Phillips says:” Same-sex marriage is a reality in a few countries now.”
We are talking about the present time in Australia. I am aware that there has been tampering with the definition of marriage overseas. This will inevitably stimulate the anti-perversion movements. The perverts scurrilous political wing will inevitably suffer setbacks, as will any attempts by a pervert minority to redefine marriage
.One of Phillips’ constant lies is that I have yet to show that homosexuals are perverts.
He would not accept that this is self evident, as it clearly is, so I posted proof, to which he had no sensible answer, so he posted a blatant lie, in answer, in which he included a definition which was not the one which I had posted, but his reply was based on the lie that it was mine.
Since then, he repeats the lie that I have not demonstrated the self evident and proven truth that homosexuals are perverts.

Dear Leo Lane,

In that case, yes, I am only talking about possibilities.

<<We are talking about the present time in Australia.>>

However, you note this as if it were something unfavourable, even referring to my acknowledgment of the fact as an “admitting”, as though it were done hesitantly and begrudgingly.

<<I am aware that there has been tampering with the definition of marriage overseas.>>

The word “tampering” suggests that marriage in these countries has been damaged. However, you have not explained how this is the case.

<<One of Phillips’ constant lies is that I have yet to show that homosexuals are perverts.>>

Indeed you have not, my friend. The closest you came doing so, was to point to the definition of “pervert”, but would not expand on that when challenged:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333515

<<He would not accept that this is self evident, as it clearly is, so I posted proof, to which he had no sensible answer, so he posted a blatant lie, in answer, in which he included a definition which was not the one which I had posted, but his reply was based on the lie that it was mine.>>

This was a misunderstanding which we have cleared up twice now (see the above link). Unfortunately for your good self, your clarification did not help your case.

A J Phillips

So no response to my latest post .... interesting.

Why would that be "interesting", SAINTS?

<<So no response to my latest post .... interesting.>>

Not every lack of response is indicative of an inability to respond. Sometimes, it's because one waits until the discussion is archived and hidden by default:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673&page=0#333942

You had made it sound as though your status as a swinging voter was relevant to the question of whether equality should be granted. It is not. You are not voting for or against political parties. You are voting on whether an entire demographic should receive equal treatment.

Furthermore, you have not yet explained how one can rationally respond to ratbaggery by denying equal treatment to an entire demographic, just because the two groups share an interest. Now THAT is interesting.

There is nothing more I need to say.

If you have a rational argument against same-sex marriage, then let's hear it. Otherwise, I'm done.

A J Phillips

So what's your point?

I would have thought that was rather obvious, SAINTS.

<<So what's your point?>>

My main point was that I am done with our communication, unless you can justify taking your dissatisfaction with a group of ratbags out on an entire demographic, simply because they share an interest.