marry *two* men, only one, no matter how much all three of us "love" each other.

I also cannot marry my brother, half-brother or even *adopted* brother!

#loveislove, baby!

The postal union is now using the lame excuse of worker "welfare" to impose an ideological bias on what gay marriage material it will or won't deliver.

Since when do posties decide if they're *personally* "offended" by mail or not, and therefore whether to deliver it?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/samesex-marriage-plebiscite-posties-union-warns-about-welfare-risk-of-workers-delivering-material/news-story/660eae7e7e300154acc5799cfc2a8a48
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 10:16:40 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
AJ: you consider it a genetic defect then? (At least you don’t claim that it's a choice,)

In some cases Homosexuality is a Genetic defect. In other cases it's a lifestyle choice. It appears to be a Lefty trendy thing, where those that choose that lifestyle do so because they want to fit into their chosen Group. (Anti-establishment) These one are easy to tell because they go over the top in their dress & mannerisms. These are people who desperately want attention Eg; Goths, Head banger's, Queer queers, Beatnik's, Greenies, LGBTIC&A's, Lawyers, etc.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 10:41:16 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
AJ I am not going to respond to your questions because I have done so again and again. I thank all the 'Nay sayers' for having the courage to tell it like it is. Shockadelic and Jayb, good to hear your views. I am not a linguist or well versed in the art of writing, lacking the knowledge of more appropriate words befitting the questions. But suffice to say I fully expect the Nay sayers to put up a fight. I am a little dis-appointed that they will not concede at least one or two points but stand fast in their totally un-natural views and life style. So long as we have people who don't stand up for right and wrong or are too gutless or scared for fear of retribution, we will continue to see changes in the world that are going to further divide the people to the point that they will slowly take matters into their own hands.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 11:43:30 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
AJ Philips, there's no point responding to anything ALTRAV puts up. You simply cannot engage with someone who is so clearly deranged.
Posted by minotaur, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 11:55:08 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
It all seems very straightforward to me.
Except for those very unfortunate people who are born hermaphrodites
the "average" gay person is I believe genetically normal.
They, I believe have been diverted by a chance trigger or what I think
is more common these days, fashion.

It has obviously become fashionable in some quarters to be "gay".
The basic fact is their DNA is definitely male or female.
They cannot together give birth to a child so their union cannot be
described as marriage.

So I will be ticking NO in the ballot paper when it arrives.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 12:36:29 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
Being married is not a prerequisite for marriage and there is no mention of children in the Marriage Act, Bazz. And your opinions don't represent any fact so therefore less than worthless.
Posted by minotaur, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 12:41:20 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
Really, ALTRAV?

<<I am not going to respond to your questions because I have done so again and again.>>

Well, I am disappointed that I missed where you cited evidence for homosexuality being a genetic defect or a mental disorder. Another thread, I assume. You certainly haven't explained how I’ve supposedly deflected, though.

Perhaps another time then, eh?

<<I thank all the 'Nay sayers' for having the courage to tell it like it is.>>

You are yet to demonstrated that ‘it’ is anything like you say it is.

<<Shockadelic and Jayb, good to hear your views.>>

Shockadelic is gay. You’ve just accused him of being mentally ill. But I’m sure he appreciates you opinion of his views, at least.

<<I am a little dis-appointed that they will not concede at least one or two points but stand fast in their totally un-natural views and life style.>>

Ah, that’s another point you haven’t addressed: what’s nature got to do with it, and how do you know that homosexuality is not natural?

You still have it all to prove. So where do you get off asking others to concede anything?

<<… we will continue to see changes in the world that are going to further divide the people to the point that they will slowly take matters into their own hands.>>

Oh? Coming time for some poofter bashing, eh? You people are disgusting.

--

Minotaur,

I know it’s ultimately pointless, but I do enjoy holding up the irrationality of their position to the light.

--

Bazz,

You appear to be confused about which genes control what. You also don’t seem to understand what exactly marriage is, and would presumably deny it to infertile couples.

Your reasons for voting ‘no’ are terrible.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 12:51:44 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
Not really AJPh, I think you would be hard put to deny that the "gay"
trend is not a fashion.
I do not think that there is any doubt that genes define your sex.
I think genes are far more likely to do that then fashion.

Re infertile couples. mostly they are unaware until the find they
cannot conceive and if they are older it is for companionship & love.
Still, they are a man & woman.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 2:13:49 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
AJPhillips says:” given that you were unable to substantiate that claim every other time you made it, too.

Here is a copy of one of the times I have substantiated the fact:
“AJP seems to have difficulty with the fact that homosexuals are perverts.
The definition of perversion is the starting point:
Perversion:Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion.

On the basis that the original course of the anus is to function as an aperture for discharge of body waste, the insertion of a penis in the waste duct is a
corruption of the original course, or state, thus a perversion. The persons committing the act are perverts. The evidence is their own coming out as homosexual.. The acts of perversion will vary with different individual homosexuals, but they are all perverts.

Your purporting to limit the basis of my answer was of no consequence, AJP, I simply felt disinclined to bear the tedium of answering a question to which the answer is self evident to any rational person. You are not entitled to object to the description of “idiot boy”. It is appropriate and accurate, in light of your idiotic pressing of the question.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 11 December 2016 5:32:57 PM”
Phillips response was to lie again, saying that I had no”evidence” for my self evident statement, making no effort to show that any of my assertions were not correct, as they certainly areright in every particular.
He also presses the lie of marriage inequality. Perverts have no status in marriage, which is a relation ship between a man and a woman, so perverts have no status in the question. Same sex marriage is a non existent nonsense, and a main platform in the baseless argument for perversion of society
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 2:59:12 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
I sure hope that LGBTs are happy with where gay activists have taken them, bracketing marriage as The Big Issue that was denying them rights, safety, recognition, public acceptance, a happy life, the moon and stars and so on.

The Gillard Labor government had already proclaimed as an achievement that it had removed all forms of discrimination against gays, changing twenty-seven or so Acts, a mammoth enterprise and giving full recognition and entitlements as marrieds through changed de facto (common law marriage) arrangements.

If SSM gets up and it seems it will, gays will be seen as mainstream in all ways possible, bar none. With that comes responsibility for self-emancipation and self-empowerment. Or more bluntly, stop politicising gender and sexual identities, stop blaming 'the public', stop asking for special treatment and get on with life. -Like everyone else and recognising that there are always many other individuals who are not as well off in the world and in Australia.

Not making any value or moral judgements, just saying..
Posted by leoj, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 3:05:15 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
And the Leo Lane comedy show rolls on! Hey Leo, the penis is also a waste duct. Better stop playing with yours you pervert!
Posted by minotaur, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 3:07:10 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
//The evidence is their own coming out as homosexual.//

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Leo:

Lesbians ain't bummers.

Your argument is shite.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 4:40:32 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
' I've said it before and I'll say it again, Leo:

Lesbians ain't bummers.
'

no Toni just deceived and mentally challenged like their promoters. They seriously need help.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 5:20:30 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
As you indicate Tiny-mind Lavis we have already experienced the product of your infinitesimal intellect.
It is vicious of you to inflict it on us again.
If you are not a pervert, why are you supporting the perverts?
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 6:43:34 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
//why are you supporting the perverts?//

You still haven't explained how lesbians are perverts, Leo. You said that all homosexuals are perverts, then you proceeded to explain that it was because they had anal sex.

But lesbians don't. So there's big gap in your logic.

But by all means just insult me a bit more instead of trying to present a coherent argument. It really demonstrates the strength of your position.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 8:04:39 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
At no point did I claim that they didn’t, Bazz.

<<I do not think that there is any doubt that genes define your sex.>>

The point, that you still don’t seem to get, is that there appears to be far more genes controlling sexuality (and not always the same genes either) compared with the genes controlling biological sex. You are assuming that they are all the same genes in order to conclude that sexuality must be a choice.

--

Not quite, Leo Lane.

<<Phillips response was to lie again, saying that I had no”evidence” for my self evident statement, making no effort to show that any of my assertions were not correct, as they certainly areright in every particular.>>

What I did was point to the fact that your argument was flawed because not all homosexual people practice anal sex.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333359

I’d further note that the genitals did not evolve for contact with the mouth, yet I can just about guarantee you that all heterosexual couples have had oral sex. Does that mean they’re perverts, too?

<<He also presses the lie of marriage inequality. Perverts have no status in marriage, which is a relation ship between a man and a woman …>>

Not yet they don’t (well, not in Australia, at least). But that says nothing about whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

So, I hadn’t lied at all. Not on either count.

But you just did.

