With the politicians playing silly buggers with the issue of same sex marriage, will we see this issue put to bed any time soon? On the one hand the government is calling for a plebiscite, whilst on the other the opposition is calling for a much quicker and cheaper parliamentary vote on the issue.
With Nick Xenophon opposed to a plebiscite, but saying; “This issue needs to be dealt with - one way or the other - sooner rather than later," the chances that a plebiscite will be held have increased.

My opinion on the issue is, that a plebiscite is unnecessary with overwhelming community support for marriage equality . A parliamentary vote is all that is needed to amend the marriage act. What is your opinion?

seems like the regressives are now running scared. After 12 failures in parliament over the last few years now they think all their mock polling is wrong. They are scared the public will reject changing the dna of marriage. The regressives are now demonstrating how much they hate democracy.

paul1405: My opinion on the issue is, that a plebiscite is unnecessary with overwhelming community support for marriage equality. What is your opinion?

With the GTLB Society claiming "overwhelming community support for marriage equality" for many years, just what is their problem with the Plebiscite? Are they afraid that they have really been wrong all these years? Are they afraid of the Truth really coming out.

Apparently the Proposed question is a choice of two; Are you in favour of Same Sex Marriage? or Are you in favour of Marriage Equality? Which of these two is yet to be decided. Personally I don't care which one it is, as long as there are only two boxes to tick. "Yes" or "No."

Let the people of Australia decide. This Question is one of many that have been in debate for 50 or more years & no Parliament has come up with an Answer. If the Parliament is at an impasse over these Questions then it is right that the Government of the Day go to the People to get a decision.

The State of play at the moment has cost Australia Billions of Dollars, which it can't afford to spend, on these sorts of Questions for no result. If the people vote "yes" or "No" then that is exactly what should happen, immediately. No crying foul, unfair or another 50 years of debate about exactly what was meant by the side that has lost.

Apparently the ALP has now stated that it will vote against having a Plebiscite. It's the old, "What ever you are for, we're against, regardless." coming into play, again.

This is exactly why a Plebiscite is needed.

Let's clear a few other things up at the same time; Euthanasia, Nuclear Waste Storage. Does anyone want to add to the list.

Jayb.

Yeah, I think another plebiscite is needed. It should read:-

Should Australia ban immigration of muslims and people from other groups that have shown they will not integrate into our society?

Paul,

Media coverage on this issue has been overwhelmingly one sided, which is a problem because most of the arguments on both sides are completely wrong. It's not about the children; they're there anyway, parenting is something we should encourage regardless of sexuality, and parents not being married is nowadays so commonplace that it can't be a serious consideration.

It's not about rights. People can already do what they like, but we need to decide how the nation responds to that. Though all people are equal, that doesn't mean that all relationships are equal. Indeed many of the people who support gay marriage on the grounds that it's a requirement of gay people being equal, hypocritically oppose polygynous marriage – do they not see polyamorous people as equal? A similar argument applies to the people who claim they want the government to have nothing to do with marriage.

Having said that, the argument that it's a slippery slope is also wrong. The slope is there, but it only becomes slippery when we lubricate it.

And there are a few rights issues that will need to be addressed if we don't allow SSM, but unlike most of the countries that have already legalized SSM, Australia has already addressed most of the rights issues involved.

The real question is one of values, as the nation's laws should reflect the values of the people. Do we really think that spending the rest of your life with someone of the same sex is just as good as spending the rest of your life with someone of the opposite sex? Even for people perfectly capable of a normal heterosexual relationship (not just as an ersatz option for people who feel incapable)?

Personally my view is NO, but I think it's a question worth asking. And I don't think it's something that most Australians have seriously considered yet. Despite reality being more complicated, many people are under the illusion that each person is either straight or gay – and I'd expect nearly everyone with that view to support SSM.

(tbc)

(continued)

A plebiscite that politicians can ignore would be a waste of money. But we should have a referendum on the issue. Though the constitution doesn't require one, nor does it prevent parliament from legislating for one. Parliament should pass a change to the marriage act that's conditional on a majority YES vote. The legislation should prohibit parliament from overriding it, and should set a minimum time (twenty years, possibly?) before another referendum can overturn it, whatever the result.

$160000000 is a huge sum: a typical person's lifetime's disposable income is around $1000000, so if the plebiscite goes ahead, it's akin to 160 people losing all their life's earnings!

Moreover, it is likely that government will continue its despicable tradition of compulsory voting, further intervening in people's lives and forcing them to be involved with the state, even if they never agreed to have anything to do with it.

Therefore, it is better not to have a plebiscite (also elections, for the same reasons).

Anyone who respects themselves and their fellows, regardless of sexual orientation, will not register their personal relationship(s) with the regime anyway - and shame on those who would.

If parliament is to represent the will of the people then we should realise that the Liberal party does not represent the majority of people. The non-liberal parliamentarians are in the majority. Let us hope this majority will govern.

The coalition took a plebiscite to the elections and won a mandate. As polls suggest that 2/3 people want to have a plebiscite, and a plebiscite in February could see gay marriage legislated by April 2017.

Considering that the alternative is that a vote is blocked in parliament until 2019, it looks like labor and the greens are prepared once again to sacrifice their principles to score points.

P.S. compared to the $11bn that labor and the greens wasted on border control it is a steal.

We can't have government by poll. Polls are notoriously inaccurate for various reasons I don't need to tell anyone here about. Further, I do not believe that we should be trusting any politicians to make decisions like this for us. Further again, and most important, I do not believe any politician should have the right to impose a minority demand on the majority.

Now, to save people saying that "marriage 'equality'" will not affect me and others, I say, yes it will. The fact that the Marriage Act, marriage itself in its current form, means a hell of lot to a hell of a lot of us. Any alteration will affect us. Any alteration will affect us all as human beings. No matter what is thought about homosexuality, or the 'rights' of homosexuals, two people of the same sex were not made to partner up with each other. There are two sexes for very obvious reasons. If two people of the same sex wish to conjoin in the same manner as two people of the same sex, I could not care less. In every way except for legal marriage, they are treated no differently from heterosexual couples. They do not need anything that a defacto heterosexual couple has to lead their lives safetly and happenly. Good luck to them, too.

But it is intolerable that these very few people should be able to dictate to us. I am amazed that a plebicite has been made available. But it has, and it is time to test the validity or otherwise of the claims, based on informal, unofficial polls, that most Australians are comfortable with altering the Marriage Act. I don't believe that they are but, if I am wrong, at least I will know that the matter has been settled in a democratic manner.

A decision by parliament is not democratic - despite the lie that we vote for them to make decisions for us - if would be totalitarian, the thin edge of the wedge of a total collapse in democracy, which is what some people want.

