First Australian gay couples to legally marry

Dec 5, 2013 Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion 1,728

A state lawmaker and his partner plan to fly 3,500 kilometers across Australia to become one of the nation's first same-sex couples to legally marry at an after-midnight ceremony in the Australian capital.

Full Story
Theodore Carter Buchanon

Auckland, New Zealand

#220 Dec 9, 2013
i bet Queenie aka Adelaidean was happy as Larry to finally be able to Marry Larry

LMAO

Australia - the new Gay capital of the world

fairies who watch footy can finally get married lol

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221 Dec 9, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I've watched you argue every which way to justify the stance of yourself and other on this issue.
All your wide ranging sophistry distills down to one, and only one, underlying assumption which can be summed up thus:
"It is not harming anyone else ... therefore no one has reason to oppose".
Allowing for the possibility that it might not be quite that simple .....
1. Define "harm".
2. Define effects on social fabric for future generations.
3. Define effects on family values in the future.
4. Define measures would you consider justifiable in the event that this experiment might be found to fall short of hopes held for it by some advocates.
Don't expect me personally to debate these points with you. I've made my position clear on that before. Instead I throw in the above four suggestions as invitation to debate by others more committed to this and associated threads.
BTW, my 'captcha' this time was "snowball fight".:)
Those are positive assertions that must be supported by those who make the assertion.

In Law, that's how the Onus Probandi (semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit) works.

Positing that I must refute your unsupported assertion by defending and supporting it's negative, you are committing the fallacy "Argumentum ad Ignorantium".

A study of the Formal and Informal Fallacies would be instructive.

In the meantime, it might be helpful that I speak as an American. Our Laws and Judicial Rules are quite clear on the matter: Any abridgement of Rights and Freedoms must be justified by a clear and rational demonstration of overriding necessity for such a violation of private autonomy. While there are those among our population who do not grasp this centuries-old principle, it exists, carved into the foundations of our Nation.

To reduce it to colloquial usage, "You'd better have a damn good reason to tell me I can't so whatever I want to."

Speculative imagined outcomes or consequences don't meet the requirements for Admissable Evidence.

One might try to suggest that this isn't a Court argument, and that would be partly correct. One might also expect that the legislators writing the Laws that the Courts must enforce would understand that what they enact must conform to rational legal concepts.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#222 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lot are the sick little bunch that are always whining about your rights and how you're always being discriminated against, there's a name for that by the way, it's HETEROPHOBIA. There is a fix however, get back into the closet where you belong.
I hope you see the irony in your statement.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#223 Dec 9, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are positive assertions that must be supported by those who make the assertion.
In Law, that's how the Onus Probandi (semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit) works.
You disappoint me. You fell at the first hurdle.

Define 'assertions'.

Reconcile an honest definition of 'assertion' with the nature of my motives spelled out unequivocally further down my previous post.

Also, should anyone be blown away by your esoteric 'Legalese'?

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#224 Dec 9, 2013
Ozzie wrote:
<quoted text>If my dog started doing that I'd chop its' balls off.
And that would change what?

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#225 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lot are the sick little bunch that are always whining about your rights and how you're always being discriminated against, there's a name for that by the way, it's HETEROPHOBIA. There is a fix however, get back into the closet where you belong.
Sorry Papi, ain't going to happen. Got any more fantasy wishes?

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#226 Dec 9, 2013
Ozzie wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe. But at least we don't lick arses.
Sure you do, you just don't know about it.

“Religion kills”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#227 Dec 9, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you see the irony in your statement.
Lowlife would need a brain for that.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#230 Dec 9, 2013
Ozzie wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe. But at least we don't lick arses.
Sure...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#231 Dec 9, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
You disappoint me. You fell at the first hurdle.
Define 'assertions'.
Reconcile an honest definition of 'assertion' with the nature of my motives spelled out unequivocally further down my previous post.
Also, should anyone be blown away by your esoteric 'Legalese'?
Not "esoteric". Basic.

Your "motives" are the subject of speculation at this point.

The fallacies to which your post is subject are not.

Here. Get started. It shouldn't take long to get these memorized. I imagine that you've got more product jingles knocking around in your head than there are items on this basic list:

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

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#232 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
All you aids carriers have flocked to this post like flies to shit, there's too many of you to each receive an answer. Let me just say that you are all the most disgusting form of life that has ever existed on this planet and the sooner you all die of aids or some other related disease the better.
This ridiculous new law will be struck out very shortly and rightly so, you really are all a sad digusting little minority.
You are so naive, gay marriage is only the end result to fairness and equality to a group that have existed in our society since the beginning of time. So called heterosexual male would have sex with one another so they could stay in on the hunt for food and not waste time going back to the cave because of their want for sex, if they didn't do this they would have all starved to death, ever noticed in prisons why men make other men their bitches.....so I wouldn't criticise people who are born homosexual, they are by far the most honest and decent about their sexuality and preference....Hetro males have been know to have sex with their animals....they can be rather sick bastards.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#234 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
A Homo I think we are starting to now see the real you, you have always had weird ideas on EVERYTHING, this latest'post' of yours clinches it.
And you actually think it would bother me to have you think I am gay? LOL....this is just because you have a want to use the false idea that those who are homosexual are inferior when it is you that comes accross as both weak and inferior. There is never anthing wrong with anyone on this planet wanting to be who they are, nor is there anything wrong with wanting justice, The problem only exists with sick bastards like you trying to make people feel less than the slithering creep you turned into ( if that is even possible?) It is you and those like you who are frightened of your own sexuality, which clearly says more about you, than those seeking to be free of your ignorant bigotry.:)
Gay marriage will become a reality across this country so you best get used to it or go and find a country more suited to your lack of vision....and it should never need vision to implement what is right, it should be accepted without dispute in a humane and caring society of total inclusion.
Ebony

