Josephus, there is no pressure on you to change your bigoted homophobic attitude, As far as I am concerned you are welcome to it. I don't know why gay people would want the approval of a bigoted homophobe anyway, no more than you should seek my approval of your perverted Christian practices. If you are into self flagellation on Sunday mornings, don't let me stop you.

AJ,

“biological sexual reality”

A genetic disposition to a sexual identity.

No choice in the matter.

Interesting, Is Mise.

That's not what I got from Josephus’s strange choice of words.

<<A genetic disposition to a sexual identity.>>

And after Josephus’s last post, I don't think that's what he meant either. He seems to be confusing 'reality' with 'normal' by contrasting it with deviation.

<<No choice in the matter.>>

Well, I'm glad we agree on that much at least.

Guys don't bother with Paul and his followers.

They are never going to see that they are freaks of nature and are fighting as hard as possible to negate anything we say to his and his mates detriment.

I'll still keep jousting with them because I can see that as long as we keep our long standing values we will always be one up on them.

What they don't realise is, why bother refuting what we say?

If you truly believe to be our equals then why do you care?

Why all this angry offensive language and behaviour.

You got your precious SSM bullshite, that's it, you should have nothing more to say on the topic.

We on the other hand have been short changed and have every right to rectify this wrong, given the opportunity.

And that is the thrust of our position.

So unless you YES clowns want to assist us in our quest for justice, don't bother responding to our posts, your comments are of no use.

That's a nice touch, ALTRAV, I like that.

<<... don't bother with Paul and his followers.>>

Make those in favour of same-sex marriage sound like mindless followers unable to think for themselves. That's the angle of approach ttbn took when he was finally forced to concede that he was in the minority.

Why does Paul get to be leader, by the way?

<<They are never going to see that they are freaks of nature …>>

So, because I hold a different opinion to you, I'm a freak of nature? How do you figure that? Your logic sounds flawed.

<<I'll still keep jousting with them …>>

Until you're cornered, that is, then you'll run off to another thread and repeat the same bogus claims there instead. Just like you had to with s 116 of the Constitution and your fallacies.

<<... because I can see that as long as we keep our long standing values we will always be one up on them.>>

Why? Because they're “long standing”? That would be the Appeal to Tradition fallacy again. Do you not learn?

<<What they don't realise is, why bother refuting what we say?>>

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because some fence-sitting onlooker may change their mind? Don't worry, I'm not giving you enough credit to think that you'll change your mind.

<<If you truly believe to be our equals then why do you care?>>

What does being equals have to do with anything?

<<Why all this angry offensive language and behaviour.>>

Such as?

<<... you should have nothing more to say on the topic.>>

We can still rebut absurd claims.

<<We on the other hand have been short changed and have every right to rectify this wrong, given the opportunity.>>

You have not yet demonstrated that any wrong has occurred. Let alone that you have been short-changed on anything.

<<... don't bother responding to our posts, your comments are of no use>>

Oh, I will. Of that I can assure you. For so long as you post demonstrably false and absurd claims, I'll be responding.

AJ, Now let's see; 'Make those in favour of SSM sound like mindless followers unable to think for themselves'.

Now your finally getting it. Well that is what you said? Right?

'Why does Paul get to be leader by the way'.

Again I didn't say that, you did. Do you have secret ambitions to lead the queers? Paul will be disappointed.

As for being a freak of nature, no it has nothing to do with opinions but everything to do with actually being a freak of nature.

You want proof? If you don't want to see the proof when it has been presented in many posts, then it is you who don't want to see the proof.

As for 116, you choose to ignore the fact that I made it clear at the time of first posting, that I did not believe the govt did not allow for this in the SSM law, as I had, and still have not, seen the actual final wording.

So again you jump into quicksand. Don't believe me go back and look it up. There's the proof you so crave.

Tradition is a fallacy to you because it represents the past. You don't like the past because it was intolerant of queers.

Again you show how full of yourself you are. And again I will direct you to previous posts where I made it clear not to waste our time because the YES camp was not going to change it's mind.

'What does equals have to do with anything'?

Oh how convenient for you to forget. If I had to hear the crap about equality, marriage equality, one more time? It was the YES camp mantra. Oh now you remember.

The wrong doing I speak of is the vote for starters and then a gutless govt compounds the problem by passing the SSM rubbish.

If you decide to respond I want to see which of my claims are false and absurd.

I believe you are guilty of worse by indiscriminately throwing accusations of 'no proof' as if that automatically makes you right.