One more thing. Let's not hear any more of the bulldust about the cost of the plebicite. Democracy does cost, and the people hypocritically using the cost excuse are the very same people who want to borrow and spend others peoples' money when it suits them. And, while I'm at it, the same anti-plebicite mob who are now imagining all sorts of abuse being hurled at people leading up to a vote, were the first to cheer the Irish vote for what a great victory it was for democracy, something they now say that they do not believe in, preferring elected dictators to do the job for them. If the plebicite is knocked back by the ratty senate, Turnbull needs to end all talk of the subject as long as he is PM. If he does not, he will not be PM for very long. And, if he did not act on the plebicite showing that a mojority of Australians approved of altering the Marriage Act say Wong et al says he could, then he would last even less time as PM.

It has to a plebicite or nothing.

The opposition, greens etc want to rush it through parliament because
their deals have tied it up.
They are opposed to a plebiscite because they feel sure it will be lost.
If it goes through parliament everyone will say we were cheated, we
were promised a plebiscite that was going to say no.
The Labour/greens etc knew that which was why they opposed it.

You won't save the argument, you will generate it.

Does anyone believe the plebiscite is opposed because they believe
it will say yes ? No they oppose it because they believe it will say no !
That's it, don't let the people have a say, they will say no !
We already have the pollies standing in a line saying YES YES YES ! or else !

All indicators are that a plebiscite would pass with a overwhelming yes vote, anyone who believes otherwise is out of touch with reality. Turnbull is under extreme pressure from the fundo religious element within the Coalition to forestall legalising gay marriage.
Good to see the Nick Xenophon Team have seen through the governments nonsense and will now vote against a plebiscite.

Shadow, you are about the only person in Australia, or on the planet for that matter, who believes a mob that scored a miserable 42% of the primary vote got a "mandate" for anything. Your mandate went out the door in 1975, with the Coalition blocking supply.

With Turnbull under fire from all directions, you got to wonder how long this government will last. 18 months at best.

Why are the Greens et al so frightened of asking the people?

Remember that a plebiscite cannot be lost, its only purpose is to find out the will of the people.

One would think that members of a democracy would want to know and abide by the will of the majority of the people.

Is Mise,

If you have to ask that question, then you haven't been paying attention.

<<Why are the Greens et al so frightened of asking the people?>>

The biggest problem with a plebiscite is that the debate in the lead up to it would give hate preachers a podium and inevitably result in increased mental health problems in the gay community.

Why don't we, at the same time, ask the people if they're in favour of interracial marriage? Of course most of us would vote in favour of it, but it would be no less weird (apart from the fact that there are already interracial couples who are married), nor would a vote against interracial marriage mean that banning it would be right.

"Is Mise,

If you have to ask that question, then you haven't been paying attention."

Is Mise you should be ashamed of yourself. Type 100 times " I must pay attention" and apologise to AJP immediately.

As Malcolm fails to show leadership on this and other issues, his own standing and that of his government sinks to new lows. *see the latest 'Newspoll')

Is Mise. do you favor plebiscites for all controversial issues, like gun ownership for example, or do you want it left to our elected leaders to operate like a government, and make decisions on our behalf.

Paul1405: All indicators are that a plebiscite would pass with a overwhelming yes vote, anyone who believes otherwise is out of touch with reality.

Then the Plebiscite should be allowed to happen so there would be no ambiguity in exactly what the majority of people in Australia want.

Is Mise: One would think that members of a democracy would want to know and abide by the will of the majority of the people.

Not if you are a Socialist, Greenie, Marxist or any combination of weirdo factions whose only ambition is to disrupt Society by all means possible.

AJP: and inevitably result in increased mental health problems in the gay community.

Chicken or the Egg?

Paul1405: Is Mise. do you favor plebiscites for all controversial issues, like gun ownership for example, or do you want it left to our elected leaders to operate like a government, and make decisions on our behalf?

There are questions that have been unresolved by various Governments for 100 years. It's time to put those Unresolved Questions to the Australian People.

Thank you for adding to the List. Gun Ownership.

<Let's clear a few other things up at the same time; Euthanasia, Nuclear Waste Storage. Does anyone want to add to the list>

One big Plebiscite with all the Unresolved Questions on the sheet would fix a lot of problems in Australia & save a lot of money in the long run.

Jayb,

It's the egg:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932
http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~cochran/pdf/MentalHealthDiscrimLGBinUS.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4197971
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446470/pdf/11392936.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ilan_Meyer/publication/15461517_Minority_stress_and_mental_health_in_gay_men/links/0deec53ad819484a10000000.pdf

The reason the pro-homosexual-marriage advocates want to avoid a plebiscite is that they are terrified it won't pass. This was confirmed by the Labs who saw it as one of the reasons to oppose.

Why would it fail when the polls say otherwise?

Because the nature of the vote will be that both sides of the debate will get to have a say. Currently, we get a very one sided view of the issue. Popular culture presents gays as almost uniformly admirable. Very little is heard of the reasons many have a problem with homosexual marriage and when opposition is mentioned it is almost uniformly presented as coming from reactionary clergy.

What a plebiscite will do is provide the noes with a platform to make their case over the head of a censorious media. It was said in the last few days that one example of the distressing things that would be said by the noes (this occurred in Ireland) is that they'd point out that children raised in non-traditional families do, on average, worse than those raised by a father-mother. In other words, people would start to hear the truth and see that the opposition isn't just on religious grounds. Hence the desire to avoid what appears to be a plebiscite with a certain result.

At some point, when/if the plebiscite becomes a reality, we'll start to hear that the public funding of the yes/no cases should be curtailed. The rationale will be cost-saving but the reality will be to try to suppress the no case getting its message out.

The political elite (particularly on the left) have suffered a series of defeats over the recent past when they make what they consider to be the mistake of given the people a say. Brexit is just the latest of these. But our own Republic Referendum was another along with the rise of anti-immigration parties in Europe and the US.

Much better therefore to keep it 'in-house' so that the 'right' decision can be made.

Who do you class as a hate preacher?

Is it a person who publicly define marriage is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman? If so, then a large part of the population and the Parliament are hate preachers in your mind. A yes vote for calling same sex relationship marriage will not ever change their view of the exclusive reality that exists between a man and a woman. It the Parliament changes the Act we will have the same conflict that exists in the USA where State Governments are ruling against the Marxist agenda. It has raised the public hatred stakes.

In Australia a large part of the population prefer to live happily in de'facto relationships and do not see marriage as an inequality issue as do homosexuals. Homosexuals want the legal term marriage so they can pursue litigation against persons they feel discriminate against their union. It is not going to change attitudes or beliefs to have a law, it is just equally going to raise hatred of homosexuals who litigate their claim as it has done in the USA.

Give the people a say on informed family relationships, social and health issues rather than emotive media reports.

I want my chance to vote no, and as a tax payer I am entitled to my vote and that is all there is to the matter.

If its about the wasted money, then leave well enough alone.