P.S. Still waiting on a rational explanation as to why gay people are perverts, by the way.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 9:00:04 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
OK that's it once a debate gets to the point where abuse takes over from what is otherwise a heated debate, we can call it a day. I don't care how I am seen or treated, this debate is not about me. I would like to condense what I have learned from this discussion. The YES side is adamant that they are right. They only give anecdotal comments about precedents set elsewhere in the world. The evidence presented is of a personal opinion in referencing again other yes voters or countries. On the NO side a number of political, religious and social or personal arguments have been presented. All to avail. When actual scenarios were presented, such as the fact that the men engaged in sodomy and buggery, again, no response to the allegations. The standard vitriol of the YES campaign appears to go on the attack by responding with questions, in most cases, it is easier to deflect than answer or challenge the allegation head on. On many occasions the NO sayers have been asked to 'prove' their allegations. I believe we have. The answers were not acceptable because they would show the flaws in the YES arguments, so it is easier to reject, ignore and deflect, thereby giving the appearance of their argument being a valid one. In conclusion I will not go over old ground, but suffice to say; whether the YES movement like it or not, they are not welcome to conduct themselves as they see fit, (at least in public) and they do not have the right to compare themselves with a 'real couple' and all it stands for. WE don't care what you think of us or what names you call us, because your comments and opinions are already a matter of record. The only people who are going to tolerate and stand by you are 'your' friends and family. Be greatfull for that and move on. The rest of us will always see you as spoilt brats.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 11:43:55 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
AJ, one final point in response to your 'oral sex' comment. You will be heartened to know that this too fits in to our NO vote. And yes it is disgusting, so anyone engaged in such activity falls right into the same category as the YES people. Being a 'normal' couple does not give them any more moral rights than the queers. They choose to engage in filthy activities, behind closed doors, that's their choice. I naturally totally disagree with such conduct and so I would give them the same amount of grief as anyone else who engages in anything but what a normal healthy couple, (male and female)do as a matter of natural course. Giving 'head' is not one such thing, so I'll give you this one.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 24 August 2017 1:50:37 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
//I naturally totally disagree with such conduct and so I would give them the same amount of grief as anyone else who engages in anything but what a normal healthy couple, (male and female)do as a matter of natural course. Giving 'head' is not one such thing//

Funniest comment I've read all week. I'm not sure if our resident troll realises whilst support for gay marriage might only be sitting at about 66%, support for oral sex would be sitting in the high nineties. The very high nineties. Hell, I reckon you could count the number of people that don't like getting head on the left hand of a clumsy right-handed butcher. But apparently this minuscule minority are the only normal people.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 24 August 2017 7:10:35 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
minotaur "there is no mention of children in the Marriage Act"

Actually, there are several sections (89, 90, 91) relating to the "legitimacy" of children through marriage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(family_law)

But there is definitely no mention of "love".

AJ Philips "what’s nature got to do with it, and how do you know that homosexuality is not natural?"

Nature can be used as an argument against gay marriage (or even homosexuality in general).
The functional purpose of genitalia is reproduction, so there will *always* (legitimately) be people opposed to any non-reproductive sexuality. They need not be obnoxious about it.
There is evidence of homosexuality in animals, so it does occur in "nature".
There is no evidence of "marriage registers" in nature, only mating.

All the psychosocial elements of sex are inventions of our own minds, so can take many forms.
Which is the great (and terrible) thing about humans. We can invent our own realities.

And we invented "marriage".
We can define it how we wish, but it is a communal/tribal understanding, not a personal one.
It varies across cultures and eras, but it has never included same sex couples.
Even in bisexually-tolerant ancient Rome, the law only recognised straight marriages.
If our community/tribe does not wish to alter that definition, it matters not what some individuals demand.

The argument based on "love" can be used to *logically* demand polygamous and incestous marriages.
Is our society ready for those reforms? No. And it may not be ready for gay marriages either.
If so, tough. Gay partners are still recognised as "de facto" and gay people can keep living and loving together as they have done for years.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 24 August 2017 8:27:17 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
Not from my observations, ALTRAV.

<<[The YES side] only give anecdotal comments about precedents set elsewhere in the world.>>

Equality in itself is a rational reason. There’s no reason to appeal to what other countries are doing.

<<On the NO side a number of political, religious and social or personal arguments have been presented.>>

Yes, and all of which are fallacious to one degree or another. Most of which can be categorised as fallacious appeals to tradition, extremes, or nature.

<<When actual scenarios were presented, such as the fact that the men engaged in sodomy and buggery, again, no response to the allegations.>>

Yes, there was. You haven’t been reading very closely. You even addressed one of them in your post to me.

<<The standard vitriol of the YES campaign appears to go on the attack by responding with questions ...>>

If you make a claim without justifying it, then expect to receive requests for a justification. For the third time now, that’s not deflection, it’s giving you an opportunity to justify your claim or demonstrate that you have no justification.

<<The answers were not acceptable because they would show the flaws in the YES arguments …>>

Oh, by all means, give us an example, won’t you?

<<… whether the YES movement like it or not, they are not welcome to conduct themselves as they see fit, (at least in public) …>>

Well, that’s censorship for you. What happened to you lot being all about free speech?

<<… and they do not have the right to compare themselves with a 'real couple' and all it stands for.>>

Still confusing those in support of marriage equality with gay people, eh? There must be a lot of gay people this country. A majority, in fact.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 24 August 2017 8:34:27 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
The sections of the Marriage Act that refer to children would apply to same-sex marriages once they become legally recognised by the state. There is certainly no mention in the Act that people have to be married to have children. In fact it recognises the opposite is true.
Posted by minotaur, Thursday, 24 August 2017 10:15:13 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
yep the regressives have modelled and promoted every perversion one can drag up from sodom and gommorah. They putrify the minds of kids and then blame anyone standing for decency for mental health issues. The job of academia seems to dumb down people to such an extent that they are unable to see the obvious. Simply the more homosexuality and other sexual perversion is promoted and ' normalised' the greater the suicide rate will be depsite trying to legislate it as normal. The yes case has no case except to push lies.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 24 August 2017 11:23:11 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
I see that 'runner' poses opinion as some sort of irrefutable fact. Typical. Anyway, once someone invokes 'sodom and gommorah' you know you've got someone with a few sheep loose in the top paddock.
Posted by minotaur, Thursday, 24 August 2017 1:30:58 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
When I pointed out to Phillips that none of his nonsense or lies purporting to support the perverts had any substance, particularly his lie about “inequality”, because perverts had no status in marriage, which is a relationship between a man and a woman, he made this pathetic baseless response:” Not yet they don’t (well, not in Australia, at least). But that says nothing about whether or not they should be allowed to marry.”
He has no sensible response to defend his lies and nonsense, but keeps repeating the same nonsense, and the same lies. He has no new ones, just the invalid, worn out ones
He ne ver ceases to ask stupid questions. In relation to heterosexual oral sex, he says: Does that mean they’re perverts, too?”
No, genius, they are not same sex.. You can see why he has had to answer to “idiot boy”
I notice the witless bullhead has the temerity to describe someone as "a few sheep short in the top paddock"
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 24 August 2017 11:11:32 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
Tinymind, when a pervert was charged with the appropriate criminal offence, before perversion was decriminalised, it was “unnatural sexual intercourse”
Sexual intercourse, unless it took place between persons of the opposite sex, was unnatural. Lesbians are of the same sex, so the intercourse was unnatural. This should satisfy your strong desire to be a proven pervert.
You will no doubt be disappointed to learn that the police did not charge women with perversion. They satisfied the strong social disapproval of lesbians by using the laws restricting womens’ access to hotels
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 24 August 2017 11:25:45 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
Leo Lane,

Do you think that if you just keep repeating the words ‘nonsense’ and ‘lies’ that they'll eventually stick in the minds of any onlookers?

<<... none of his nonsense or lies … particularly his lie about … defend his lies and nonsense ... the same nonsense, and the same lies.>>

Do pick up your game ol’ chap. Nothing in all that babble revealed a single bit of nonsense, or lie, from me.

<<No, genius, they are not same sex..>>

So gay people are perverts because they're sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex now, eh?

Okay then, so in what sense are are you using the word ‘pervert’ now? The Oxford has three:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pervert

Yes, yes, semantics, I know, but if I assume anything (no matter how reasonable the assumption), you will find a way to pretend that you meant something else in order to accuse me of lies or nonsense. Which is why you prefer to keep things as vague as possible.

Heck, you've already used my frequent asking of questions to accuse me of some sort of dishonesty. It gets tough, doesn't it, when we're asked to justify our beliefs? Easier to just pretend the problem is with the other person.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 25 August 2017 12:12:16 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
Gee, you mention a few sheep loose in the top paddock and Leo Lane appears. Cannot be coincidence.
Posted by minotaur, Friday, 25 August 2017 9:41:36 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
Trying to be clever, bullhead, just reminds everyone that you are bereft of the necessary equipment. Try for the education, which you sadly lack, and discover whether you have anything there at all

Phillips says:” you've already used my frequent asking of questions to accuse me of some sort of dishonesty.”
Reminiscent of when the village idiot accused me, on another thread of asking a “dishonest question”
What I said is in proper form, and true.
Again:” Do you think that if you just keep repeating the words ‘nonsense’ and ‘lies’ that they'll eventually stick in the minds of any onlookers?”
I do not know. You have repeated the actual nonsense and lies, so how did it work out for you?
Phillips again:” So gay people are perverts because they're sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex now, eh?”
Of course not, it is because they have sexual relations with people of the same sex. Being attracted only makes them potential perverts.
Phiilips has agreed that same sex marriage is a non-existent nonsense, but resists admitting the lie of "marriage inequality" He has no answer to the fact that perverts have no status in the question of marriage, since the paties to a marriage are a man and a woman. Phillips offers no rational basis, but agin makes the assertion that they are entitled to status in the question of marriage. He is lying, or talking nonsense, or both
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 25 August 2017 2:11:33 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
Given you only provide nonsensical posts Leo Lane, and have no capacity to counter others with logic or clear, intelligent thought, I had to lower my level of engagement to one that you clearly understand. Glad it worked. Now, let go of your penis and round up the sheep.
Posted by minotaur, Friday, 25 August 2017 2:15:06 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
The Poll is missing an opportunity here. There is only one issue on the Paper.

