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."

Two wrongs don't make a right, Jayb.

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.

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.

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.

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.