All the research done to prove Gays feel stress is LGBT focused rather than as a whole of public health issue. I work with men in retirement and to see the stress and emotional problems they carry is extremely damaging. Especially men who have served this country, the whole of society is groaning in stress and feelings of rejection. It doesn't just happen to the LGBT persons. Persons who have been bullied at work are equally stressed.

Calling their relationship marriage is not going to change human behaviour and their self acceptance of their difference.

It is simple really;
If left to the pollies there will still be argument about it.
We were denied our say etc etc. Campaign to repeal the change etc.

If left to the plebiscite, that will be it, a vote of the people
was taken and even the pollies will not be able to ignore it, and
whichever way it goes it is final.

mhaze,
Distressing or not, there is no evidence for that.

<<…children raised in non-traditional families do, on average, worse than those raised by a father-mother.>>

That is, assuming that you’re referring to the nuclear family as “traditional” (which depends on how far you want to go back); and that, by “non-traditional”, you just mean same-sex-parenting homes.

While it is well-established that children with only one parent fare worse than those with two live-in parents, there is no evidence that it matters what sexes the parents are.

http://dime159.dizinc.com/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2004.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp06.pdf
http://66.7.216.77/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2008.pdf
http://www.ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0049089X12000610-main.pdf
http://squareonemd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Same-Sex-Parenting-Meta-Analysis-Crowl-Ahn-Baker-2008.pdf

This is, however, some evidence that children in same-sex-parenting homes fare slightly better than children opposite-sex-parenting homes. Which would make sense given the additional effort same-sex couples have to go to to have children. Although a limitation with those findings is that they’re disproportionately based on homes with two female parents.

--

Josephus,

<<Who do you class as a hate preacher?>>

Anyone who is against same-sex marriage, is vocal about it, and continues to be vocal about it after it is shown to them that they don’t have a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

A plebiscite is mob rule, something representative democracy is designed to avoid. Why not a plebiscite on all 'conscience issues'? For example I want plebiscites to decide whether or not the following should be allowed...Divorce; No tax on religious corporations; IVF; abortion; voluntary assisted suicide; purchasing Nembutal; growing hemp and marijuana; whether Australia should keep it's defence force for defence and not go fighting other countries; whether we should be more frightened of the USA than Russia... Those will do for starters

'Why not a plebiscite on all 'conscience issues'?'

I think that is a good idea ybgirp. It works well in Switzerland. Instead of being dumped with policies and laws made by mainloy lefist ideology we might have decisions made by people whose consciences have not been seared. Any sane person would vote against sexualising and perverting young kids like to so called 'safe'sex vomit.

The anti-plebicite ferals demonstrate two things: they hate democracy, and they will never be satisfied - i.e they will always be back for more and more. That is what their game is all about: they are less interested in faux marriage for homosexuals than they are in the 'big picture', which is the ruination of Western society. This is all the foul, malicious far left is interested in. They are merely using homosexuals, many of whom just want want to live in peace without 'marriage', for plain political destruction.

A J Phillips,

Inter-racial marriage has always been legal. Homosexual marriage is not. Your comparison is entirely inappropriate and offensive. Find another horse to kick.

Joe

A J Philips:

"Anyone who is against same-sex marriage, is vocal about it, and continues to be vocal about it after it is shown to them that they don’t have a rational argument against same-sex marriage."

So it is safe to say that anyone who disagrees with someone vocally even after they have been shown they do not have a rational argument is a hater. Does this apply to all subjects or just this particular one?

If it only applies to this subject why is that?

Joe,

I’ve already explained to you why the legal statuses of the two, past and present, are irrelevant to my analogy. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327994

I’ll keep kicking this horse until you can show me why I shouldn’t. The two scenarios are suitably analogous. Homophobia is as bad as racism. Have fun on the wrong side of history.

--

phanto,

That’s a good question.

<<So it is safe to say that anyone who disagrees with someone vocally even after they have been shown they do not have a rational argument is a hater.>>

I would restrict it to any topic in which contempt is predominantly the driving force amongst those who maintain their position in the absence of any rational argument. So, for example, the term wouldn’t apply to creationists, because their main motivation for maintaining their position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a desire to defend a literal interpretation of scripture, not because they may feel contempt for scientists.

A.J.Phillips: "Homophobia is as bad as racism. "
Indeed, it is worse than racism, because the racially abused kid can return to a home that supports and nurtures him, whereas so many gay kids are rejected by their own families as well as teachers, and their peers...which is why half youth suicides are by gays. Rejecting marriage equality is just another kick in the guts

AJ,

You claim "I’ve already explained to you why the legal statuses of the two, past and present, are irrelevant to my analogy. Remember?"

No, the legal status of the two IS relevant: one is, and always has been, legal; the other has never been legal.

Suck it up.

Meanwhile, back to topic: Shorten raises the same false analogy today, claiming equality before the law. What does the law say ? Marriage between a man and a woman is legal; an association between homosexuals is not legal.

So equality before the law applies to men and women in such relationships; there is no such right in law for homosexuals to enter into such legal relationships. They can relate all they like but it won't be recognised as a 'marriage' under current legislation. The notion of 'equality' between the two forms of association is not applicable.

You may say that it should be, but that's another matter.

Joe

You've got to admire AJ's chutzpah. According to him, he's looked at the issue rationally, found no rational arguments from the t'other side and assumes there aren't any. QED. This from the man who thought the nuclear family was invented in the 1940's!!

That children from non-traditional families do worse than those from families with a biological father and a biological mother is really beyond dispute. That children with gay parents do worse is less clear. But that is only because of a paucity of data given that there are next to no studies available as yet with anything but small numbers since the number of such children is not great. So we can throw studies back and forth but it'll resolve little.

But for the heck of it:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537
and on a personal level:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/21/the-kids-are-not-alright-a-lesbians-daughter-speaks-out/

The point I made in a previous thread was that the nuclear family has been the backbone of western civilisation for close on a millennium (at least) and we shouldn't be playing around with it willy-nilly. In the past 50 years, what with easy divorce and the state making single parenthood a viable economic lifestyle choice, the family has been placed under severe pressure. The breakdown of the family structure has been a disaster for many kids and a disaster for society.

And now some want to double-down on that assault. That's their prerogative and they'll probably get their way. But such a massive potential change ought to be openned to the consideration of the entire society, not relegated to a 30 minute vote in parliament.

A J Philips:

"Anyone who is against same-sex marriage, is vocal about it, and continues to be vocal about it after it is shown to them that they don’t have a rational argument against same-sex marriage."

This defines a hater when it comes to same-sex marriage but when it comes to any other disagreement contempt must be present for it to be true.

Why does contempt have to be present for every other subject of disagreement to be able to label someone a hater but not have to be present for same-sex marriage disagreements? A definition of a hater has to apply to all disagreements or none. That is what a definition is, is it not?