This is an opportunity for multiple Questions to be answered by everyday Australians. The Burka, A Single Adult Age, Euthanasia, mahommedeans immigration, Foreign ownership, Gun Control & Safe School Programme, A single 10% Tax on Gross Earnings without any Deductions what-so-ever & a few more.

I believe these should/must be added to the Poll Paper.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 25 August 2017 6:42:07 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
Jayb, what poll?
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 25 August 2017 6:51:45 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
Altrav: Jayb, what poll?

Poll, Plebiscite. Whatever. Duh.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 25 August 2017 10:18:48 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
Jayb, that would only encourage more straight-in-the-bin responses.

We could do similar "polls" for all those issues and more, but one at a time, and only needing a "representative" random selection of people (e.g. 10,000).

To poll everyone on everything is too expensive and tedium would soon emerge.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 25 August 2017 11:18:43 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
The uneducated ignoramus has the gall to talk about “logic or clear, intelligent thought,” as if he had any grasp of the meaning of these terms.
Go back to your class-mates bullhead, and if you ever pass your final school exams, have another try at a grown-ups’ site like this one. In the meantime I will treat you as being what your posts evidence in value, which is non-existent
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 26 August 2017 1:42:17 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
Sorry Jayb, I wasn't being sarcastic, I honestly thought I'd missed something. Thanks for clarifying. As for your comments re multiple questions I have to go with Shockadelic on this one. Although I do prescribe to the idea of consulting with the public. In my version of events I would make a lot more use of the electronic mediums to try to make it more efficient. I know it's not currently feasible but maybe one day. It means the people actually get to make the decisions, the way it should be.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 26 August 2017 1:43:29 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
Back to name-calling I see, Leo Lane.

<<Reminiscent of when the village idiot accused me, on another thread of asking a “dishonest question”>>

When was this, and what was my question?

<<What I said is in proper form, and true.>>

Not it wasn’t. My questions are relevant. You have not demonstrated otherwise.

<<You have repeated the actual nonsense and lies, so how did it work out for you?>>

You are yet to demonstrate that anything I have said is nonsense or a lie.

<<[Gay people are perverts] because they have sexual relations with people of the same sex.>>

How does this make them perverts? You keep tap dancing around my question.

<<Phiilips has agreed that same sex marriage is a non-existent nonsense …>>

I have only agreed that same-sex marriage is not yet allowed in Australia. I am yet to see how this is an argument against it, though.

<<… but resists admitting the lie of "marriage inequality">>

Probably because I don’t know how it’s a lie. So, how about you educate me?

<<He has no answer to the fact that [gay people] have no status in the question of marriage, since the paties to a marriage are a man and a woman.>>

Which question exactly?

<<Phillips offers no rational basis …>>

Yes, I do: equality. You are yet to explain how this is not a “rational basis”.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 26 August 2017 7:33:01 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
Oh, I think I know which question you’re referring to now, Leo Lane.

<<Reminiscent of when the village idiot accused me, on another thread of asking a “dishonest question”>>

I won’t mention it, though, because it was with regards to a topic which I am sure you would love to divert this discussion to. More to the point, I don't see how it is reminiscent.

Just a tip: unless you’re quoting verbatim, don’t use quotes. It's misleading and comes across as dishonest.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 26 August 2017 8:52:57 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
Shockadelic: and only needing a "representative" random selection of people (e.g. 10,000). To poll everyone on everything is too expensive and tedium would soon emerge.

I don't think 10000 is enough. It depends on where the Poll are held. The LGBTCIA Groups Poll in Gay Bars & Left Wing Groups on UNI Campuses. That's how they come up with "their" statistics. No, One Paper with all the Questions on it would be the way to go.

I have done a few Referendums & the was they ask the Question is deceiving. When you are voting Yes it turns out that the wording is lengthy & confusing & you've voted No. So a straight, (Eg; "Same-Sex Marriage": Yes, No,) would be the best way. You watch the wording on this Plebiscite, You can just bet it's confusing too.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 26 August 2017 9:35:01 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
AJPhillips. Do not put quotes around words which you have altered, it is bad form and dishonest.
“<He has no answer to the fact that [gay people] have no status in the question of marriage, since the paties to a marriage are a man and a woman.>>
You changed”perverts” to gay people”, by dishonestly pretending you were inserting something to clarify the meaning. You either do not know the rules, or your dishonesty governed your composition.

You say:” : unless you’re quoting verbatim, don’t use quotes. It's misleading and comes across as dishonest.”
Another example of your ignorance of English composition, and do not ask me again to educate you. Your dishonesty makes you extremely resistant to education, and to facts, like the fact that perverts have no status in the question of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. Perverts have no standing in relation to marriage.
Phillips dishonesty inhibits him from acknowledging the truth
He says he needs educating, but he needs to learn how to face facts, and relinquish lies, so that his education might begin.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 26 August 2017 2:27:31 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
"History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step" ?! Of course not. In five thousand years of history, when has there ever been same-sex marriage ? Mind you, the British upper classes of the nineteenth century would have loved the idea, coupled with legalised bigamy, i.e. one woman (to procreate an heir) and one man (for pleasure) for every upper-class man.

I would have thought this would be right up your alley, AJ: a somewhat spurious appeal to history ?

Just needling :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 26 August 2017 2:50:29 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
Leo Lane,

Nice attempt at conjuring up alleged instance of hypocrisy on my part. You even go as far as to claim that what I did was dishonest!

<<You changed”perverts” to gay people”, by dishonestly pretending you were inserting something to clarify the meaning.>>

Firstly, I enclosed my alteration in square brackets to make it clear that it was my edit. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with me doing that, given that you have been unable to demonstrate that gay people are perverts, and for such a long time now, too. And, yes, then there's the issue of clarity.

<<Your dishonesty makes you extremely resistant to education, and to facts …>>

You are yet to point to a single instance of dishonesty on my part.

<<... like the fact that perverts have no status in the question of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman.>>

In Australia at the moment, sure. I have never denied that. Once again, though, what I’m interested in is how this means that they SHOULD NOT have any status.

<<[Gay people] have no standing in relation to marriage.>>

Correct, and this is precisely why an inequality exists, despite your denial that it does.

<<He says he needs educating …>>

No, I didn’t say that. What I did was request that you educate me on how marriage equality is a lie, since you seem to think that it is.

I know exactly what you’re getting at, though. It's a misconception (or sleight-of-hand) of yours that I corrected at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340457.

You have a short memory, don't you Leo Lane?

--

Joe,

It may be spurious, but I don’t think there was anything fallacious about it, if that’s what you’re getting at.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing to what history may or may not show. Appealing to something, like history, becomes fallacious when one claims that something is good/bad, right/wrong, or preferable/not-preferable simply because that has been the case historically.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 26 August 2017 4:14:36 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
Jayb "I don't think 10000 is enough. It depends on where the Poll are held."

I meant a random selection from the electoral roll.
10,000 was just an example. It could be more or less, depending on whether the issue is local, state or federal.

Multi-question polls pose a problem if you want direct democracy on a routine basis.
There are *thousands* of potential questions, law reforms and policy issues that may need public input.
You would need to stagger it gradually, so you may as well do one thing at a time.

ALTRAV, electronic would be easiest and cheapest.
But not everyone has the technology at home, so would need to "attend a polling booth" (or use postal vote anyway).
Everyone has a mail box.
Physical paper votes can have a recount verified, if needed.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 27 August 2017 12:43:03 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
Shockadelic: There are *thousands* of potential questions, law reforms and policy issues that may need public input.

Exactly, all the Politicians put these in the "Too Hard Basket" & those questions/problem reforms never get solved. They create problems & division everywhere. Politicians have to get out of the, "I don't want to go there" attitude.

Shockadelic: You would need to stagger it gradually, so you may as well do one thing at a time.

Doing it one at a time would be too slow & costly. This one is $122 million. To add four more questions would only be the cost of the Ink.

Eg;
1. Adult Status; 16, 17, 18.
2. Stop moslim immigration into Australia, Yes, No.
3. Politicians Pension to qualify & receive the same Pension under the same rules as ordinary people. Yes, No.
4. Everybody to Retire at 65, Yes, No.
5. Use your Superannuation before you retire, Yes, No.

No long winded confusing Paragraph. Just a straight simple sentence & a simple Yes or No answer. Two of these a year would clear up the unanswered/too hard basket questions in a couple of years. Make the answers to be compulsorily passed by Parliament. Instead of one Question costing $122 million Five Questions would only cost, say, $123 million. There is no need to have a long winded Media Debate about the Questions. People have a set opinion on these things already.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 27 August 2017 2:37:23 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
"This one is $122 million"

Only because *everyone* is being polled.
Smaller random selections would be much cheaper, so you could have more of them.

We also need polls to repeal the many nanny-state laws/policies that weren't "too hard" for the pollies to introduce (smoking, fireworks, seatbelts, bike helmets, etc).
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 27 August 2017 4:43:46 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
Shockadelic:We also need polls to repeal the many nanny-state laws/policies that weren't "too hard" for the pollies to introduce (smoking, fireworks, seatbelts, bike helmets, etc).

Hmmm... Smoking kills. Seatbelts/Bike Helmets save lives, Banning Fireworks & Weapons save lives now because there are too many idiots that have survives into adulthood instead of being removed from the GENE Pool early. Unfortunately now-a-days there is a plethora of idiots because of Helicopter Mums & cottonwool children being allowed to advance into adulthood.

