Josephus,

That’s a rather specific claim you've made there.

<<… Yes voters are celebrating they have achieved their goals to divide our society on historical cultural grounds.>>

Not only do you presume that the ‘Yes’ voters have the goal of dividing society, but this alleged attempt at division was allegedly done, specifically, on the grounds of history and culture.

Sheesh, good luck in presenting data for that one!

<<No voters do not deny Homosexuals right to love, take a partner and care for them for life.>>

Well, most don’t, at least. But you DO all want to deny them the same legal protections as heterosexual couples, and therein lies the problem.

--

ALTRAV,

There you go. There's your response. Once again, Josephus was on to precisely nothing.

Philips, there is no problem you have answered your own question.

Yes we do want to deny them the same legal protections as heterosexual couples.

Seems fair enough, due to the fact they are not the same as heterosexual couples.

DUH! We all could have saved a lot of time and money had the YES camp realised this in the beginning.

Equality, yeah right. What blind arrogance.(look it up)

So, we agree on that much, ALTRAV.

<<Yes we do want to deny them the same legal protections as heterosexual couples.>>

Some cloak this desire by conning themselves into thinking that de facto relationships have the same rights and protections. They don’t.

<<Seems fair enough, due to the fact they are not the same as heterosexual couples.>>

So, what is it about the differences between the two kinds of relationships that logically require society to treat gay couples as second-class citizens then?

<<DUH! We all could have saved a lot of time and money had the YES camp realised this in the beginning.>>

DUH! You haven’t yet explained the rationale behind your claim.

<<Equality, yeah right. What blind arrogance.(look it up)>>

Why are they not deserving of equal treatment? And why is the belief that they are deserving of equal treatment “blind arrogance”.

You really haven’t thought this through, have you ALTRAV?

Philips, I have thought it through all my life.

Firstly I am under no contract to explain to you or anyone else my reasons for what is the belief of a great number of people.

It follows that the reasoning you give, you promote as being the correct one. Well a large section of the population happen to disagree. That is their right.

You and your lot simply have to accept that there are a large number of people out there who disagree with you. We don't have an explanation that you will accept, so we choose not to go over it once more.

You seem to put a lot of weight on proof. So much of your proof is open to question. Proof and truth are not the same, as you yourself have suggested. Research tells us that there are more than one answer to a situation, and at times they are contradictory.

So I form opinions based on 'best guess' reasoning, and sometimes I just don't like something.

That is my right as an individual.

ALTRAV, Philips and Foxy cannot accept gender and genitals are the same descriptors, that genitals = sex or reproductive descriptors; and gender is a theory based on historical masculine of female behaviours. They cannot accept LGBTQQS, and genital transitions are related to Same Sex attraction, when they claim aged women can have gender transitioning when they mean same sex [genitals] attraction. The fact is our argument is based in factual biological reproductive science while their argument is based on emotional bonding, and gender insecurity. They support the need to change biological reality by chemicals and surgery to suit their definition of gender. The two shall never agree!

Issy, the folly of war, and the actions of fools, go hand in hand!