Paul,

"Is Mise. do you favor plebiscites for all controversial issues, like gun ownership for example...."

Bring it on!!

Joe,

My analogy allowed for this, contrasting only the problems with both scenarios.

<<No, the legal status of the two IS relevant: one is, and always has been, legal; the other has never been legal.>>

Ever heard of a hypothetical? You wouldn’t have done very well on an exam that had one, by the looks of it. According to the above rebuttal, your answer would have been, “But this never really happened.”

The analogy is valid.

--

mhaze,

That was an invitation to provide one, and send me packing.

<<You've got to admire AJ's chutzpah. According to him, he's looked at the issue rationally, found no rational arguments from the t'other side and assumes there aren't any.>>

So far I have not yet seen a rational argument against same-sex marriage. I’m no longer holding out for one either.

<<This from the man who thought the nuclear family was invented in the 1940's!!>>

No, I said that it was the most common form of family only between the ‘40s and ‘70s, and later corrected myself by noting that that was only for Australia, after checking (and citing) my sources for that claim.

As for your evidence that children from same-sex-parenting families fare worse, the first article you linked to is a discredited piece of work that did not bother to check (or at least did not cite) whether or not the children were once raised by opposite-sex partners who divorced (which would explain the results). To his credit, though, the author at least admits that his findings contradict all other findings. The second article is just a single person’s opinion, who happens to be a born-again Christian at that. Reliable stuff there.

--

phanto,

I didn’t say that.

<<Why does contempt have to be present for every other subject of disagreement to be able to label someone a hater but not have to be present for same-sex marriage disagreements?>>

Contempt for gay people is a major driving force for those against same-sex marriage, and OLO is a testament to that. Particularly those who cannot be swayed by evidence or reasoning.

The greens make it sound as if during the plebiscite, anti gay activists are going to hunt out LGBT people and lynch them. The reality is that for 6 weeks LGBT people will hear pretty much everything they have heard before, and short of the entire continent of Australia being declared a "safe space" they will hear it again.

It would appear that Labor and the greens are more concerned with petty political games than with equal rights.

Aidan asked:
"Indeed many of the people who support gay marriage on the grounds that it's a requirement of gay people being equal, hypocritically oppose polygynous marriage – do they not see polyamorous people as equal?"

They don't actually oppose polyamorous marriage. They just don't want to talk about it now since it would muddy the water and give credence to the slippery slope argument. But if the homosexual marriage campaign gets up, it'll take about 4.3 nanoseconds before these others start to argue that they ought to be next.

AJ:

There is actually no argument, rational or otherwise, that'll send you packing since you've already made up your mind and long since closed it. So by definition, in your mind, any argument that isn't pro is clearly irrational.

Of coarse, sometimes you stumble trying to work out why an argument is irrational even though you KNOW it is. So my views on protecting the family were originally reject by you as (all together now!) irrational based on a faulty historic understanding of the place of the nuclear family in society. To the rational mind, finding out that your reason for rejecting the argument was indeed faulty would cause a re-think. But alas....

BTW, the claim that the nuclear family is a recent invention is one of the hallmarks of the pro-lobby, showing, in my mind, that you've simply accepted their pronouncements holus bolus without giving it too much (rational) thought.

mhaze,

It’s true that I’ve made up my mind (but it took a very long time to get to the point I’m at). But that doesn’t mean I’m not open to arguments that may soften my position.

<<So by definition, in your mind, any argument that isn't pro is clearly irrational.>>

“I’m open to the possibility that I have not yet heard all the arguments, but otherwise, yes. I have even explained why they are [irrational]…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793)

<<Of coarse, sometimes you stumble trying to work out why an argument is irrational even though you KNOW it is.>>

I think I know what you’re talking about. But, no, my position was based on a lot more than that one point.

<<So my views on protecting the family were originally reject by you as … irrational based on a faulty historic understanding of the place of the nuclear family in society.>>

That’s a rather crude way of putting it, but yes. However, contrary to the dogmatic picture you paint of me, I wanted to know more and asked you to elaborate on how the nuclear family functioned as the bedrock of civilisation, but never got a response. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227163)

<<…the claim that the nuclear family is a recent invention is one of the hallmarks of the pro-lobby...>>

Could you show me where they’ve claimed this? I’m not aware of this claim.

<<…showing, in my mind, that you've simply accepted their pronouncements holus bolus without giving it too much (rational) thought.>>

No, as I pointed out to you the last time, I have not gotten the majority of my arguments from the pro-lobby, let alone without too much rational thought. I mentioned to you last time where I get them from but am not really (according to some here) supposed to mention that.

Let’s just say that nothing has been swallowed “hook, line, and sinker”, and leave it at that.

Incidentally, arguing that polygamy would be next is the Slippery Slope fallacy. Unlike same-sex marriage, polygamy has great potential for harm as it has, historically, been inextricably linked to misogyny, rape, and incest.

A J Philips:

You say that a person who disagrees with same-sex marriage even after having been shown to have an irrational argument is a hater. Then you said that people who have disagreements on other subjects are not necessarily haters unless contempt is present. So why is it that the presence of contempt is not necessary for an opponent of SSM to be labeled a 'hater'?

You are saying that a person who disagrees with SSM is automatically a hater if they disagree but for a person who disagrees with someone on any other subject you cannot necessarily label them a hater unless contempt is present. Why is it automatic for those who disagree with SSM but not for those who disagree on other subjects?

"Contempt for gay people is a major driving force for those against same-sex marriage, and OLO is a testament to that. Particularly those who cannot be swayed by evidence or reasoning."

Contempt may be present but you are saying that it is automatically present just because they disagree so if it is disagreement which makes it automatically present why is this not the case with other subjects?

"and OLO is a testament to that"

There is no need to be bitchy about it. If you have a problem with that then deal with it by rational argument. Anything else is just 'bitchiness'.

AJ is a prime example demonstrating clearly that most hate comes from the supporters of those wanting to pervert marriage. He obviously has no mirror.

AJ,

Hypothetical. How's this: compare the rights of disabled people to marry to homosexuals' right to marry: if one, why not the other ? What, disabled people marrying ? Well, yes, it's legal. But it's a bit offensive to use the disabled to make a point in that way, don't you think ?

I don't think you are as bright as you obviously believe, if you can't see the parallels with inter-racial marriage.

Joe

phanto,

Not “even”, “only”.

<<You say that a person who disagrees with same-sex marriage even after having been shown to have an irrational argument is a hater.>>

Perhaps it would help if you quoted me? “Hater” sounds a bit childish too.

<<Then you said that people who have disagreements on other subjects are not necessarily haters unless contempt is present.>>

Yes.

<<So why is it that the presence of contempt is not necessary for an opponent of SSM to be labeled a 'hater'?>>

I didn’t say that.

<<You are saying that a person who disagrees with SSM is automatically a hater if they disagree…>>

Haven’t said that either.

