I've only been skimming the discussion about Safe Schools because it's off topic. But it never ceases to amaze me how often the opponents of same-sex marriage need to divert to it. That in itself speaks volumes.

Philips I did not cherry pick any one article over another in a vane attempt to win a point, I always referred to all the articles as a whole or as one, which is how it was presented. With ALL the different media reports from different journos.

But as you think you've got a winner here, let's take a look at it.

Your attempt to point score on the aids issue is moot. I have NEVER made reference to aids in my posts, but let's move on anyway.

All you have discovered is proof that the federal govt started a anti aids campaign many years ago and as is mentioned in your quote, they just put up another $500,000 to the cause, and why?

Because it is working. 'Aids related deaths/illnesses is on the decline'. Surprise, surprise.

I already knew that, but as you already said what's this have to do with SSM and safe schools?

The next one you quote had better be related to SSM in Massachusetts or else don't bother.

How about picking another one you can't win?

Foxy,

Surely you're not going to leave before you give a reference so that we can find your quote
"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES."?

Before you answer consider that there are 16,655,856 citizens who are eligible to vote and that 61.6% of the population is 14,784,000 then the NO vote should have been smaller than what you have stated:
"38.4% of the Australian population voted NO."

Why are you exaggerating the NO vote?

Maybe not directly, ALTRAV, no.

<<I have NEVER made reference to aids in my posts …>>

But you never mentioned that the ‘Massachusetts’ hyperbole contained some dubious claims. In fact, you presented it as so authoritative that no-one can challenge it.

Furthermore, you have never directly argued a lot of the claims contained within the ‘Massachusetts’ hyperbole. Should I assume that every claim in this collection of lies, misrepresentations, and exaggerations - that you have not argued here yourself - is not something that you claim to be true?

<<All you have discovered is proof that the federal govt started a anti aids campaign many years ago …>>

No, what I HAD discovered (quite a while ago, mind you), is that the claim - that the HIV rate was increasing in Massachusetts - was bogus.

<<... as is mentioned in your quote, they just put up another $500,000 to the cause, and why?>>

Maybe HIV prevention is important to them? I don’t know. What does your presumptuous and conspiratorial mind make of that?

<<I already knew that [HIV infection rates in Massachusetts were on the decline] …>>

Then why promote the ‘Massachusetts’ hyperbole as incontrovertible evidence that same-sex marriage is a bad thing, if you knew it contained at least one error?

<<... but as you already said what's this have to do with SSM and safe schools?>>

No, I haven’t said that. What I noted before was that same-sex marriage and Safe Schools are two different issues.

<<The next one you quote had better be related to SSM in Massachusetts or else don't bother.>>

Erm, the one I quoted was taken directly from the ‘Massachusetts’ hyperbole concerning same-sex marriage:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

You haven’t even read it properly, have you?

<<How about picking another one you can't win?>>

What if I’m not aware of any such claims? I gave you the choice to make it as hard for myself as possible, and you’re still not happy.

Doesn’t sound like you have much confidence in the list of claims anymore. No doubt you’ll still be promoting it, though.

AJ, That the Woman's Weekly can state gender fluidity can happen to women late in life and identify them as lesbian [attracted to the another woman], is part of the Same Sex movement. It is the gender fluidity theory that is part of identity of same sex attraction, and even males becoming females and marrying females that become male, and all other fluid options. You must recognise that there is no gender identity in the new marriage Act. Previously it identified a male and a female, a man and a woman, identified by their genitals not by the new identity of no gender.

You may be right there, Josephus.

<<That the Woman's Weekly can state gender fluidity can happen to women late in life and identify them as lesbian [attracted to the another woman], is part of the Same Sex movement.>>

But that says nothing about whether or not same-sex couples should be treated as equals with regards to marriage. That’s all I’m interested in, and that’s all that should matter.

Outlaw bikie gangs sometimes volunteer at soup kitchens, but that doesn’t make soup kitchens a bad thing. Even if they were the only one’s doing soup kitchens, soup kitchens still wouldn’t be a bad thing.

We don't get to punish an entire group just because an activist group working in their favour might be dodgy.