//Why are we discussing anal sex?//

We're not. Armchair is talking about cruelty to animals because he doesn't know the correct spelling of arses, and apparently I'm the only one that's noticed...

I'm not sure if any of you know how bartering works, haggling, disscussing points of issue and hammering out a deal.
AJ you keep saying I've already made up my mind but I've made it clear I'm open to compromise.
But unless your side is willing to compromise, I've already made up my mind.

If you we're the boss on your side and I was the boss on my side, and I say I'm not moving on the issue of SSM until you get rid of Safe Schools and provide protections for Christian Pastors to not be forced to marry gays in their churches..
Then you have to say, 'OK I'll get rid these things, then can we come to an agreement?'
And I will say 'Providing there's no more horsecrap in the fineprint, and I mean NONE, then yes we can move forward to a memoranding of understanding where I will no longer oppose it.'

You've got to make this deal with every single Aussie in Australia if you want to create a good policy for the future of our country, not merely have your way in a process of winning a single argument on a path to systematically destroying the country.

And everyones got their own opinions, I'm just one vote.
And I'd have more faith in the media and public opinion if the media wasn't so deceitful, manipulative or biased.

Armchair Critic,

I’m sorry I haven’t been taking your word for it that you are willing to change your mind.

Usually I’d just pretend to give you the benefit of the doubt, even if it were merely for the sake of moving on. But the opposition to marriage equality is so irrational that I have not yet been able to bring myself to that point, in this instance. Perhaps it’s got something to do with your red herring regarding the Safe Schools program?

<<But unless your side is willing to compromise, I've already made up my mind.>>

There is no compromise on something as important as equality when the nay-sayers are in the minority. Your Safe-Schools offer is utterly irrelevant, and I’m not going to fall for it.

<<... and provide protections for Christian Pastors to not be forced to marry gays in their churches…>>

Like I said, only when they start paying taxes. You have not yet addressed this point of mine other than to falsely compare forcing Christian clergy to marry same-sex couples with forcing Muslims to eat bacon. But this analogy is false because bacon does not require equal treatment. It is not even conscious.

Your analogy was as stupid as it was irrelevant.

Try again.

Sorry, Armchair Critic. I forgot to address your 'bacon' analogy earlier. I take full responsibility for you thinking that you still had an argument.

I did address your other argument as well if you go back and look - 'Churches paying tax'. I do believe some non-profits conduct their business for reasons other than charity, and I'd be willing to hear the arguments', though I'm not sure I'd be convinced.

I'm happy to consider change on many issues, but I'm not going to just change for the sake of it or because it appears to be a good idea without reading all the fine print.

It has to be a change for the better where everyone benefits, not just change to suit one party.

That’s true, Armchair Critic.

<<I did address your other argument as well if you go back and look - 'Churches paying tax'. I do believe some non-profits conduct their business for reasons other than charity, and I'd be willing to hear the arguments', though I'm not sure I'd be convinced.>>

The problem is, however, that you’d never be able to find about because, unlike secular charities, the churches don’t have to open their books.

But that’s another story.

The point I was making was the fact that your ‘bacon’ analogy was irrelevant because forcing Muslims to eat bacon does not adversely affect the bacon.

<<I'm happy to consider change on many issues, but I'm not going to just change for the sake of it …>>

For the second time now, at no point has anyone ever asked you to. Change for the sake of change has never been proposed. This is a straw man which you have created yourself.

<<… or because it appears to be a good idea without reading all the fine print.>>

Equality doesn’t just appear to be a good idea. There is over 150 years’ worth of sociological research demonstrating that it is. If you can demonstrate how the right of bigoted institutions, to continue to behave in a bigoted ways, is somehow worthy of consideration in light of all that, then, by all means, let's hear it.

<<It has to be a change for the better where everyone benefits …>>

Precisely, and, as I have pointed out numerous times before, it does. Equality benefits a society as a whole, and that includes the individuals within it. This has been well established for over 100 years now.

I'm sorry you're just learning about that now.