<<…but for a person who disagrees with someone on any other subject you cannot necessarily label them a hater unless contempt is present.>>

In my opinion, yes. And, in my experience, contempt is always there where opposition to same-sex marriage is concerned. Where you get the idea that I have made an exception for the topic of same-sex marriage, one can only imagine.

<<Why is it automatic for those who disagree with SSM but not for those who disagree on other subjects?>>

Why do you have to misrepresent what I say?

<<If you have a problem with that then deal with it by ational argument. Anything else is just 'bitchiness'.>>

Oh, that’s rich. You need to take your own advice.

--

Joe,

That’s more of an analogy than a hypothetical.

<<...compare the rights of disabled people to marry to homosexuals' right to marry: if one, why not the other ?>>

Yes, yes. Good question.

<<What, disabled people marrying ?>>

Oooo... and that’s where your analogy bombs. No-one here is unaware that interracial couples can marry, let alone acted surprised when they found out that they could.

<<But it's a bit offensive to use the disabled to make a point in that way, don't you think ?>>

I don’t know, because I can’t for a moment imagine who would place such an idiot in their hypothetical or for what purpose; nor how it bears any resemblance to the communication between you and I.

Shadow, how free and easy the conservatives are with taxpayers money. Happy to see Turnbull fritter away $160,000,000 of our money on a opinion poll which would have no legal standing. Again Turnbull is looking for a stalling tactic to put off a parliamentary vote, which will eventually be required to change the law. All to appease the rabid right and religious fundos within the Coalition. A lot of money to keep the nutters happy!

There is no need to spend/waste the money at all Paul, simply leave things as they are.

Besides, the queers wont rest if we do go to the polls and they loose. This will go on forever and a day until they get their way.

Of cause as has been said until the cows come home, find another word, problem solved.

On the other side, say we have a vote and they get their way, whats to stop people suing the government for taking away their rights. I say this because it is the right of straight people to not have to share their definition of marriage with queers.

Paul1405: Happy to see Turnbull fritter away $160,000,000 of our money on a opinion poll which would have no legal standing.

More than this has been spent already for no result. Let's just do it, get a result & implement that result. You keep saying the majority are in favour of Queer Marriages. Let's test the waters.

Paul1405: Again Turnbull is looking for a stalling tactic to put off a parliamentary vote, which will eventually be required to change the law.

Turnbull? It is Shorten & the Greens that are fighting for the Plebiscite to be stopped.

Paul1405: All to appease the rabid Right and Religious fundos within the Opposition.

Don't you mean, All to appease the rabid Left and GLTB fundos within the Opposition.

Paul1405: A lot of money to keep the nutters happy!

Yep! The Rabid Left & GLTB nutters started it, now they want it stopped. Cold feet?

Hi Paul,

We (i.e. OLO) are arguing somewhat at cross-purposes. Most of those you call far-right nutters, i.e. ordinary, cautious people, are either not all that interested, OR are affronted by what they see as an assault on what they see as marriage as the union of one man and one woman, AND/OR may not have heard of Gramsci but are suspicious of the motives of those pushing for the destruction of a societal institution: what would be next, they ask ? Polygamy ? Given its salience in Islam, how on Earth could that ever be progressive ?

I'm sure that you and so many of the pseudo-'Left' nutters are quite happy to use terms which denigrate heteros, is that right ? Perhaps you tell heterophobic jokes amongst yourselves, I don't know. That's okay, that's your right under Section 18c, and heteros are usually strong enough to cop it. But by principles of equality before the law, other people are entitled to be as homophobic as you may be heterophobic.

Marriage between one man and one woman is legal in Australia. Hence, it is not illegal to support it, to champion it. Hence any funding for a plebiscite position which is not legal (yet) should be matched by as much funding for a position which is already legal.

And can you put your hand on your heart and swear that, no, there will be no ratchet effect if the garriage/quarriage proposal is approved, no further demands on society to subvert its own institutions ? Polyamory ? Polygamy ?

Just by the way, are homosexual relationships already recognised in law as giving rise to similar rights and responsibilities as de facto relationships ? If not, why not ? If so, why the need to demand changes in the definition of marriage ?

Cheers,

Joe

A J Philips:

"Anyone who is against same-sex marriage, is vocal about it, and continues to be vocal about it after it is shown to them that they don’t have a rational argument against same-sex marriage."

This is how you would classify a hate preacher according to your answer to the question of how you would define a hate preacher. Then you added that contempt needs to be present.

Why did you answer that question? Sure, I know you were asked but you do not answer every question that you are asked. Why did you choose to answer that particular question?

Why does it matter what constitutes a 'hate preacher? What value is there in being able to accurately label a hate preacher. Decisions should be made based on reason. You are a great champion of reason and do not like to see emotions get in the way of the decision making process so why buy into the question of what classifies someone as a hate preacher?

If they hate same-sex couples why should that be relevant to the process of determining whether or not SSM should be legalised? Pointing out the reality of their hate is irrelevant to the process because you are introducing emotion as a factor into the rational process and this is inconsistent with your principles of keeping the argument based on reason.

Hi Phanto,

There may be many more mighty leaps between 'hating' homosexuality and supporting the inclusion of homosexuals within the term 'marriage':

* a heterosexual couple may fully support homosexuality, homosexuals and homosexual acts, perhaps try some of them themselves (a bit of analingus probably never hurt anybody), without seeing the need to support 'marriage' between homosexuals;

* a hetero couple may support homosexuals in every way, except trying out any homosexual practices between themselves, or extending the definition of marriage;

* a hetero couple may support homosexual friends but be uneasy or unenthusiastic about homosexual practices, or find them distasteful; they may also not support homosexual 'marriage';

* a hetero couple may have homosexual friends who they dearly love but not want to know about anything at all about their practical relationship;

* a hetero couple may have homosexual acquaintances, with whom they share social activities amicably, but not want to get much closer;

* a hetero couple may simply not want to associate with homosexuals if possible.

And they all have the right to their respective positions. Turn it around and so do homosexuals have the right to their respective positions. Like it or not, nasty or disagreeable as it may be, we all have the right to distrust, to dislike, and yes, even to hate. After all, how many thought police would have to be employed to weed out anybody who does ? Preferences exist. Distaste exists. Even hate exists. Suck it up, I suggest respectfully.

Cheers,

Joe

A J Philips,

Somewhere in your response to me, I think there's agreement that there are indeed rational arguments against homosexual marriage.

I'm not claiming that they are conclusive arguments (although they are to me) but only that one doesn't need to be a shirt-lifter hating, evolution-rejecting hate preacher to see problems with the changes as they are currently postulated.

It seems to me that the changes are inevitable whether through a plebiscite or after the so-called progressives eventually regain control of the parliament n 3, 6 or 9 years time.

My points are two-fold:

1) this is such a monumental change to the things that have made this society great that it requires much more gravitas in the decision making process. We aren't talking mundanities like where to build the next vote attracting piece of infrastructure. This isn't a decision that can be reserved if we see we made a mistake. This is a societal altering decision that'll be with us forever, for better or worse (for richer, for poorer!). So asking the entire populace seems to be the least we can do to give it its due consideration.

2) the plebiscite is opposed because the pro's see a danger in given the nay's a platform to enunciate their concerns. The media and popular culture have succeeded in convincing most that this is a mere changing of a coupla words and that the opposition are all religio-crazies. There is a danger for the yes case if this is shown to be false. The yes case will still win - eventually - but they'd prefer to not have their mythology challenged.

phanto,

Well that's a really bizarre set of questions you have there for me.

<<Why did you answer that question?>>

Josephus's question? Because it was a good question that was relevant to what I had said.

<<Sure, I know you were asked but you do not answer every question that you are asked.>>

Actually, I’m pretty sure I do. I try to at least. Sometimes even the rhetorical questions.

<<Why did you choose to answer that particular question?>>

I have answered all the questions directed to me on this thread so far, so why should it come as a shock to you that I answered that one?

<<Why does it matter what constitutes a 'hate preacher? What value is there in being able to accurately label a hate preacher.>>

How about you ask Josephus? He was the one who asked the question.

<<Decisions should be made based on reason.>>

I’m glad you’re back on the ‘reason’ wagon with me. I was getting worried for a moment there when you were starting to talk about being guided by emotions.

<<…why buy into the question of what classifies someone as a hate preacher?>>

Because it was a reasonable question to ask. Yours was too. I didn’t “buy into” anything. Do you think Josephus was trying to trap me somehow?

<<If they hate same-sex couples why should that be relevant to the process of determining whether or not SSM should be legalised?>>

It’s not. I didn’t say it was.

--

mhaze,

I have read through our discussion on that other thread again and I cannot see where I agreed that there were rational arguments against homosexual marriage.

<<I'm not claiming that they are conclusive arguments…>>

I would agree that there are many arguments against same-sex marriage that are not conclusive. There are some arguments that would, prima facie, appear to be reasonable, such as your first point, but are left wanting when such abstract fears are weighed against the more quantitative social and economic costs of inequality.

Loudmouth:

I agree with all that you say but my point was that if the discussion is to be based on reason then emotions like hate are irrelevant. Everyone has a right to hate whoever they want but it should not be taken into account in the decision making process.

I am questioning AJP why he is keen to define hate preachers when their hate is irrelevant to the debate on SSM.

Hi Phanto,

I agree but some contributors seem to think that simply labelling someone as a 'hater' is the be-all and end-all, without any other argument. They overlook that they themselves are perfectly entitled to hate too, but that, as you say, it should have no bearing on their argument.

I would defend (perhaps not to the death) the rights of left-wing nutters like Paul or AJP to hate heteros, and politely remind them that, on the same logic, sensible people have the right to disapprove of and, yes, even hate (although I suspect that it is much rarer than people think, and I would object even to that), homos.

Cheers,

Joe

Phanto,

While you’re pondering your next response to me, I have a question for you.

<<I am questioning AJP why he is keen to define hate preachers when their hate is irrelevant to the debate on SSM.>>

Even if I were as “keen” as you had attempted to portray me as in your last post to me (yes, your most recent post was unfortunately timed), what difference would it make? Are you preparing another pseudo-psychological analysis?

--

Joe,

Do you realise that the only person who fits such a description here is runner?

<<…some contributors seem to think that simply labelling someone as a 'hater' is the be-all and end-all, without any other argument.>>

Whoops.

<<They overlook that they themselves are perfectly entitled to hate too…>>

Who has overlooked this, and what was it that was said to suggest that they had overlooked it?

<<I would defend (perhaps not to the death) the rights of left-wing nutters like Paul or AJP to hate heteros…>>

Why would I hate my own kind? Where is it that I have, in any way, indicated a hatred for heterosexuals? Homophobia is not synonymous with heterosexuality.

Are you still cranky at me for before? Hey, I had been trying to explain to you for a while how opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage were suitably analogous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

I'm sorry if you feel offended by the thought of your interracial marriage being compared to the marriage of people that inspire disgust in you, but that really is something you need to work through yourself.

A J Philips:

"Well that's a really bizarre set of questions you have there for me."

What does it matter if they are bizarre or not? Either you want to answer them or you do not. There is no need to make any negative value judgement about them because you are just setting yourself up to look stupid if you go ahead and answer them.

"Because it was a good question that was relevant to what I had said."

Why would you need to say anything about hate since it is irrelevant to the question of why SSM should be approved?

"<<Why did you choose to answer that particular question?>>

I have answered all the questions directed to me on this thread so far, so why should it come as a shock to you that I answered that one"

That is not an answer. It is statement followed by another question. So why did you choose to answer that particular question? Why did you answer a question about hate when hate is irrelevant?

"How about you ask Josephus? He was the one who asked the question."

Because I want to ask you. You would not have answered if you did not think it was relevant. Why do you think the issue of hate is relevant to the SSM debate?

"I’m glad you’re back on the ‘reason’ wagon with me."

Not everything is about you.

"Because it was a reasonable question to ask. Yours was too. I didn’t “buy into” anything. Do you think Josephus was trying to trap me somehow?"

OK you did not buy into anything. I'll ask again why did you answer a question about hate when it is irrelevant to the discussion? Either you are not being honest with those asking the question or you think hate is relevant. If it is the former then your complete integrity is under question and if it is the later then why do you think hate is relevant to this issue?

AJ,

"Homophobia is not synonymous with heterosexuality."

Exactly ! Thank you. And opposition to homosexual 'marriage' should not be confused with homophobia.

I don't care much what homosexuals do, but still think the application of the term 'marriage' is entirely inappropriate.

It has been happening for a very long time and looks like happening more and more in Australia. Does the thought of it inspire disgust in you ? Is that why you keep raising it as a spurious analogy with homosexual relationships ? If so, that really is something you need to work through yourself.

Joe

phanto,

Here we go against with the silly questions.

<<What does it matter if they are bizarre or not?>>

It doesn’t. Not everything I say is said out of equal importance.

<<There is no need to make any negative value judgement about them...>>

You’re right. There’s not. But not everything people do is done out of necessity.

<<That is not an answer.>>

Actually, it was. I was telling you that I answered the question because I answer all questions.

<<So why did you choose to answer that particular question?>>

It was never singled-out or selected for special treatment, as your wording implies. But like I said to you before: because it was a reasonable question to ask.

<<Why did you answer a question about hate when hate is irrelevant?>>

It wasn’t a question about hate. It was a question about my choice of wording.

<<You would not have answered if you did not think it was relevant.>>

I did think it was relevant:

“Because it was a good question that was relevant to what I had said.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229210)

<<Why do you think the issue of hate is relevant to the SSM debate?>>

Because if that’s what’s inspiring a lot of opposition to it, then it says a lot about the case against it.