I have a 17 year old grandchild, in Townsville, at the moment, a product of that system. He is in intensive care as we talk with a fractured skull & it touch & go at the moment. Even at 14/15 he was not even allowed to wash-up because he "might" cut himself on a knife & on & on & on. He was an extremely bright kid early in his life but got turned into a Dur by his mother. He's seventeen & he has removed the halter & is Pig-rooting all over the place. This is the result. He & his mates have no idea of consequences.

He & two other mate were riding in the back of a Ute leaning up against the Tailgate when the driver "Swerved to miss a Wallaby" The three were thrown out & he was to only one injured. I'd say the driver gave them a bit of a gee up, unfortunately, but we'll go with the Wallaby, knowing what kids are like. A prayer, if you are inclined, would be nice.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 27 August 2017 6:47:44 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
Jayb, I cannot describe how pleased I am to hear someone else echo my very thoughts. I absolutely agree with the repeal of these nanny laws. I never deny the fact that all these nanny laws are 'mostly' for our own good. I know crash helmets 'help' save lives, I know seat belts 'mostly' save lives, I know airbags 'mostly' save lives. So it goes on. We must all be mindfull that firstly laws are made 'for the greater good'. What I am incensed about is that I am not given a choice. With all the safety features surrounding the vehicles today we can back off a little on the enforcement of many laws. The truth is road traffic laws have nothing to do with saving lives, as we are told. It has to do with the health budget. That's why they recently added $100 to every vehicle registration recently. We were told it was for single vehicle accident (a car hits a tree, ie; no other car involved). OH and BTW and before I forget, people have died wearing crash helmets, seat belts and air bags, just to keep perspective on these issues. I am truly sorry to hear about your grandchild. As a father of two boys, both adults, even though I dis-agree with the word 'adult'. The govt considers a 18 year old to be an adult. I can tell you I have met many 'adults' and I can tell you all too many of them are still 'children' at 80. Hang in there Jayb we can give a thought and a prayer that he will pull through. Remember he's young and at that age will recover surprisingly well.
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 27 August 2017 9:58:26 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
Jayb,

My thoughts and hopes are with your grandson.
I am so sorry you and your loved ones have to go through this suffering.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 27 August 2017 10:13:54 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
Phillips says“ I enclosed my alteration in square brackets to make it clear that it was my edit” Yes, so if I want to edit your dishonest posts, I just put square brackets around the edits. I cannot do that, or I would be as dishonest as you, with your unjustified “edits”. Learn the rules, Phillips, instead of making up your own..
You say: ”You are yet to point to a single instance of dishonesty on my part.”
No there are always plural instances, the starting point being your dishonest assertion that perverts have any factor which entitles them to any status or consideration in relation to marriage, which is a relationship between a man and a woman.
Whatever the relationship between perverts is, it is not marriage, and there is no basis to assert that it should be, despite the vicious, lying political wing of the perverts ensuring that the perverted, and unnamed relationships are nonsensically referred to as “same sex marriage, despite there obviously being no such relationship, as you have already admitted, with the irrelevant rider,”not now, not in Australia.
Just as relevant would be the effect on the debate when it is disclosed that the perverts fabricated the case against George Pell..
Your assertion that you have answered the fact that perverts have no status in regard to marriage is ridiculous. You say:” That fact that it does not apply to their relationships is what is discriminatory. It does not have to actively treat them in any way, in order to discriminate.”
On that basis, camel jockeys who are not mentioned in legislation relating to surf life saving are suffering discrimination. That is quite stupid, even for you. Perhaps you meant it in a dishonest, rather than a stupid way. Please clarify.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 27 August 2017 10:36:50 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
Not if the alteration you make is dishonest, Leo Lane.

<<Yes, so if I want to edit your dishonest posts, I just put square brackets around the edits.>>

Meanwhile, I’ll sit back and enjoy watching you flounder around the place trying to come up with a reason as to why my edit is dishonest.

This should be fun.

Incidentally, you are still yet to point to a single instance of dishonesty from me.

<<I cannot do that, or I would be as dishonest as you ...>>

You can if it’s honest and done for the sake of clarity.

<<Learn the rules, Phillips, instead of making up your own..>>

And what are these rules you speak of? Sounds to me like you’re the one making up rules.

<<… your dishonest assertion that [gay people] have any factor which entitles them to any status or consideration in relation to marriage, which is a relationship between a man and a woman.>>

And why can’t it be one between two members of the same sex?

<<Whatever the relationship between [gay people] is, it is not marriage …>>

So, why can’t it ever be marriage? Because your god says so? Good luck demonstrating that!

<<… and there is no basis to assert that it should be …>>

Yes, there is: equality.

<<Just as relevant would be the effect on the debate when it is disclosed that the [gay people] fabricated the case against George Pell..>>

Ooo, did they? A conspiracy theory! I loves meself a good conspiracy! Do tell.

<<You say:” That fact that it does not apply to their relationships is what is discriminatory. It does not have to actively treat them in any way, in order to discriminate.”>>

Indeed, I do.

<<On that basis, camel jockeys who are not mentioned in legislation relating to surf life saving are suffering discrimination.>>

No, because camel jockeys are not prevented from being surf life-savers based on the fact that they are camel jockeys. Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from becoming surf life-savers.

You’re analogy is as stupid as it is irrelevant.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 27 August 2017 11:08:58 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
Jayb, hope your grandson is doing well.
Did the driver get charged with any "offences", relating to passengers in the back?

This is what the "safe at all costs" nanny-staters forget: Risk and uncertainty are a part of life. So is free will (or it used to be).

Just because something is desirable, doesn't mean it should be *compulsory*, just because something is undesirable doesn't mean you should ban it.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 28 August 2017 8:32:27 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
Phillips says:” because camel jockeys are not prevented from being surf life-savers based on the fact that they are camel jockeys. Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from becoming surf life-savers.”
Right, and perverts are not prevented from being married based on the fact that they are perverts. Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from being married.
Your assertion of marriage inequality is therefore baseless and dishonest.
A relationship of perverts is not marriage, so they are not excluded from marriage.They cannot marry each other, because marriage is between a man and a woman.
What they wish to do is not to marry, but to destroy the institution of marriage, and hi-jack the name for something which is not marriage.
Understandably, your support for this travesty has to be dishonest, because there is no honest basis for its support. That explains your dishonesty, but does not excuse it.
“Marriage inequality” is an outright, baseless lie.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 28 August 2017 8:52:23 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 yet to demonstrate that gay people are perverts, Leo Lane.

<<Right, and [gay people] are not prevented from being married based on the fact that they are perverts.>>

But, you’re right there. The Marriage Act, nor the common law, make any reference to perversion.

<<Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from being married.>>

Yes, there is. The Howard government amended the Marriage Act in 1996 to specify a man and a woman. This was done to reflect the common law.

<<Your assertion of marriage inequality is therefore baseless and dishonest.>>

No, it’s not. Gay people are not allowed to marry. That’s inequality right there.

<<A relationship of perverts is not marriage, so they are not excluded from marriage.>>

Again, you are yet to demonstrate that they are perverts.

<<They cannot marry each other, because marriage is between a man and a woman.>>

In Australia currently, yes. But there is no reason why this cannot change.

<<What they wish to do is not to marry, but to destroy the institution of marriage, and hi-jack the name for something which is not marriage.>>

You are yet to demonstrate that their intent is sinister, or that their relationships can never constitute a marriage. Go on, give it a go without appealing to a god. I’d like to see how you do that.

<<“Marriage inequality” is an outright, baseless lie.>>

You are yet to demonstrate this.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 28 August 2017 9:02:55 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
AJ: Gay people are not allowed to marry. That’s inequality right there.

Here's a thought. Why don't Butch Lezzo's marry Panzie men & Gay men, men marry Girlie Girls? That would solve the problem right there. ;-)
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 28 August 2017 11:56:07 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
Phillips says”
<<“Marriage inequality” is an outright, baseless lie.>>

You are yet to demonstrate this”
How many more times would I have to demonstrate it before you stop telling this lie, and denying facts?

As to the perverts’ intentions on marriage, here’s what a prominent pervert says
:”Homosexual activist says gay ‘marriage’ isn’t about equality, it’s about destroying marriage

a homosexual activist exposed the hidden agenda behind homosexual “marriage” when she told an audience last year that the movement is not seeking equality but rather a total dismantling of the institution of marriage itself.
Masha Gessen, a journalist and author who campaigns for homosexual 'rights', made the comments last May in Australia on a panel at the Sydney Writer’s Festival”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-gay-marriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 28 August 2017 11:18:17 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
"Equality" ? Close relatives can't marry, or even have sexual relations. People can't legally marry animals or inanimate objects, no matter how much they love them. Polygamy is not legal. Marriage to under-age children is not legal (somebody should be reminded of that).

All single men and women over a certain age can marry, one partner each, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

That's equality. Any two people can shack up and live together for as long as they like, that's quite legal. A very high proportion of relationships in Australia take this more lenient and transient form.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 9:03:42 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
Loudmouth: People can't legally marry animals or inanimate objects, no matter how much they love them.

There are people out there that are pushing for just that.

Loudmouth: Polygamy is not legal.

You better tell that to a certain people in Australia we have let in lately.

Loudmouth: Marriage to under-age children is not legal

Ditto.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 10:11:26 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,

Perhaps some sound reasoning or evidence would help?

<<How many more times would I have to demonstrate it before you stop telling this lie, and denying facts?>>

So far, however, I have discredited every ridiculous assertion you have offered. Just look at how your 'camel jockey' analogy flopped.

