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.