Sydney, Australia

#235 Dec 9, 2013
What a beautiful moment.
I could not be happier.
My husband & I wish all those couple the best of luck for the future <3

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#239 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
A Homo I think we are starting to now see the real you, you have always had weird ideas on EVERYTHING, this latest'post' of yours clinches it.
It's quite obvious you've never spent any long naval journies. Your nothing more than a retrograde hater. Thankfully youre nearer the casket than the cradle

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#240 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ahead and make yourself a bigger laughing stock than you already are, everyone on this forum thinks you are a complete idiot and now you have jumped in at the deep end only to find you can't swim, gurgle, gurgle!
Pot

Kettle

Black

You lose honey. Go put another beer on the barbie. It's obvious that's where you keep yours.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#241 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
Here you go A Homo, maybe you missed this, this is a classic example of what you are promoting, good luck with that!
http://www.news.com.au/world/australian-pedop...
See for all your slagging off at others it is you with the problem and are the one being laughed at, you are so blindly sick that you need help if you have no idea of how stupid you just made yourself appear.
Kevin Bloody Wilson

Perth, Australia

#242 Dec 9, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
See for all your slagging off at others it is you with the problem and are the one being laughed at, you are so blindly sick that you need help if you have no idea of how stupid you just made yourself appear.
Hey Homo Annie! You'd know all about being a slag. You should open up your place as a centre for homeless poofs. Who knows? You might even get them to do your dishes!

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#243 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
Here you go A Homo, maybe you missed this, this is a classic example of what you are promoting, good luck with that!
http://www.news.com.au/world/australian-pedop...
The article had nothing to do with homosexuals. The men involved aren't homosexuals, they had sex with prepubescent children. They are pedophiles, big difference.

Go spread your crap to folks stupid enough to buy into it, like yourself

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Gosford, Australia

#244 Dec 9, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "esoteric". Basic.
Not "basic". Esoteric.

"[ es·o·ter·ic [es-uh-ter-ik]
adjective
1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions.
2. belonging to the select few.
3. private; secret; confidential.
4.(of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group: the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras.]"
http://tinyurl.com/l9b7sbt

When you scuttle for refuge behind such grandiose spoutings as ....

"In Law, that's how the Onus Probandi (semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit) works."

and for good measure ....

"Argumentum ad Ignorantium"......

.... you loftily require that the average layman should have to undergo a crash course in Latin in order to understand you. May it please the Court I put it to my learned colleague that they should not.
snyper wrote:
Your "motives" are the subject of speculation at this point.
No need to speculate. My motives could not have been spelled out more plainly. I refer you again to them ....
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
Don't expect me personally to debate these points with you. I've made my position clear on that before. Instead I throw in the above four suggestions as invitation to debate by others more committed to this and associated threads."
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/TM...
snyper wrote:
The fallacies to which your post is subject are not.
In whose biased opinion ... yours? That is to be expected.

Next I suppose you'll be telling me that I am the first to cut though all the rainbow posturing to zero in on core issues that you don't like scrutinized too closely for comfort. You find the fact that I openly invite others to do so 'unwelcome'.
snyper wrote:
Here. Get started. It shouldn't take long to get these memorized.
Here. Get started. It shouldn't take long to get these memorized.

1. Define "harm".

2. Define effects on social fabric for future generations.

3. Define effects on family values in the future.

4. Define measures would you consider justifiable in the event that this experiment might be found to fall short of hopes held for it by some advocates.
snyper wrote:
I imagine that you've got more product jingles knocking around in your head than there are items on this basic list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacie...
You wish.:)

Been there, done that, got the tea towel. Many times over.

Here's a radical idea ... how about you lead debate on the 4 questions I've raised above, or at least try not to redirect from them. To use your word, they are "basic" to the theme under discussion.

:)

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#248 Dec 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
You've missed one very important point here you moron, and that is you are dealing with a collection of raving aids carrying f*ggots, ANYTHING they have to say is irrelevant.
you are definately one of those that believes in free speech and liberty eh!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceania Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Australia shuts door on asylum-seekers in Indon... 23 min The ADELAIDEAN 175
LDS Apostle visited Tonga (Feb '14) 1 hr raider4life 23,557
Sri Lanka arrests 37 asylum seekers sent back b... 2 hr Ivory Space 1
Pig's Mutilated Carcass Scattered Outside Austr... 2 hr Ivory Space 32
Murder, we watched: Courts headed for TV 4 hr tom_ 1
Australia out of step with new climate momentum 14 hr animals against i... 1
China Flights From New Zealand Set To Double: G... 19 hr Key Watcher 17

Oceania People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE