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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

"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