<<As to the [gay peoples’] intentions on marriage, here’s what a prominent [gay person] says …>>

And what is their evidence of that? How could they possibly be speaking on behalf of every gay person? Or is this another satirical piece your source is foolishly citing?

--

Joe,

Yes, equality. The points you raise are fallacious appeals to extremes.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

<<People can't legally marry animals or inanimate objects, no matter how much they love them.>>

So, what? How is that analogous?

<<Polygamy is not legal.>>

So, what? Perhaps we could fight for that next, if that's what you want.

<<Marriage to under-age children is not legal>>

Of course not, Children can’t consent. How is this analogous to same-sex marriage?

<<All single men and women over a certain age can marry, one partner each, regardless of ethnicity or religion.>>

So long as they’re the opposite sex, which is not equality when some are romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex.

This argument is asinine.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 11:00:10 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
Hi AJ,

As an asinine but curious person (just ask anyone), can you spell out for me how 'history shows same-sex marriage' to be in any way, ever, legal ? Tolerated or indulged, certainly, just as sex with goats or chickens may be, but not constituting legal marriage. The Greeks and Romans with their little boys ? Tolerated, probably prevalent amongst the upper classes, but never legal. Aboriginal initiation practices ? Sometimes, but with no thought of it leading to marriage to one of the old blokes.

So where's the history ? Says who that a plebsicite is 'out of step' with the voice of the people ?

God, really, who cares ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 11:16:21 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
Joe,

Try not to take my descriptions of your arguments as comments on who you are as a person. People can make stupid arguments without being stupid themselves.

<<As an asinine but curious person (just ask anyone), can you spell out for me how 'history shows same-sex marriage' to be in any way, ever, legal ?>>

Not marriage specifically, no. Why do you ask?

<<Says who that a plebsicite is 'out of step' with the voice of the people ?>>

I’m not sure. The authors might have been suggesting that. Why do you ask?

<<God, really, who cares ?>>

A lot of people. Not the least of all, you.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 4:07:58 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
AJ Philips, your exemplary elitist smugness is exactly why this vote may fail.

Loudmouth and myself have both referred to historical (Rome, Greece, initiation rites) and hypothetical "love" relationships (incest, polygamy) that clearly show that all kinds of sexual, romantic and cultural practices may have and do exist, but you do not address *why* these sexual/romantic/cultural relationships do not deserve legal EQUALITY too?

"Why do [I] ask?"

Because it negates the argument *exclusively* based on "love" as justification for reform.

Love, sex and relationships exist in many forms, but only heterosexual monogamy has been *officially* recorded in European law for MILLENNIA. (and yes mr Smartypants, before you bother being even smugger, *we* are part of that European historical continuum).

Majority opinion may well favour "gay marriage" but the same *argument* ("love") can justify incestous and polygamous "marriage" and you fail to address why these too should not be permitted, if all people should be "equal" under the law.

"Perhaps we could fight for that next"?
But why should we wait, when we're having a debate *right now* in this country about marriage reform?
Because you're afraid it will derail your "love" train.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 5:08:07 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
Hi Shockadelic,

Well, maybe lust rather than love - not that there's anything much wrong with lust, it's just that people can confuse the two, and seek to marry in haste. I recall a Greek friend from a remote village speaking of his first lust, a donkey who spent the rest of the day braying around the village with her tail up.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 5:15:08 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
I haven’t claimed that they don’t, Shockadelic.

<<… you do not address *why* these sexual/romantic/cultural relationships do not deserve legal EQUALITY too?>>

At least not in this discussion. I’m happy to argue in favour of them if they’re always consensual and there is no reason to believe that they would be detrimental to societal health.

<<Because it negates the argument *exclusively* based on "love" as justification for reform.>>

Who here has used love as an argument, exclusively? I certainly haven’t. Not in any other discussion either, for that matter.

<<Love, sex and relationships exist in many forms, but only heterosexual monogamy has been *officially* recorded in European law for MILLENNIA.>>

Indeed. So, what? Is this a fallacious appeal to tradition?

<<Majority opinion may well favour "gay marriage" but the same *argument* ("love") can justify incestous and polygamous "marriage" …>>

Correct. Which is why equality is a better argument than love. With equality comes the weighing up of the risks and benefits, as I noted at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#244345.

<<… you fail to address why these too should not be permitted, if all people should be "equal" under the law.>>

Perhaps that’s because I’m not claiming that they shouldn't. Marriage opponents seem so in favour of recognising these other relationships that I think I might be warming to them, actually.

<<But why should we wait [to fight for polygamy], when we're having a debate *right now* in this country about marriage reform?>>

Perhaps many believe that those other forms of marriage will have deleterious effects on societal health? Perhaps it would be too much too soon?

After all, it would have been foolish for gay people to argue for marriage equality at the same time that they were campaigning to have homosexuality decriminalised, would it not? Society back then wasn't ready for quite so much change, but that didn't make arguing in favour of decriminalisation wrong.

Your logic sounds flawed.

Anyway, this is all one big fat red herring. Just because no-one is fighting for those other forms of marriage, that doesn’t mean that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be fought for.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 5:58:52 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
Marriage is between a man and a woman, so a relationship between people of the same sex cannot be marriage, so people talking same sex marriage are talking ridiculous nonsense.
Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”
The parties to a marriage are a man and a woman, and they are currently treated equally under the law. A man entering a relationship with a man is nothing to do with marriage, any more than a woman entering a relationship with a woman, so Phillips is talking baseless nonsense. He admits that he is only talking about possibilities.
In the remote possibility that the NO vote fails, he may have an opportunity to partake in the serious damaging of society.

Of all the human species which have existed, homo sapiens is the only species which has not become extinct, so the process of extinction looms over us, as the sole remaining species.
The process started when we went against every instinct for survival, and removed the death penalty which initially applied to the crime of perversion, being same sex relationships. The slippery slope then encompassed decriminalising of perversion, and we have now sunk to the point of tolerating an attack on the venerable, important institution of marriage, the joining of a man and a woman, which produces children.
The perverts aim to destroy marriage, and hijack the name to encompass relationships between people of the same sex, which relationships are not marriage.
The principle matches the idea of genetically engineering a pest species so that their breeding process fails.
This destructive endeavour is unconsciously pursued by the perverts, aided and abetted by people whose survival instinct has failed, and are part of a group in self destruct mode
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 10:54:55 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
I don't believe it, I've been on a number of other topics since this one so you can imagine my surprise to see it still going on, and clearly no end in sight. The YES people cannot, no, must not give ground because to do so will weaken their stance. I had moved on because I could see that the yes camp just kept refusing to accept the inevitable. Not the yes or no vote but the fact that what they are pushing cannot be accepted by mature, healthy, normal people. Every point made was based on what is good and decent as expected by the normal people and society. And every time they would come back with rejection asking for proof? Proof of what? We don't have to prove anything, they do. Even when I suggested that what the yes camp engaged in (sodomy and buggery),was disgusting, they still rejected it saying this was acceptable. You guys in the NO camp, just forget it, they will not listen to anything that is not in their favour. Because to agree with us would mean they had to go back in the closet, and as I said, once in there they can do whatever they like as far as the rest of us are concerned.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 11:40:49 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
AJ Philips "Perhaps many believe that those other forms of marriage will have deleterious effects on societal health? Perhaps it would be too much too soon?"

People are arguing they "believe" the same about gay marriage, yet you dismiss their concerns.

So the issue is not who is "equal" or whether they "love" each other (which may not be your stance, but is the foundation of the gay activism), it is simply a matter of "whether society is ready", which is a rather weak justification for any law reform whatsoever.

That is one fat red herring.

Was our society ready to decriminalise abortion or prostitution?
Did "the people" want to ban capital punishment?
When did anyone ask us in a democratic poll?
How could they know we were "ready" for those reforms, if they never asked?

99% of laws and policies were never put to a public vote, so almost all legislation and regulation is therefore invalid, since we have no idea whether we were "ready" for it.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 12:23:56 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
//Not the yes or no vote but the fact that what they are pushing cannot be accepted by mature, healthy, normal people. Every point made was based on what is good and decent as expected by the normal people and society.//

Yeah, this is coming from the fella who thinks that blowjobs are disgusting and abnormal XD

I don't think anybody will be taking your views on sexual morality seriously after that admission. Everyone likes blowjobs.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 3:54:09 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
AH Tony, I think you have just shot yourself in the foot. 'everyone likes blowjobs'? There it is finally. Your perception of 'everyone' and the 'majority' are finally exposed as figments of your imagination. You have continually premised that the 'majority' agreed to this and that. Now we know that you make these statements lacking 'real' proof and so you argue as if you are right. Well finally we have your number and it turns out that it is you and your comments that should not be given consideration. You and ALL the commenters know very well that 'everyone' does NOT like, in fact, are repulsed at the very idea. It's bad enough copping it up the arse, but in the mouth? Really? This is OK with you is it? We all know this sort of crap goes on but being mature means knowing good, bad, right and wrong. Honestly you queers are like kids in a candy store. You will scream and throw hissy fits and make life unbearable for everyone else just so you can have your own selfish and un-disceplined way.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 4:41:19 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,

You are yet to demonstrated that it is either baseless or idiotic.

<<Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”>>

No, my response to the claim immediately preceding the above statement of yours is that you have not provided a reason why. You have simply stated that it is currently between a man and a woman, therefore it should always be that way.

Your reasoning is circular.

