AJ, You are ignorant of the agenda to remove gender from a persons identity, as gender stereotypes people into roles of maleness or femaleness and the very identity of maleness or femaleness identifies genitals. Where SSM has become law their gender / genitals is irrelevant it is how the person themselves wishes to be identified. Canada does not identify a child's gender till they are seven years, and they do not have a mother and father as that identifies genitals, they have parents who can be of any genital composition and more than two. Doing family tree becomes a headache.

Josephus, I wouldn't bother, Philips is a lost cause. I think he stands in front of the mirror all day and argues with himself going around and around in circles.

Philips, I think your over qualified for us mere mortals. I just read your link and it seems very similar or is the article I have been referring to.

This article strengthens MY case and destroys yours. So why do you bring it up? It condemns the SSM movement and all it stands for and highlights the damage it has unleashed on the state of Massachusetts.

Are you now saying you agree with us on the SSM being bad for society as a whole?

As for choosing another quote from the article. I choose the lot.
This article is genuine because otherwise someone would have mounted a legal challenge against it and it would not be available for all to see.

Did you think you had discovered something that the rest of the world didn't see. If any of this article is not true, smarter men than you would have had it shredded by now.

Sorry, you have finally met your match.

I'd like to get on with another discussion but their all pretty mundane and boring.

C'mon guys think up some new and controversial topic.

I shall be looking at the list with bated breath.

Josephus,

I’m sceptical of a lot of your claims (heck, sometimes you just plain make them up). I’d ask you for evidence of your most recent claims, but, for the reasons I pointed out in my last post to you, they’re irrelevant anyway. If you don’t like those things, then fight against them, but that doesn’t give you the right to treat gay people as second-class citizens.

--

ALTRAV,

What can I say? Wow! Go back and read my last post to you again. And carefully this time.

<<I just read your link and it seems very similar or is the article I have been referring to.>>

It IS the link you’ve been referring to! That’s precisely WHY I linked to it. You’re not following any of this, are you? Is there something I should know about? I’m wasting my time here, aren’t I?

<<Are you now saying you agree with us on the SSM being bad for society as a whole?>>

No, I linked to it to show you that that is where the HIV claim, which I quoted, came from; because you alleged that it was irrelevant to the ‘Massachusetts’ hyperbole you’ve been promoting.

<<As for choosing another quote from the article. I choose the lot.>>

Even the one I discredited? But you just agreed that the claim was false! Now you stand by it?

This is the Gish Gallop fallacy, by the way. I mean, I can only address so much here. Which is why I asked you to select one of the claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

<<This article is genuine because otherwise someone would have mounted a legal challenge against it and it would not be available for all to see.>>

That’s ridiculous reasoning. Why would anyone bother to challenge a dodgy website, from a dodgy organisation, in court? I can use Google to disprove most of it, for crying out loud.

<<Sorry, you have finally met your match.>>

Yet you’re not willing to test that. Go on, ALTRAV. Pick one. It’ll be fun!

Philips, now I'm a little worried for you and your mental health. Are you OK? I ask because I went back to read your link once more and I find it's still a damning document for the SSM cause.

To humour you and try to understand what is going on I have chosen the very topic you just selected yourself.

The second paragraph is the complete opposite to what you just tried to convince me of. Again, are you OK?

I can't trust you to read it so I had better lay it out and that will be the end of it.

Under the heading of Public Health;

Since homosexual marriage became 'legal' the rates of HIV/AIDS have gone UP CONSIDERABLY in Massachusetts.This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group 'mass equality' wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections RISING DRAMATICALLY in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is FAR FROM OVER".

It appears amidst all this to-ing and fro-ing of facts I have agreed to the wrong posting on aids. As I said 'I have not mentioned aids before now'. You have. I stand my my original comments on the article in question.

I don't know how you can deny the determination of the topic. It was written as a follow up story of facts about the ramifications of SSM and it's destructive influence on the people in the wider community.

The fact that you don't like what it says is 'too bad', as your SSM chums were quick to tell concerned parents when they questioned the school about teaching poofterism.

I tell you what you don't have to accept that SSM is a bad thing, it's law now, and when I get to see the final wording I and others will begin the process of disseminating and better understanding of it so we can begin the process of changing it so it will be a more equitable impost on the people as a whole.

AJ, You claim gender theory is irrelevant. "I’d ask you for evidence of your most recent claims, but, for the reasons I pointed out in my last post to you, they’re irrelevant anyway". https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-canada-passes-radical-law-forcing-gender-theory-acceptance http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/ https://www.dailywire.com/news/17756/orwellian-canadians-can-now-be-fined-or-jailed-amanda-prestigiacomo It is now a criminal offense and Hate speech to use the wrong pronouns to identify gender

ALTRAV ,

Of course you think it’s damning.

<<… I went back to read your link once more and I find it's still a damning document for the SSM cause.>>

For the second time now, it’s the ‘Massachusetts’ thing you’ve been going on about. That’s WHY I linked to it.

<<The second paragraph is the complete opposite to what you just tried to convince me of.>>

Of course it is. That’s because I was explaining to you that the claim regarding HIV rates is false.

<<It appears amidst all this to-ing and fro-ing of facts I have agreed to the wrong posting on aids.>>

You mean the government link citing the actual statistics showing the rate of HIV infections in decline? Do you have evidence against that, or are you just going to believe the dubious claims with no actual statistical data, from the ‘Massachusetts’ hyperbole, because that’s what you want to believe?

<<The fact that you don't like what it says is 'too bad' …>>

Once again, it’s not about what I do and do not like. I am simply pointing out that their claims are lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations. You apparently are doing everything in your power to avoid testing this.

You have no idea what’s going on here, do you? Are you just playing dumb in an attempt to frustrate me, or something? We have people on OLO in the early stages of dementia who are capable of following discussions better than you. It’s clear I’m wasting my time here.

--

Josephus,

Yes, all the paranoid rubbish you’re going on about is irrelevant. And, again, for the reason I stated earlier. I’ve already seen those dodgy web pages you’ve linked me to. I haven’t bothered to check their claims yet, but I’m sure they’re as dodgy as the ‘Massachusetts’ list of claims ALTRAV is going on about. Again, though, they’re irrelevant. If you don’t like those changes, then make sure they don’t happen here. But blocking same-sex marriage does not guarantee that they won’t happen and vice-versa.