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.

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.

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...)

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.

//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

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!