The suggestion, that humans will go extinct if we allow people (who are having children, mind you) to have the relationships that they’re already in legally recognised, is just plain dumb.

--

Shockadelic,

Yes, I do.

<<People are arguing they "believe" the same about gay marriage, yet you dismiss their concerns.>>

Because every concern that I have heard thus far is baseless (see Leo Lane's arguments, for example). I have demonstrated this in numerous discussions on OLO. I’m sorry you missed them.

<<So the issue is not who is "equal" or whether they "love" each other … it is simply a matter of "whether society is ready">>

No, that was just one of a couple possible motivations that I listed for not demanding across-the-board equality. This is yet another straw man from you, so your silly questions are irrelevant.

Incidentally, you noted earlier that too many questions in a poll could discourage people from answering (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19225#341864). Now, suddenly, you ignore the perils of bombardment simply because it suits your confused argument to do so.

<<… which is a rather weak justification for any law reform whatsoever.>>

Indeed it would be. It would, however, be a good reason to not propose too much in one hit.

<<99% of laws and policies were never put to a public vote, so almost all legislation and regulation is therefore invalid, since we have no idea whether we were "ready" for it.>>

At no point have I even suggested that society being ready for any given change determined the validity of it.

See what happens when you create a straw man and run with it? You make an ass of yourself.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 5:48:42 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
"Now, suddenly, you ignore the perils of bombardment simply because it suits your confused argument to do so."

I have proposed that issues be polled to a small random sample, *one* issue at a time.
A voter might get one poll in the mailbox each year or seven.
Hardly "bombardment".

"At no point have I even suggested that society being ready for any given change determined the validity of it."

You have "suggested" that whether society was "ready" should determine what reforms people promote.

"Society back then wasn't ready for quite so much change, but that didn't make arguing in favour of decriminalisation wrong."

The current furore over gay marriage indicates many are not "ready" for this reform, that it is "too soon".
It does not matter whether YOU think their arguments are valid.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 1:16:10 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
Shockadelic,

Yes, to varying degrees, readiness may be a useful consideration to factor in when deciding which ideas are worth promoting, and which would be a total waste of time.

<<You have "suggested" that whether society was "ready" should determine what reforms people promote.>>

But that’s very different to the straw man you presented earlier, which claimed that I had argued that the validity of any given change rested on a society’s readiness for it.

It amuses me, the suggestion that it is somehow disingenuous, cynical, or sinister to exclude other forms of marriage just because same-sex marriage wouldn’t pass if bundled with polygamy and incestuous marriage. It is form of the False Dilemma.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

Not bundling same-sex marriage with polygamy and incestuous marriage (assuming, for the moment, that the latter two are even worthy of equality) is smart planning and resource management. Nothing more. And suggesting that sincerity demands that they be bundled together or not at all is a False Dilemma designed to shut the opposition up, with the admission that one doesn't have a good reason to object to the actual issue at hand.

<<The current furore over gay marriage indicates many are not "ready" for this reform, that it is "too soon".>>

Yes, but a majority agree that it is time - according to all polling since 2004, and a longitudinal study conducted since 2003 involving 17,000 subjects.

<<It does not matter whether YOU think their arguments are valid.>>

Correct, it only matters what I can demonstrate through reason and evidence. At no point have I suggested otherwise.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 2:18:58 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
AJ: if bundled with polygamy

My God, one nagging wife is too much I couldn't imagine having two, three or four. I guess that's why moslims keep them totally dominated.

My suggestion of multiple questions didn't express having those particular issued in the same Poll. I could see why they would if they didn't want them to pass. Manipulation, that's what happened with the Republic Vote, apart from the very confusing wording in some very long paragraphs.

No simple, one Sentence Questions on unrelated topics, & simple one word answers. Don't give the Law Profession anything to dick about with.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 3:19:30 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
AJ, just want to make one point. You quoted a study where-in a 'majority' 'agree that it is time'. Firstly what was the platform of the study/questions? We all know that such things are worded or tilted towards the answer they seek. Even if you disagree with this fact then how can you in all conscience conclude that 17,000 back in 2003/4 are indicative of anything. I would go further and ask where these studies were conducted. For example, were they Universities? Did they single out mainstream queer hang-outs. You can see how your argument is flawed and because of that makes your stance a moot one.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 3:56:54 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
Couldn't help but be reminded of this sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujuGKvMSeWA

//Your perception of 'everyone' and the 'majority' are finally exposed as figments of your imagination.//

Aww, that's cute. Trav thinks he represents some 'silent majority' of men that detest the thought of receiving fellatio.

Obviously you don't get out much and talk to real people, but I recommend you take a night off from being a keyboard warrior, wander down to your local, and put it to the Pub Test: ask a few blokes if a no-strings-attached blowjob from a pretty girl would tickle their fancy, or not. It's the closest you're going to get these days to asking the Man on the Bondi Tram, and I think it will be an informative experience for you.

//It's bad enough copping it up the arse, but in the mouth?//

My previous post didn't specify specific acts of oral sex. It's very interesting that you immediately assume that enjoying oral sex necessarily means performing fellatio. Very interesting indeed...

//Really? This is OK with you is it?//

Performing fellatio? No, of course not.

Receiving fellatio? Yes, obviously. Who isn't it OK with? Other than you.

Performing cunnilingus? Also yes. Probably not as popular with my cohort as receiving oral, and I get the impression that some guys perceive it as a chore. But I don't get laid that much because I'm quite ugly, so I perceive it as rare treat.

Receiving cunnilingus? N/A.

//Honestly you queers are like kids in a candy store.//

Yeah, I'm straight. Kinda thought you might have kenned that by now. Bit slow, I guess.

I dunno why it is that a certain class of no voters (Leo and Trav being two prime examples) immediately jump to the conclusion that anybody who disagrees with their farcical arguments is gay. It's a pretty daft assumption: there's about two thirds of the population in favour of SSM, and about one twenty-fifth that are gay. You do the math: statistically, it is vastly more likely that any yes voter you encounter is straight.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 4:03:10 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
Well, they are at least in favour of marriage equality, ALTRAV.

<<You quoted a study where-in a 'majority' 'agree that it is time'.>>

I think it’s safe to assume that they also think that it’s time.

<<Firstly what was the platform of the study/questions?>>

The study can be found at http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2437426/HILDA-SR-med-res.pdf (See pages 105-109 for the data on attitudes to the rights of homosexual couples). Check their references if you doubt their claims.

<<We all know that such things are worded or tilted towards the answer they seek.>>

Perhaps with polling, from time to time, but not with reputable studies. The researchers cannot afford to risk their reputations in the event that someone scrutinises their methodology and conclusions.

<<Even if you disagree with this fact then how can you in all conscience conclude that 17,000 back in 2003/4 are indicative of anything.>>

Um, a sample size of 17,000 is big by any measure. Especially when it was the same 17,000 people over the 14 years the study was conducted. If you’re not satisfied with that, then you probably won’t be satisfied with anything.

It also seems to be completely lost on you that the study was measuring changes in attitudes over time (which is why the same 17,000 people were used). It wasn't just a one-off study conducted in 2004. The word 'longitudinal' should have given that away.

<<I would go further and ask where these studies were conducted.>>

How about you check their references then, and see for yourself?

<<For example, were they Universities? Did they single out mainstream queer hang-outs.>>

Yeah, I’m sure they found the same 17,000 people hanging around universities and “queer hangouts” for 14 years. Get real.

<<You can see how your argument is flawed and because of that makes your stance a moot one.>>

No, I can’t. But I CAN see that you apparently know precisely squat about social research.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 4:34:17 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
I can see that whether your a queer or not you guys simply don't want to see the light. You reject everything, even when you know it's true. You attack, mock and denigrate anyone who makes a valid point and so if you are an example of the yes people, it will be an obvious and decisive NO when the hammer finally comes down. You know very well that the 'majority' of people don't want this sick and twisted desire of yours to become a reality. Don't bother responding as you have proven to be beyond belief. You are the epitome of political correctness, and as has been proven it ultimately means, a LIE!
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 6:35:44 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
Drama queen.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 7:19:06 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
AJ: Perhaps with polling, from time to time, but not with reputable studies. The researchers cannot afford to risk their reputations in the event that someone scrutinises their methodology and conclusions.

I received a Study Questionnaire from the University of New England some time ago. I was assured that it would be, Non-Bias & all that other stuff. It would be an on-going Study. Well it was the most biased Survey I have ever done. It covered multiple Topics but all extremely Green, & Dense. They never got back to me with the rest of the Survey. It was a Tick & Flick so I didn't get to have a say, except at the end when they asked for "Comments" I did tell them that I thought it was Biased & Green to the extreme.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 8:25:50 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
Phillips says”No, it’s not. Gay people are not allowed to marry.This is another lie by Phillips, because there is no truthful support for his baseless assertions.
perverts are not prevented from being married based on the fact that they are perverts. Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from being married.
Assertion of marriage inequality is therefore baseless and dishonest.
A relationship of perverts is not marriage, so they are not excluded from marriage.They cannot marry each other, because marriage is between a man and a woman.
Perverts do not want to marry. They want to enter a relationship with another pervert and falsely call it marriage.
So perverts can marry. There is no discrimination against them, and no inequality in their marriage rights. What the perverts want to do, is enter into a relationship which is not marriage, and give it the legal status of marriage.
As you say, a camel jockey can go on a beach to sell camel rides, and still become a surf life saver.
A pervert can enter into a perverted relationship, but cannot call it marriage. He is still free to enter into a marriage relationship, and call it marriage. Your assertion of inequality is an outright lie.
You point out that a camel jockey is not prevented from becoming a lifesaver. You cannot deny that a pervert is not prevented from marrying. Your problem is that you do not accept that a pervert in a relationship with someone of the same sex is not married, because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.
All your lies, and fact denial will not change that.
Marriage inequality is a baseless blatant lie.
You have failed to lie your way out of that fact.
The support for the Yes case is totally dependent on nonsense and lies.
It has no rational or truthful basis.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 10:57:54 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
ALTRAV,

So, you’re just going to dig your heals in and play the wounded deer card? Claim that those with whom you disagree are just lying, then take your ball and go home?