<<Not everything is about you.>>

At no point have I suggested otherwise.

<<I'll ask again why did you answer a question about hate when it is irrelevant to the discussion?>>

I didn’t. Again, the question was about my choice of wording, not hate. But, again, I answered it because:

“…it was a good question that was relevant to what I had said.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229210)

<<Either you are not being honest with those asking the question or you think hate is relevant.>>

This is a false dichotomy. Again, not everything people do is done out of necessity.

<<If it is the former then your complete integrity is under question…>>

Ah, so this is yet another attempt at character assassination. I should have guessed it.

Good luck with that.

Joe,

What do you mean by “exactly”?

<<Exactly ! Thank you.>>

You were the one who, through your wording, implied that homophobia was synonymous with heterosexuality.

Why is the term 'marriage' is entirely inappropriate for same-sex couples, by the way?

<<Does the thought of [interracial marriage] inspire disgust in you ?>>

Already answered here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327711

<<Is that why you keep raising it as a spurious analogy with homosexual relationships ?>>

You have not yet demonstrated that the analogy is spurious. All your previous attempts flopped. Would you like to give it another crack?

Paul,

Given the wanton disregard of the budget under the Labor green government where 10s of $bns were wasted, this is a drop in the ocean, especially given the frequent elections for all 3 tiers of government that cost far more. Also it is rank hypocrisy considering how the greens lauded the recent Irish plebiscite.

The only conclusion is that the greens are scared of losing.

" Even if I were as “keen” as you had attempted to portray me as in your last post to me (yes, your most recent post was unfortunately timed), what difference would it make?"

It makes a lot of difference because it would expose you as the fraud that you really are. You insist on everyone keeping emotion out of debates and arguing only with reason and yet here you are using words like hate and calling out hatred in those who simply disagree with your view.

You will deny all that of course because that is what you do. It is impossible to have a reasonable debate with you because your aim is to defend not your arguments but your insecurity as a person. Your whole identity is tied up with the illusion that you are a great scholar and thinker. Such is the urgency of that need to protect that illusion that you have become extremely skilled and clever at avoiding arguments put before you. You are by far the most clever person on this forum because you need to be. You desperately need to be.

You twist words and the meanings of sentences. You avoid straight forward questions by changing the subject. You try and bamboozle posters when a simple straight forward point is all that is necessary. You talk down to people and patronise them. You lecture them and belittle them for not keeping up with your great intellect. I think most people would feel like I do - extremely frustrated because they never feel like they have penetrated beyond that defensiveness and no matter how hard they try it is ultimately futile. You are not interested in the truth of anything much. The only thing that interests you is maintaining the illusion of your intellectual stature.

I would suggest to other forum members that they not waste any more time on engaging with you. That is the approach I will be taking. That wall you have around you is impenetrable.

phanto,

Well, it looks like you dipped out on that one then.

<<… it would expose you as the fraud that you really are.>>

Perhaps you can find another way to expose my alleged fraudulence?

Although, even if your suspicion (that I had singled-out that one question for no good reason) was right, that still wouldn’t suggest any fraud on my behalf. Just a lack of thought, or perhaps purpose, in my actions.

<<…yet here you are using words like hate and calling out hatred in those who simply disagree with your view.>>

Hate is a real feeling, but the use of the word can be emotive, which is why I sought to justify my use of it.

<<You will deny all that of course because that is what you do.>>

Or maybe because you’re wrong. Again, always with the most unflattering interpretation.

<<You are by far the most clever person on this forum because you need to be.>>

You mean "cleverest".

I’ll take that as a compliment, though you are yet to demonstrate that I need to be. All you have done is make assertions. Some examples demonstrating your claims wouldn’t go astray.

<<You twist words and the meanings of sentences. You avoid straight forward questions by changing the subject. You try and bamboozle posters when a simple straight forward point is all that is necessary. You talk down to people and patronise them.>>

Really? Could you provide an example of me doing any of these? I can understand why it must feel that way to you. The last one there I will admit I’ve done from time to time, but only when someone has well and truly shown themselves to be a complete fool.

<<You lecture [people] and belittle them...>>

And what do you think you’re doing right now?

<<I think most people would feel like I do - extremely frustrated because they never feel like they have penetrated beyond that defensiveness...>>

Yes, evidence and reasoned argument are invaluable tools. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you’re just wrong?

AJ,

Whatev.

But I've become a convert: I'm opposed to a Plebiscite now, until a very clear result can be predicted. Postpone it for five years, ten years, twenty years (when I'll be long gone) or longer, until Prime Minister Wyatt Roy puts it on. Or his daughter.

After all, if it was held in the next year or two but failed to produce what the homosexual lobby wanted, it would be off again for about as long. Better to wait, don't you think ? I'd give that caution my full support.

Joe

The advantage of homosexual marriage is in a divorce, which I believe they do not generally last more than 5 years, is the property settlement. Those of the hetero community that have been through divorce know how amicably they are resolved and how much the solicitors garner from the settlement.

Give them the term marriage and hetero couples the term committed family covenant.

I don't know why some posters bother arguing with AJ Philips. He is an ideologue who is never going to listen to you. He is convinced that he is right, and you are all wrong (as he thinks I am wrong). So be it, if he wants it that way. But, all you are doing is giving him more, and more, and more 'reason' to carry on with the same old same old. He needs an audience, and some of you are willing victims. I have not read any of his tedious posts since I told him that I would no longer indulge him. He is entitled to present his opinions as much as he wants; but how many times do you respond to the bloke before you realise that you are wasting your time? He wants to argue: it's his thing - you are his playthings. He doesn't care about any subject much. He just has a contrary, argumentative personality.

If I had what he apparently calls a life, I would go to bed and stay there.

Joe,

If in the unlikely event that the ’no’ vote wins, it would probably just be brought in by a future government in the next term or two anyway. I agree with mhaze that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Although, I’m not sure why you hope to be dead before it happens. I’ve heard a lot of doom and gloom predictions, but nothing of any substance.

It’s funny, though, isn’t it? On the one hand, those against same-sex marriage claim that same-sex couples already have the same rights as married couples; then, on the other hand, the sky will apparently fall in if they're allow to marry.

A part of me does want a plebiscite though, it would stick it to those who insist that the polls are all rigged and that it will fail, and it will demonstrate a spectacular level of hypocrisy on the government’s behalf when most of them vote against the majority of the country after having accused the opposition of being anti-democracy in opposing the plebiscite in the first place.

--

ttbn,

Thanks for demonstrating that ad hominem is all you guys really have, at the end of the day. Not a meaningful thing to say in response to of any my arguments. Just personal attacks.

