We are living in an age where the belief is because of evolution theory, gender is fluid, and by thought and chopping off appendages we can finally remove gender. That men have become dominant and aggressive because we kill and eat meat, that by eating fruit and vegetables we will become sublime. It all springs from wrong views of reality, that it is all fluid and changing. That those that cling to the past realities are primitive and out of touch, that the progressives will prevail, and shame from peers will change their minds. The removal of freedom of ideas from the past are outdated, to be removed from teaching in schools and universities. That way they believe we will evolve. They believe in the Brave New World of Huxley. The second class citizens are those that hold to the past reality. that believe procreation was naturally to happen between a man and a woman, and not two men or two woman. Shame and name calling they believe will change their reality beliefs.

ALTRAV,

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

Could you clarify a point, which part of the past do you mean?

Sometimes the past was very tolerant or the question never arose; an interesting place, the past.

No, ALTRAV, that's not what I said.

<<Well that is what you said? Right?>>

That people who support same-sex marriage are “mindless followers unable to think for themselves” is something you implied.

<<Again I didn't say that, you did.>>

No, I never said that you had said that. You did imply it, however. You need to lean the difference between a direct claim and an implication.

It was a joke anyway.

<<[Being a freak of nature] has nothing to do with opinions but everything to do with actually being a freak of nature.>>

So, if we're not freaks of nature because of our opinions, then on what do you base this accusation?

<<If you don't want to see the proof when it has been presented in many posts …>>

Proof of what? You still haven't explained why myself and others are freaks of nature. All we have done here is express opinions, but you say our opinions are not what make us freaks.

<<As for 116, you choose to ignore the fact that I made it clear at the time of first posting ...>>

No, you simply asserted that same-sex marriage breached s 116 of the Constitution. I realised that (eventually) you ended up talking about discrimination law, but that’s entirely different to same-sex marriage itself being unconstitutional. Unfortunately, you gave up before I could get you to acknowledge the difference. Perhaps I should spoon-feed this stuff to you more in the future?

<<Tradition is a fallacy to you because it represents the past.>>

No, tradition is not a fallacy, and appealing to tradition is not a fallacy simply because tradition represents the past, either. Nor does this have anything to do with my personal opinion. The link I provide makes no mention of me.

You're really struggling with this, aren't you?

<<Oh how convenient for you to forget [about equality].>>

You weren't taking about same-sex marriage there. You were talking about changing minds. So, again, what does being equals have to do with changing minds?

Continued...

...Continued

<<The wrong doing I speak of is the vote for starters …>>

I thought you guys were all for the vote. Why the change of heart? Because you lost?

<<... and then a gutless govt compounds the problem by passing the SSM rubbish.>>

How is that a problem?

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

Pretty much all of them, and I reveal the fact by asking questions that I know you will need to duck and weave, and instead resort to ad hominem (there's another fallacy there for you), or simply by explaining why.

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

No, only when absurd claims are made with no evidence. And, no, it doesn't necessarily make me right. But when you make a claim, you bear a burden of proof.

AJ still deflecting?. There is no point in conversing with you if think you are always right.

Dear AJ,

I admire your patience and tenacity.

David Marr points out that "We should not have had to
go through the same-sex marriage vote. But the result
is clear. The doomsayers are defeated and they don't
speak for Australia. YES: 61.6%.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/15/ive-fallen-in-love-with-my-country-all-over-again-same-sex-marriage-david-marr