Perhaps if your posts weren’t filled with so much hysteria and vitriol towards gay people, you might find others engage with you differently?

--

Jayb,

Could you tell me which study this was? Without knowing the specific of the study to which you refer, I can’t comment.

<<... it was the most biased Survey I have ever done. It covered multiple Topics but all extremely Green, & Dense.>>

The level of bias in a research project has more to do with the methodology employed (and the line of questioning, if a questionnaire is used) than what is being researched. For example, it doesn’t matter if a research project asks a biased-sounding question like: Do Liberal voters have lower IQs than Labor voters? If the methodology and sampling strategies are sound, then the results should still be reliable, even if the research question suggested who the researches expected to be the smartest. (Of course, in that example, framing the question as, 'Who as the highest average IQ out of Liberal and Labor voters?', would be more professional.)

So, stating that the topic was “Green” tells me nothing about the level of bias.

If you would like to cast doubt on the study I have cited, then check their references and data. Simply stating your subjective view of another study means nothing.

--

Leo Lane,

Still carrying on like a broken record, I see. You’re not really with it anymore, are you ol’ chap?

<<... [gay people] are not prevented from being married based on the fact that they are [gay].>>

Correct, they are being prevented because they don't want to marry the opposite sex.

<<Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from being married.>>

Yes there is. See s5 of the Marriage Act.

<<A relationship of [gay people] is not marriage ...>>

On what authority do you base this assertion?

(Cue circular reasoning...)
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 11:17:43 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
Phillips says:” Still carrying on like a broken record, I see. You’re not really with it anymore, are you ol’ chap?
You find my constant exposition of your lies and nonsense repetitious do you, idiot boy?
You could try telling the truth, and admitting facts, for once. Your puerile criticism of my repeating the truth about you is pathetically weak, even for a decrepit fact denier like you. It amounts to agreement that you have nothing but nonsense and lies, as I have conclusively shown.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Perverts relationships are not marriage. You quoted the Marriage Act to me, remember? Obviously not, or you would not have asked me stupid questions.
You have demonstrated the merits of voting NO.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 31 August 2017 12:18:42 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
//Marriage is between a man and a woman.//

But it doesn't follow that marriage ought to be between a man and woman. Hume's guillotine, Leo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 31 August 2017 3:40:16 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
I have to applaud you A.J. Philips...your tolerance of homophobic, deranged fools who have absolutely no capacity for rational or logical argument far exceeds mine!
Posted by minotaur, Thursday, 31 August 2017 9:13:42 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
Back to name-calling, eh Leo Lane? It's always a sure sign of desperation in you.

<<You find my constant exposition of your lies and nonsense repetitious do you, idiot boy?>>

You are yet to point to a single lie or bit of nonsense from me.

<<You could try telling the truth, and admitting facts, for once.>>

In other words, just agree with you and your fallacious ‘is-ought’ assumption.

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

In Australia currently, yes. But, again, this doesn’t explain why the law can not or should not be changed.

<<[Gay] relationships are not marriage. You quoted the Marriage Act to me, remember?>>

And therein lies the circularity of your reasoning:

The Marriage Act doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage, because [gay people] can’t get married, because the Marriage Act doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage, because [gay people] can’t get married, because the Marriage Act doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage, because [gay people] can’t get married, because the Marriage Act doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage.

Ad infinitum.

This also demonstrates that you were telling porkies when you said that there was no legislation preventing gay couples from marrying. You just make stuff up as you go, don't you?

<<You have demonstrated the merits of voting NO.>>

Apparently not. Keep trying ol’ chap.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 31 August 2017 9:18:13 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
Toni Lavis, whom "ought" marriage to be between?

There is no *correct* answer!

Marriage can be defined in many ways, so there is little point arguing that any definition is right or wrong.
It is contextual.

The only question is what *legal* definition do the people of Australia want, as laws apply to *all* citizens, not just special interest groups.
The definition's context is *our society* not any individual's personal, subjective reality.

I cannot redefine the meaning of the words "murder" or "robbery" to suit my own personal desires.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 31 August 2017 12:57:42 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
//Marriage can be defined in many ways, so there is little point arguing that any definition is right or wrong.
It is contextual.//

I concur.

//The only question is what *legal* definition do the people of Australia want//

Umm... isn't that why we're having a postal survey? Sorry, I feel like I've missed something here.

Did you read the link about Hume's guillotine? This isn't a new idea in philosophy. Pretty much any philosophy course which includes even a little bit of ethics, will include Hume's guillotine.

Fact: Marriage is only between a man and woman. Thus, marriage should only be between a man and woman.

Fact: Fatal workplace accidents happen. Thus, fatal workplace accidents should happen.

Fact: people get robbed and murdered. Thus, people should get robb... are you beginning to see the problem with the is-ought argument yet?

Ought does not logically follow from is. Never has, never will.

Note that Hume's guillotine does not invalidate arguments against gay marriage that don't attempt to derive ought from is, although they may still be invalid or unsound for other reasons.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 31 August 2017 5:48:55 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
Just because I cannot make the argument to convince an audience that I am right, merely shows me up as a poor litigant and in no way diminishes the veracity of the point being made. It simply means the one attempting to make the point is ill-equipped to do so. Why are we having this debate when it appears that same sex marriage is currently illegal in Australia. We cannot entertain what might be or speculate accordingly as it is not within the terms of reference of the question posed for this article.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 31 August 2017 6:04:50 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
ALTRAV,

Are you saying that we’re just going to have to trust you that there was a point in amongst all the vitriol and accusations?

<<Just because I cannot make the argument to convince an audience that I am right, merely shows me up as a poor litigant and in no way diminishes the veracity of the point being made.>>

If you are THAT inarticulate, then perhaps you should do yourself a favour and abstain from commenting at all? I don’t think you are though. I think your points were clear enough, unless you’re referring to a feeling that there is something wrong with gay people and same-sex marriage, but just can’t express what that is? In which case, I suspect the irrationality of your intuition-lead position is more the problem. Not any issue you may have with verbal expression.

<<Why are we having this debate when it appears that same sex marriage is currently illegal in Australia.>>

Um, that’s precisely the reason why we’re having it. That, and the fact that gay people (or at least most of them, anyway) don’t want to be treated like second-class citizens.

<<We cannot entertain what might be or speculate accordingly as it is not within the terms of reference of the question posed for this article.>>

Is this a really convoluted and inarticulate (sorry, you said it first) way of saying that we can’t discuss it because we’re slightly off topic? Don’t worry about that. Most discussion threads on OLO eventually go off on a tangent to some degree or another.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 31 August 2017 6:21:16 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
Hi Toni,

The current legal position is that marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman sanctioned by the State, [and often by a religious ritual as well]. That's the law. It 'is'. Whether it 'ought' to be so is another matter. That's what the plebiscite will hopefully show.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 31 August 2017 6:48:16 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
Phillips says:” therein lies the circularity of your reasoning"
Phillips, did you really mistake my statements of fact for reasoning, or are you just pretending to be stupid again, to make this ridiculous assertion?
If you have no valid or sensible comment, just say so. Do not add to your output of nonsense, and fact denial.
You have already exposed the invalidity of support for the yes vote.
It is a long wait to November, but at least you have increased the chances of a NO vote.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 1 September 2017 3:15:07 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
Nice try, Leo Lane.

<<Phillips, did you really mistake my statements of fact for reasoning …>>

Just make it look like you were randomly stating an irrelevant fact. Good luck selling that one!

You assert that gay people can never get married because marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman. When asked to cite what your authority is on this, you studiously avoid mentioning the god you believe in (*snigger*), and then appeal what the law says. When it is then pointed out to you that there is no reason the law cannot be changed, you fall back to your assertion that marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman.

Your reasoning is circular. Deal with it.

<<If you have no valid or sensible comment, just say so.>>

I do: equality. You are yet to counter this with anything beyond your claim that if the Marriage Act doesn’t deal with same-sex couples, then it cannot be discriminating; while completely ignoring the fact that that is precisely how it discriminates.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 September 2017 6:56:52 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
Just a couple of quick questions.

Why are the LGBTCIA so afraid of the Plebiscite?

Are they afraid that the Plebiscite will go against them & show them up?
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 1 September 2017 8:39:28 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
Toni Lavis "Umm... isn't that why we're having a postal survey? Sorry, I feel like I've missed something here."

The Australian people didn't ask for a postal survey, a plebiscite, a parliamentary vote or anything else.

Fewer Australians than ever are getting married, so the issue is hardly one they would fell emphatic about.

Certain pushy ideological bullies (<1% of the population) insist on "reform".
That's why we're having a postal survey.

AJ Philips "I do: equality".

Equality is itself a questionable justification for anything.

It is an idealised abstraction, not a "fact" or "reality".

