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.

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"

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

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.

Gee, you mention a few sheep loose in the top paddock and Leo Lane appears. Cannot be coincidence.

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