Whoa

AJP devotes three lengthy posts trying to rationalise the misinterpretation (for whatever reason or lack thereof) of a minor point in my post. Then spending who knows how long examining other's post histories to see who else committed the thought crime of saying homosexual behaviour was chosen.

Seriously bonkers.

When you see the crazy man in the street its prudent to cross to the other side. This is me figuratively crossing over (nb AJP,not literally crossing!)

Meanwhile in the sane adult world my original point remains:

* Penetrative anal sex is inherently dangerous.
* Were it not for modern western medicine, homosexuals practising that activity would be a declining breed. (if you'll forgive the expression)
* Given that this lifestyle choice is only possible in modern times its interesting to postulate if such mass diseases like AIDS in the past might explain the general world-wide taboo against anal 'love'.

Josephus is concerned that the SSM changes will erode religious freedoms.

Foxy is reassuring..."you just may find out that your fears and concerns were really unwarranted."

And if they were 'warranted'? IF the changes do indeed erode religious freedom, affect parental rights, adversely affect traditional marriage and the status of the traditional family in society?

No problem...we'll just reverse coarse. Unapprove SSM, dissolve those marriages etc. No biggy really.

Oh wait...

No, this is a permanent experiment where getting it wrong will have dire consequences. And its being decided based on a decade's worth of #hashtag trendiness

mhaze wrote: "this is a permanent experiment where getting it wrong will have dire consequences. And its being decided based on a decade's worth of #hashtag trendiness"

No. For same sex couples it is based on a long-suffered injustice, and for other people it is based on respect for the validity of others' wish to end exclusion from marriage.

This SSM is not just allowing same gender persons a legal contract; it is about a whole raft of changes to society, education, business, family and unintended consequences.

Note how Teresa May wants to change the religious culture in some strict Muslim cultures, members of the Empire. Not that I agree with how homosexuals are treated in Islam. But do they have a right to their opinion?

That’s one way of putting it, mhaze.

<<AJP devotes three lengthy posts trying to rationalise the misinterpretation (for whatever reason or lack thereof) of a minor point in my post.>>

Another way of putting it would be to note that I have simply been responding to your rebuttals, only I did it with two posts that last time. You did have a response there in between those last three posts of mine, after all.

But it doesn’t sound as unflattering when one describes the events more accurately now, does it? So, true to form, you re-tell the events of the last 24 hours in way that makes me sound “bonkers”, because you need something to distract from you BS excuse.

If you can’t make me look like some bumbling fool anymore, then just make me look crazy.

<<Then spending who knows how long examining other's post histories ...>>

About 15 minutes. Google is a real time-saver. But, no, let’s make it look like I could have been sitting there for hours, obsessing like a maniac. It’s more slanderous that way.

You still haven’t demonstrated your claim that I had misrepresented you either. You’ve merely asserted it. I, on the other, have explained just how implausible your clumsy excuse was, and now you’re trying to distract from that.

<<nb AJP,not literally crossing!>>

This is an unjustified swipe you’ve taken here. Some people think the way you spoke when you were being prosaic. That you believed what you had literally said would hardly be an unreasonable presumption of me, either, given that you think a god is analogous to dark matter.

<<Meanwhile in the sane adult world my original point remains:>>

Only you changed the first one after the point I had made earlier. So, they’re not all your original points, are they? I’m not sane when it suits you, yet you’re still willing to modify your arguments based on my criticism. Someone’s not being entirely truthful (again).

Either way, your points are irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. So, whether they remain is inconsequential.

//IF the changes do indeed...//

And if they don't?

Well, I guess you'll just have to pretend they do anyway.

//adversely affect traditional marriage and the status of the traditional family in society?//

Oh yes, and how do you imagine that's going to happen?

//Note how Teresa May wants to change the religious culture in some strict Muslim cultures, members of the Empire.//

Note how Teresa May's speech at no point mentioned Muslims; but rather spoke about Commonwealth nations who retain the anti-buggery laws that they inherited from the British before the Empire dissolved - just like Australia did, only we've repealed ours.

You just can't help making things up, can you mate?

//But do they have a right to their opinion?//

Yes. But other nations like Britain have a right to their opinion, and to speak out about human rights abuses.