I don't know how many incarnations "HermanYutic" has had on OLO, but I suspect that her last one was "KMB" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=53883&show=history Essentially my suspicion is based on the topics she chooses to address and the tone in which she argues them.

Take a look at these strikingly similar posts:
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8985#142708 and
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3193#75561

The range of issues that the two personae address is an uncannily close match. In addition to Muslims,
- "natural law":
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#140468
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75874

- so-called "ex-gays":
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2573#58043
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75981

- Obama:
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2756#62053
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9656#154946

- incest:
KMB http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2573#57677
HY http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#76235

- a reliance on anti-gay sites like narth.com, americansfortruth.com/ and worldnetdaily.com

- an unhealthy obsession with other people’s sexual practices.

So what's the point? Granted this is all pretty circumstantial, and since it's impossible to prove a negative, it is unlikely that KMB will be demonstrating that HY is someone else. Still, it's interesting to show that these characters have absolutely nothing new or original to offer to OLO forums. In an endless loop, they spout filthy prejudice against minorities, and they attempt to "justify" their bile with dodgy "science" and tabloid lies. Whether one individual or more, strung together they are forming a conga line of bitter malcontents.

They don't express their views in forums where they could actually achieve something - lawmakers and policy advisors are pretty good at spotting and dismissing the zealots. Their mission is to provoke and enrage, but never, ever to contribute. They do it anonymously because this is stuff you would never want your Mum to know about.

(continued from previous)

In any event, there's absolutely no point in engaging them. No doubt I will be accused of trying to 'shut down the debate', when in fact there is no debate - the people on one side are doing their best to be civilised in the face of the putrid claims coming from the other. As apparently the only gay person posting in this discussion, I can say categorically that it does get a bit tiring dodging the filth being thrown at homosexuals.

As I indicated above, it's best to ignore the HermanYutics of this world. If KMB can be regarded as a predictor of HY's behaviour, she will insist on having the last word: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#141513

I say leave her to it, and let's move off to a topic less beset by primitive intolerance.

Dear Pericles and Woulfe,

I was determined to stay away from this thread -
however I feel responsible for all this current
unpleasantness. I started this thread, as I stated
earlier - to have a discussion on the topic due
to it being so very topical in the media at the
moment.

I didn't expect some of the responses that have
appeared.

Austin asked if dementia is hereditary. I really
don't know. However, my mother has lived a full life,
she's in her eighties. If I live that long,
without losing it, I think I'll be very lucky.

Herman brought up the topic of incest - which is
not relevant to this thread.
I'm sure that any intelligent person knows that acts
of sexual penetration are prohibited between parents
and children, other lineal descendants or step-children
and between brothers and sisters and half brothers and
sisters. Consent is not a defense under the law. All
these acts are criminal offenses and carry severe
penalties.

If Herman is unaware of these facts any regional library
service has Law Handbooks in their Reference collection
and he could be given all the relevant details.

I suppose that some people just like to stir, and provoke.
As you suggested - best to move on to other threads.
This one's no longer achieving anything constructive.

Well spotted, woulfe.

I decided a couple of days ago to not feed this troll/sockpuppet, and to leave it to mutter away to its homophobic cohorts.

Having said that, ciao!

wuolfe,

I'm honoured to think that you compare me to KMB, having now read some of her/his posts.
Thanks for the tip.
It's difficult to find commonsensical viewpoints.
You would be more productive, however, putting your sleuthing toward proving that terrorist Bill Ayers
in fact authored Barack Obama's "auto"biography, seeing as you have an investigative bent (no pun intended).
Imagine someone thinking that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Where could they have gotten that outlandish idea?
Imagine someone thinking that a child would be better off with a father and a mother.
They must be evil!
Imagine someone thinking that homosexuality is unnatural.
Damn the health statistics!
Imagine someone talking about other sexual philias in an argument predicated on sexual diversity.
Its not polite.
Imagine someone hateful enough to raise those points in a debate over SSM.
Can't see the context myself either.
No, we're all supposed to roll over on one of the most bizarre and radical propositions in human history.
Who's a zealot?

Please somebody, don't let me have the last word.

FACT: When you are beaten in the argument of a debate you begin to attack the person with emotive name calling.

Marriage is recorded by the State to keep descendants for citizenship purposes. Demonstrate the purpose and need of the State recording same sex relationships when there can never be descendants. Are they just recording committed sexual relations betweeen adults? What do we want them to register / record?