Why aren't incestous or polygamous adults entitled to this mythical "equality"?
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 1 September 2017 5:49:42 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
Shockadelic,

Why is equality a questionable justification for anything?

<<Why aren't incestous or polygamous adults entitled to this mythical "equality"?>>

"Perhaps many believe that those other forms of marriage will have deleterious effects on societal health? Perhaps it would be too much too soon?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19225#342052)

But I'm happy to fight for polygamy and incestous relationships, too, if that's what you want.

Why is equality mythical, by the way?
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 September 2017 7:21:26 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
//The Australian people didn't ask for a postal survey, a plebiscite, a parliamentary vote or anything else.//

Bollocks. I know for a fact that I wrote to my local member asking for a parliamentary vote, and I'm an Australian people.

//Certain pushy ideological bullies (<1% of the population) insist on "reform".
That's why we're having a postal survey.//

Less than 1% you say? It's refreshing to see somebody make a quantitative prediction. Still, I think when the survey is counted it's going to be >>1% in favour of "reform". Only time will tell. Whilst we're waiting, would you care to make a wager?

And once again, because you don't seem to read so good or something: did you read the link about Hume's guillotine? After initially arguing against Hume's guillotine, you now seem to desperate to just avoid the subject altogether. What's up with that?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 1 September 2017 9:31:07 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
Phillips states:” randomly stating an irrelevant fact. “
No, I demolished his nonsense about “equality”, I said
” Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”
The parties to a marriage are a man and a woman, and they are treated equally under the law. A man entering a relationship with a man is nothing to do with marriage, any more than a woman entering a relationship with a woman, so Phillips is talking baseless nonsense. He admits that he is only talking about possibilities. In the remote possibility that the NO vote fails, he may have an opportunity to partake in the serious damaging of society.”
That is a pointed statement of relevant fact,so Phillips’ statement is nonsense
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 1 September 2017 11:46:08 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
Yesterday there was a prime example of Homosexual "Love" A Shim went berserk with an axe, injuring people.

"The Crown will allege the incident was “triggered by feelings of severe rejection”,"

"Ms Amati is facing three charges of wounding with intent to murder, and a further three back-up charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, over the Enmore attack.

We'll see more of this type of incident if the "Yes" vote gets up. They are bad news when they have a falling out. I have witnessed this in Townsville. They tend to get very vicious after a break up. Males & especially females.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 2 September 2017 8:01:32 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
No, Leo Lane, that was an assertion.

<<No, I demolished his nonsense about “equality”, [by saying that Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality].>>

You demolished nothing there until you can demonstrate the truth of that claim.

<<The parties to a marriage are a man and a woman, and they are treated equally under the law.>>

Correct. But whether they are treated equally under the law is not in question.

<<A man entering a relationship with a man is nothing to do with marriage, any more than a woman entering a relationship with a woman, so Phillips is talking baseless nonsense.>>

In Australia currently, yes. Here we come back to your is-ought problem again.

<<He admits that he is only talking about possibilities.>>

No, same-sex marriage has been legislated for in other countries, so we know that it can be a reality.

<<In the remote possibility that the NO vote fails, he may have an opportunity to partake in the serious damaging of society.”>>

How would it damage society?

--

Jayb,

To present that as typical of gay people is unfair. Do you have the statistics comparing same-sex break ups with heterosexual break ups to prove your assertion?

Mind you, even if you did, that would only be an argument in favour of marriage equality, as marriage equality reduces the minority stress which can manifest is such ways (as is evident in the lowing of the suicide rates in the gay communities of countries that have allowed same-sex marriage).
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 2 September 2017 10:49:34 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
//To present that as typical of gay people is unfair.//

Especially since the individual in question was transgender rather than gay. You do realise there's a difference don't you Jay?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 2 September 2017 11:01:22 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
AJ: To present that as typical of gay people is unfair. Do you have the statistics comparing same-sex break ups with heterosexual break ups to prove your assertion?

I take it that any presentation of True Facts is considered unfair by the Gay Lobby.

Then there's that guy that allegedly murdered his partner, & buried the body just recently.

Given that there are more normal marriages than Same-sex partnerships there would have to be more Normal break-ups.

But then if you took a percentage of both then there would be more same-sex break-ups. Especially among the Lesbians, & they are vicious. I have seen that first hand & even more so if the feminine partner is caught with a man by her Butch.

Biggest hiding I got in my life was from a Butch because I was flirting with her girl. From the Lounge in the Civic Hotel in Sydney all the way down the stairs & out into the street. I think I ran two Blocks. Mind you I was just 18 & it was my first outing in Sydney from Inf. Centre at Ingleburn & coming from the little town of Ayr in NQ in the early 60's. I was quite the innocent lad, in those days, but not for long.

10 Trucks (ARES)in Townsville was full of Lezzo's & Prostitutes it was one big punch-up after the other, especially out bush. It eventually got so bad that they Charged the Commander & kicked him out of the Army, abeit quietly. I was there at the time in 31 RQR.

TL: transgender rather than gay.

Suma suma (Malay) or Same Same, but different. The excuse her Lawyer gave was that she was having a bad hair day.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 2 September 2017 12:13:20 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
Jayb,

It is unfair to judge an entire group based on what some do. Whether the facts are true or not is beside the point.

Even if everything you say is true, though, it's hardly an argument against same-sex marriage.

I think you just wanted to make the LGBT community look bad because, well, you just don't like them.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 3 September 2017 10:56:37 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
AJ: It is unfair to judge an entire group based on what some do.

This is a thing I find confusing about the Left Groups. They can scream & shout hateful insults & destroy property & use violence against all ordinary people who just do not agree with their ideology. They feel they have the right to do that.

They brand all those people as being Rednecks & Nazi's, etc. Yet when the same thing is said about them it's unfair because it's only a few. Double Standards? I think so.

I have a few Homosexual friends & a lot of straight friends some are voting yes & some are voting no & all for different reasons, mostly nothing to do with being Homosexual. It's to do with Marriage.

When it comes to Violence, Homosexual couples are more Jealous & violent then Heterosexual couples, on the whole. I have witnessed this myself & been a party to conversations with Homosexual friends discussing the violence among their group. Most never gets reported because, "What happens in the Group, stays in the Group."
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 3 September 2017 11:28:07 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
Two wrongs don't make a right, Jayb.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 3 September 2017 11:34:26 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
AJ: Two wrongs don't make a right, Jayb.

Did I see right. You are admitting that the Left is full of BS & Violence.

Is it wrong of the Right to point out where the Left is wrong? It doesn't appear wrong for the Left to point out where the Right is wrong.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 3 September 2017 3:20:21 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
Not necessarily, Jayb.

<<You are admitting that the Left is full of BS & Violence.>>

I don't need to agree with your premises to point out the fact that two wrong don't make a right.

<<Is it wrong of the Right to point out where the Left is wrong?>>

No.

<<It doesn't appear wrong for the Left to point out where the Right is wrong.>>

That's right. It's not.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 3 September 2017 6:44:08 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
Phillips says:” This also demonstrates that you were telling porkies when you said that there was no legislation preventing gay couples from marrying. You just make stuff up as you go, don't you?
What a ridiculous assertion, but I suppose it arises more from your ignorance of the English language than from your dishonesty. Where in the Marriage Act does it prohibit perverts from marrying. It does not enable perverts to marry, but it does not prohibit them. They have no standing in relation to marriage, which is a union between a man and a woman, and so marriage is nothing to do with perverts.
You are doing a great job, Phillips, in establishing that the perverts case consists of nothing but nonsense and lies and ignorance.
Phillips says:” Here we come back to your is-ought problem again.
All that means is that the fact that it is, does not establish that it ought to be that way.
However, it does not mean that it ought to be changed, unless there is some reason shown for such a change. No such reason has been shown, because Phillips’ assertions I have shown to be lies and nonsense. There is no inequality, he just asserts that there ought to be. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, whether he thinks it ought to be or not.
That disposes of his non existent is/ought problem.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 3 September 2017 9:23:22 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
Oh, so you were referring specifically “perverts” that time, Leo Lane?

<<Where in the Marriage Act does it prohibit perverts from marrying. It does not enable perverts to marry, but it does not prohibit them.>>

(At least, that’s what you’ve decided now. As I just finished pointing out, you make this stuff up as you go.)

The answer to your question is that it doesn’t. However, you are yet to demonstrate that gay people are perverts.

<<[Perverts] have no standing in relation to marriage, which is a union between a man and a woman …>>

They do if they’re heterosexuals.

<< …and so marriage is nothing to do with perverts.>>

It does if they’re heterosexual.

<<You are doing a great job, Phillips, in establishing that the perverts case consists of nothing but nonsense and lies and ignorance.>>

Um, are we talking about perverts now, or gay people? Because, you have not yet demonstrated that the latter are always the former.

<<All [the Is-Ought problem] means is that the fact that it is, does not establish that it ought to be that way.>>

Correct, and this is fatal to your circular argument.

<<However, it does not mean that it ought to be changed, unless there is some reason shown for such a change.>>

At no point have I suggested otherwise.

<<No such reason has been shown …>>

It has: equality. You are yet to counter this reason.

<<There is no inequality …>>

There is. Once again, it can be found in what is lacking in the Marriage Act.

<<Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, whether he thinks it ought to be or not.>>

In Australia currently, yes.

<<That disposes of his non existent is/ought problem.>>

Apparently not.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 3 September 2017 9:59:15 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. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. All

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