Spearthrower wrote:Lion's bullying of others who don't share the same proclivities is a direct product of his nasty, selfish, and outdated religious beliefs.

Sorry, I have to disagree with that...

I'm not sure it's the religious beliefs which are selfish and nasty.

OlivierK wrote:Of course, as the Marriage Act isn't part of the Constitution, we can't actually have a referendum on the matter. But you knew that Lion, I'm sure.

No wonder you didnt understand the legal arguments I was making
in the debate.

LOL
(Ask any year 11 legal studies student)

The Australian Constitution wrote:
Section 51
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power* to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(xxi) Marriage:

What on earth do you think the Federal Parliament was doing debating gay marriage if they had no constitutional authority?

He didn't say the government couldn't make laws about marriage he said we couldn't have a referendum about it. You know a referendum that thing were we all go and vote on an issue rather then allow the government to decide on it on their own. Kinda a difference there, I don't know if we are or aren't allowed to have one about this issue but your post was about something different then his.

Lion IRC wrote:WOW!
I guess I owe a reply/explanation to a few people here after reading some of the comments.....

…a disjointed, rambling, series of one line statements that don't connect to each other

…I find trying to make sense of the disjointed, oddly styled posts made by Lion very taxing.

…Many words, nothing much of substance

…I understand the words, but when they're put in that order they don't make any sense.

…I can't seem to see where he is coming from or going to, It seems Lion doesn't know either.

…what's the policy on participants writing their submissions while on mind-altering drugs?

…watching Lion self immolate

…I think I'd find a more coherent and relevant contribution to the gay marriage issue if I started reading tea leaves than I'd get from that abortion of a post.

…Too much distracting rubbish, mistakes, and an impenetrable writing style

…a packet of washing detergent

…His biology babble

…looks like meaningless gobbledygook

…He still managed to confuse, obfuscate and evade.

…disjointed word salad

…Lion's incomprehensible rantings

…deliberately obtuse and hard to read

…Lion's posts were increasingly absurd but when given a single topic, the posts became pure nonsense

…chimps with typewriters

…Lion manages train wreck upon train wreck

… can't follow what Lion's even trying to say, let alone what he's actually saying

…can't discern whether Lion is serious or he's just trolling us.

…a jumble of mismatched examples and statistics

I just gotta work out how to say it in language everybody will understand.

I wonder how many other people lack familiarity with the complexities of family law.

Lion IRC wrote:Yes, folk watching the ABC would have got a double-dose last night.

Gruen and Chaser both heavy hitters for team "Gay Marriage" in their latest episodes.

Rather than "batting for a team", I think they just find much more humor in the anti-SSM activists. It's so easy, they just need to find a church leader or parliamentarian who uses the bible to justify their opposition to changing the marriage act, AND PROCEED TO READ THE BIBLE TO THEM. Then you have footage worthy of prime time comedy.

Cognitive dissonance is funny. The church should get used to this trend of being made fun of on national TV. (or stop trying to influence public policy with bad logic)

Lion IRC wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Of course, as the Marriage Act isn't part of the Constitution, we can't actually have a referendum on the matter. But you knew that Lion, I'm sure.

No wonder you didnt understand the legal arguments I was making
in the debate.

LOL
(Ask any year 11 legal studies student)

The Australian Constitution wrote:
Section 51
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power* to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(xxi) Marriage:

As has already been pointed out to you, that clause verifies that the job of making marriage law lies with the Parliament.

Lion IRC wrote:What on earth do you think the Federal Parliament was doing debating gay marriage if they had no constitutional authority?

Why on earth do you think that referendums can be held on any subject other than changes to the constitution?

That's the problem with posting smug, condescending shit about this stuff being basic high school legal studies knowledge, Lion. When you do that, and in the rest of the post make simple schoolboy errors, then the shit you wrote looks twice as imbecilic.

My posts aren't overly personal.

And anyone who disagrees can send me an email explaining their objection. Then I'll track down their IP address and threaten their extended family on facebook.



/sarcasm

CookieJon wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:NOPE.
Too late.
You already posted it.
1 post by me to which 20 or 30 people reply gets the post count up but its not MY fixation driving the post count up.

...

Tell you what though, Lion...

You find me one thread on this forum about homosexuality which you've been able to resist, or show me where you've thrown yourself passionately into a formal debate about a topic other than your gay hobbyhorse, and I'll retract my observation about your obsession with it.

Until then, your fixation on all things gay speaks for itself.

I found tons of homosexualty threads I had never even seen before.

Lion IRC wrote:I found tons of homosexualty threads I had never even seen before.

Ah great, you're back. So, how about that evidence we were talking about? Found any yet?

Lion IRC wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:NOPE.
Too late.
You already posted it.
1 post by me to which 20 or 30 people reply gets the post count up but its not MY fixation driving the post count up.

...

Tell you what though, Lion...

You find me one thread on this forum about homosexuality which you've been able to resist, or show me where you've thrown yourself passionately into a formal debate about a topic other than your gay hobbyhorse, and I'll retract my observation about your obsession with it.

Until then, your fixation on all things gay speaks for itself.

I found tons of homosexualty threads I had never even seen before.

I haven't commented on the threads that I've never seen before either. Funny that.