<<He is an ideologue who is never going to listen to you.>>

I have listened plenty. I even respond to others line-by-line so as to not leave anything unaddressed and avoid misinterpreting or misrepresenting anyone, so how you could claim this is beyond belief.

As was the case with phanto, you are (unsurprisingly) unable to provide a single example for any of your accusations. Just more character assassination.

Pretty ordinary, really.

Worth a read.

http://thinkingofgod.org/2016/08/dear-mr-shorten/

AJ,

As I understand it, there was a time when the Labor Party was all for a plebiscite, when Shorten was 'completely relaxed' about one. Still, as Keynes said, 'When circumstances change, I change my mind.'

I don't think I said that I HOPED to be dead before a Plebiscite, only that, to be sure of success, it may be wise to hold off for the next few decades. I don't hope to be dead for a hundred years yet :)

Although, given that the opportunist 'Left' would open the gates and lay on their bellies to Islamists, and as long as we fart around about trivia like the above, or the AGE giving us the 25 best ice creams in CArlton, or where to find the best kale, and if I have to read one more half-witted Tweet on Q&A, I'm willing to re-consider. A hundred more years of that ? Please take me now.

Joe

Josephus, your Mr Bovis was doing fine until he confessed his belief in a non existent deity;

"who believes that the Bible is God’s final authoritative word in all matters of faith and practice,"

That is what his whole argument is based on, the biblical rantings attributed to a non existent deity.

This bloke, the Anglican minister, who 'shirt fronted' Shorten, was out of order and disrespectful. Shorten should have gave him his own medicine back, asking him about pedophilia in his dirty old church, but maybe Shorten has more respect than that.

Paul1405:

Shorten has said on several occasions that people are homophobic and bigoted because they oppose SSM. There is absolutely no way he can know that. Unless you can get into someone else's body it is impossible to tell what they are feeling.

Attributing feelings to people that they may or may not have is just a way of trying to manipulate the debate. Debates depend on rational argument and feelings are irrelevant to that process.

Shorten is out of order and disrespectful in attributing feelings to people that he has no way of proving. He also shows disrespect for the process of debate which the Australian people are trying to have.

Homophobia cannot be proven in anyone. There is no physical test that shows homophobia. Unless you can prove what you say then there is not much point introducing it into the argument.

Phanto,

So why is it, then, that you think you can attribute all sorts of feelings and motives to your opponents when you try to psychoanalyse them?

<<Unless you can get into someone else's body it is impossible to tell what they are feeling.>>

Is homophobia an exception to the rule?

<<Attributing feelings to people that they may or may not have is just a way of trying to manipulate the debate.>>

Not if it can be demonstrated. Which is why Josephus’s question was both good and relevant, and why I answered it.

<<Debates depend on rational argument and feelings are irrelevant to that process.>>

I’d mostly agree with this. Rational arguments need to at least come first. Once they have been presented, and no arguments have been made to contradict them effectively, then there is nothing wrong with mentioning feelings.

Although, this does run contrary to what you said a week ago when you posited the role of feelings on the question of same-sex marriage:

“A wise person takes in not just what is found in books but also what is found in their own hearts and those of their brothers and sisters.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328302)

<<Unless you can prove what you say then there is not much point introducing it into the argument.>>

“Prove” is a bit of an excessive standard. ‘Provide good reason to believe’ should be sufficient. Which goes back to why I answered that question.

While I’m here, I’ll give you an example of how can you expose my supposed fraudulence by revisiting how I exposed yours:

You have expressed to me, on more than one occasion, your desire to keep this forum clean from bulling and insincere intentions. Yet, as I mentioned on another thread, you ignore “bullying”, abuse, and insincerity when it comes from someone with whom you agree. You asked me what was wrong with being selective like this, so I pointed out to you that it demonstrated an insincerity (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328402).

Hence the fraudulence on your behalf.

Now your turn. You do me now. Where is my fraudulence evident?

People who believe male and female gender was developed / made primarily for the procreation of the next generation, and can naturally form a union for that exclusive purpose; are not homophobic to uphold that exclusive and biological view of gender.

That Marxists wish to call them bigoted and homophobic means they cannot come up with a logical biological reason for homosexual unions but wish to justify dysfunctional sex acts between same sex partners.

Typical religious fundo, its all the work of those evil "Marxists". A bit rich considering these same religious nutters believe in burning at the stake. and stoning to death of heretics!

Josephus, are you a stake and stoning man? If its okay for you to label me a Marxists, its only fair I label you a religious nutter.

Hi Paul,

Good god ! " .... these same religious nutters believe in burning at the stake. and stoning to death of heretics!"

What backward groups believe such ghastly rubbish ? As I understand it, the last witch-burning in Europe was in rural Hungary in about 1928.

As for the stoning of heretics, I do believe your Islamist comrades are pretty good at that these days. Come to think of it, they also do a very efficient line in the burning of young girls in cages, and boiling them in tar. Not to mention rape, a vile crime which used to worry feminists.

Move on: many of us who don't care much about homosexual issues are not, and never have been, religious nutters. And you know it.

Is that all you've got ?

Personally, I think the plebiscite should be postponed for as long as possible, partly because it probably won't get up for a long time yet, and partly because I don't give a toss.

Joe

Paul's ideology has been responsible in recent years for more murders than religious nutters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Paul doesn't have a logical biological case for SS marriage just emotional blackmail.

Josephus, what is the relationship between same sex marriage and Marxism? Did Karl Marx have anything to say on the subject?

Joe, you say "your(Paul1405) Islamist comrades", Can you show I have Islamist comrades who commit the vile deeds you refer to? I can claim you have white supremacists comrades who are responsible for gay bashing, and even gay murder! Just as valid.

Comrade; friend, associate, brother in arms. I know of no such people.

Hi Paul,

No probs: would you extend your definition of 'religious nutters' who burn women, stone them and rape them in vast numbers, to Islamists ? Yes ? No ?

And would you care to set out how you perceive the support that your comrades might give to homosexual 'marriage' ? Or would you dare to peep out and criticise them for throwing your better friends off tall buildings ?

It must be difficult being on the opportunist 'Left' these days: who to suck up to, the Islamic community or the homosexual community or, as an afterthought, women ? Feminists, gays or terrorists ? Hmmm, let's see: who is most anti-US and anti-Enlightenment, the key criterion ? Ah, the terrorists.

Ergo ....

Joe

My Islamic friends and acquaintances are 100% against SSM; they consider that it demeans their Islamic concept of marriage and is forbidden and condemned by the Koran.
It is anathema to them.

The agenda of the Left is to deconstruct marriage and gender until it is meaningless. The social norms we saw as historical stable development in society will be deconstructed so no moral judgment is acceptable.
It ultimately feeds the undeveloped primitive nature of society and the baser nature of man taking us back to the laws of the Jungle. Social structures to them are a hindrance to "do as you feel".

The agenda is to destroy the social institutions that teach the structures of society.