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