The first couple of times, I just assumed that Cornflower was trying to extricate herself from an embarrassing and untenable rhetorical position. It seems, though, that this is how she thinks debates are won.

I suggest we dub this strategy the Cornflower Caper.

Anyone can do it. Just post a series of non-sequiturs completely unrelated to the topic or question, viciously attack anyone who points out the silliness of it, and claim victory.

Example:

Thread topic: GRASS IS GREEN

OP: In my experience, grass is usually green.

Cornflower: Trees are green which is why hippy Leftists use forests to make Australia Muslim and introduce an ETS so we'll be communist like Andrew Bartlett and have compulsory gay marriage. Therefore grass is not green.

OP: that's insane.

Cornflower: stupid dumb-ass.

CJM

You are back to name calling, but maybe you never stopped. Your back is to the ropes, huh?

What utter BS you write, I quoted direct from the Greens' site as well you know. You can quote more if you like but the hypocrisy is still there for all to see - what is sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander. As I said, (but of course you refuse to answer):

"How do you reconcile your and the Greens' belief that the right of Muslims (or other religions) to having their form of marriage and marriage law accepted is a lesser right than that of gays and lesbians? What about the Greens' multicultural policy or is that just empty promises?

Greens - Multiculturalism 'policy'
Policy D15
Principles
The Australian Greens believe that:

1. the diversity of Australians’ cultural backgrounds greatly enriches our society and is to be celebrated.

2. people have the right to celebrate and express their cultural heritage within universally accepted human rights.

3. all people, regardless of ethnicity, culture, religion, language or place of birth, have equal rights economically, socially and culturally.

Fact is, it is nowhere near as simple as just allowing the few (the number changes according to the needs of the rhetoric) gay and lesbians to marry and you know it."

The Greens' policy is uni-dimensional, benefiting the few gays and lesbians who are obviously well-connected, very vocal and stand to gain, while the remainder who want no change and do not want public servants probing their domestic arrangements and personal lives are collateral damage.

As for other ethnic groups, cultures and religions, well despite all of that wordage about having equal rights, 'never you mind' is about it for them.

Now if you want to use your dumb-ass false dilemma as an excuse to duck off then so be it, that would be par for the course for you, operating as you do on a superficial level and refusing to discuss the complexity or ramifications of what you espouse.

Sancho

What solutions do you have?

Solutions to what? The legislated second-class citizenship of homosexuals?

We can solve that by making all unions legally equal, as suggested in the OP.

Despite the insults, false equivalencies and unfounded moral outrage, there's nothing else described in this thread that qualifies as a problem.

Dear Sancho,

The release of a Galaxy poll found that 60%
of Australians supported equal same-sex marriage
rights and the introduction of the gender neutral bill.
Equal marriage rights are becoming a significant and
central human rights issue.

National campaigns calling for same-sex marriage
have been running for five years and have attracted
growing support. These campaigns involve education
and direct action protests - their key demand is
for the Australian government to legislate equal
marriage rights for all - regardless of sex, sexual
orientation or gender.

The arguments against same-sex marriage can be broken
down into two types. The first is rooted in homophobia
and bigotry. Ultra-conservatives and the religious
right claim marriage is a 'sacred institution.'
That it is exclusively between a man and a woman.

This kind of outright expression of homophobic prejudice
has more to do with keeping in place a family structure
reinforcing traditional roles than it is about protecting
"sacred love."

Whereas part of the "moral" argument against same-sex marriage
is that marriage has always been between men and women.
This historical argument implies that history somehow
provides a moral high ground. As other posters have
pointed out with facts - this argument doesn't wash.

However, as you can see - its all getting rather tedious,
and repetitive. And, as CJ pointed out - no further point
in continuing.

Foxy

Your opening post invited opinion. If you did it solely to advocate a position and only wanted to hear from those of a similar bent to you by all means say so next time (there will be a next time, right?) and most respondents will not bother to post.

Frankly it is a bit tedious responding to an invitation for an open discussion only to find that anyone who has the heart and goodwill to try to explain why contrary views are held is ignored, rejected and abused.

Splitting people into those who are for or against you, good and evil, is immature and manipulative, only serving to prove that you believe that the end justifies the means and are uninterested in the opinions and needs of the remainder of the population.

Further, you quote sources such as the Galaxy poll, drawing from it what is convenient to your case and being careful not to say anything about the design of the survey and its known design flaws.

Similarly you don't mention the notorious unreliability of such surveys. Amazing how the formal polls by the Australian Electoral Office consistently deliver markedly different results to the surveys by Galaxy and others beforehand of voter intentions. Does that mean that the Electoral Office is biased? Hardly!

If your aim is advocacy of the Greens' policy, so be it but again, why not declare that from the outset? For comparison, the mainstream parties must try to consider all of the facts, represent all of the electorate and consider the overall impact of policies, both now and in the future. Still, you and the Greens know best so there is no chance of any of that happening, right?

Sancho, "nothing else described in this thread that qualifies as a problem."

That may be your instinctive response, filtering out any comment that runs counter to your opinion. However, if you draw back a little you might agree that some raise matters they genuinely believe ought to be considered. For example, I abhor the continued interference of government in the private affairs of citizens.

Indeed, Foxy. Once again, the polls remind us that the self-styled "silent majority" is actually the noisiest minority.

For me, the irony is that I detest the exhibitionist aspect of gay culture and can't stand obnoxious, self-righteous gays who expect their repulsive personal behaviour to be regarded as a virtue simply because of their sexuality. But as a community-minded egalitarian I cannot tolerate the bullying and oppression of ANY minority group.

It's rather tragic that religious conservatives spend so much energy railing against the high profile of gay issues, when they could bury the whole business overnight by just minding their own business and not trying to police other peoples' private lives.

Tedious and repetitive? Yes, but it never hurts to make absolutely clear how hollow and unfounded are the arguments against gay equality.

I doubt we'll see HermanYutic back in the thread after his complete failure to back his argument up, and Cornflower's contribution begins and ends with tangential, unconnected statements which demonstrate nothing but desperation.

I'm confident that any fair-minded reader of this thread would give no credit to the gay-hate arguments. That's why the repetition is dull but important.