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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Drama queen.