//It seems though that you do not have enough confidence in your arguments and that is why you have to tack an insult on to your comments just in case.

Fundamentally you resort to the same ‘name-calling’ that you accuse others of because you do not have confidence in your arguments.//

//How can they be justified? What reason do you have for using them?//

Do as you say, not as you do, eh Phanto?

//Yeah that's what pedophiles say//

I wouldn't know, phanto.

//I was talking about being attracted to things other than sex or gender.//

Whatever floats your boat, phanto. It's the 21st century and I'm quite broad-minded. But I'm still not going to date any blokes, because I'm not attracted to blokes.

//25 million North Koreans use "DPRK"//

Sounds unlikely, yuyutsu. I'm pretty sure they mostly speak Korean, not English.

//we should be very concerned and rejectful when established words are hijacked//

Oh here we go... a conspiracy theory. This just keeps getting better and better XD

//Can a gay person, i.e. proud and joyful, also be depressed?//

You don't have to be proud or joyful to be gay, yuyutsu. Did you watch Tom's video, yuyutsu? Remember the bit at the end?

"Language changes: regularly and often. The Oxford English Dictionary... is descriptive, not prescriptive, and that is really important. They'll tell you what's considered correct but if popular opinion changes, so will they - and so should you.

So the next time some pedant complains 'that's not what the dictionary says', well the dictionary probably needs updating. Or at least theirs does."

You're that complaining pedant whose dictionary needs updating, yuyutsu.

//Everyone that uses sarcasm needs to use it. It is used because of a lack of confidence in arguments.//

Sixpence! Sixpence to see The Amazing Phanto!

Dear Toni,

I have no need to update my dictionary to suit others' propaganda machines.

There is nothing wrong about the word "homosexual" or even about homosexuality itself. If your reason for requiring a new synonym was innocent, then you would simply coin a new word rather than try to steal an established one.

But no, what those who grabbed the word 'gay' meant to say by that act, is that being homosexual is cool, that one should be happy and proud of it.

So sorry Toni, sexual orientation - and I really don't care, nor is it any of my business, what one happens to be sexually attracted toward - is NOT a good reason to be happy and proud. If anything, one should feel sad about the fact that they are being pulled by the nose by their tyrannical genes and hormones.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Philips:

“You appear to have missed the relevance of what I said.”

Perhaps you could enlighten me then instead of just telling me and then I can have the opportunity to judge.

“I didn’t speak of “everyone else”. I spoke of “some”.”

So why would ‘some’ not be able to determine nonsense if it truly is nonsense?

<<They are too stupid to see nonsense?>>

“Not necessarily.”

Well, what else could they be?

“This is a false dichotomy.”

So if there is no black or white then how do we know that such a statement is black or white? It contradicts itself.

“Why do you assume there is a ‘need’?”

Because you did it without any reasonable explanation. You must have some ulterior need.

“I’m not, anymore. You’re just digging up again.”

So you were complaining before and now you are not. What has changed? Why were you complaining before or why are you not complaining now?

“It does if you want others to accept your version of it.”

There can be no two versions of common sense or else it is not common is it?

“What is your evidence for these claims?”

There is no good reason to use sarcasm so that is evidence in itself. There might be bad reasons.

“Yes, I did. “Being true”, is a reason to use a non-fallacious ad hominem. Conversely, some may not be true and, therefore, unjustified.”

It is irrelevant whether or not they are true if there is no valid reason for using them in the first place. You have yet to offer one.

“For emphasis.”

Why would you need to emphasise a point? Either it is a valid point or it is not. How does emphasis make it any more or less valid?

“Call it what you like. Either way, I wasn’t telling him how to behave”

I’ve already called it and you have not been able to refute what I called it.

Try again Philips.

Sure, phanto.

<<Perhaps you could enlighten me ...>>

The relevance was that because I enjoy discrediting nonsense, the need for patience is reduced.

<<So why would ‘some’ not be able to determine nonsense if it truly is nonsense?>>

Because not everything is obvious to everyone.

<<Well, what else could they be [other than stupid]?>>

People who are not stupid but just have a different perspective that makes your nonsense a little less obvious to them.

<<So if there is no black or white then how do we know that such a statement is black or white?>>

At no point did I suggest there is no black and white. You, however, cannot see the grey.

<<Because you did it without any reasonable explanation. You must have some ulterior need.>>

Again, why do you assume there is a ‘need’? What if it was just a ‘want’?

<<So you were complaining before and now you are not. What has changed?>>

I got over it. I also appear to have no-one else to respond to, currently.

<<There can be no two versions of common sense or else it is not common is it?>>

Wrong. Commonness does not necessitate a majority.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/common

<<There is no good reason to use sarcasm so that is evidence in itself.>>

That doesn’t mean that people who use it ‘need’ to use it. Try again.

<<It is irrelevant whether or not [non-fallacious ad hominems] are true if there is no valid reason for using them in the first place. You have yet to offer one.>>

I did: to highlight a point.

<<Why would you need to emphasise a point?>>

Why do you assume I ‘need’ to?

<<Either it is a valid point or it is not.>>

Correct.

<<How does emphasis make it any more or less valid?>>

It doesn’t.

<<I’ve already called it and you have not been able to refute what I called it.>>

Yes, I did. By pointing out that what people accept does not always dictate how they behave.

<<Try again Philips.>>

No need. You’re the one who is yet to make any headway.

Good news on Q&A - more people are starting to challenge the continued existence of "marriage as a 'social institution'": http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-12/q-and-a-should-anyone-get-married-at-all/8893630

Senator Zed Seselja is unnecessarily alarmed because marriage itself is never going to be defeated. The bond of hearts and commitment for lifetime and beyond, will continue and flourish, with or without government approval and certificate. Churches too will continue to conduct marriages with or without the state's assent.

Yes, families are and will continue to be the good foundation of society - but nothing adverse will happen to families once they no longer receive this stupid and artificial stamp of approval by government.

Now is our chance: by voting 'No' to the institutionalisation of same-sex marriages, we open the flood-gates for the popular rejection of "marriage as a 'social institution'" altogether, thus achieving marriage-equality in a healthier way.