A big discussion about gay marriage.

1. The second debate (“God is Energy”) proved as successful as the first! Peter and Helmut battled wits (if you don’t mind the hyperbole) and kept the crowd interested the entire time, despite interference from Mirko and Tony. Chairman Steve (no relation to Chairman Mao) restored order.

The winner of the debate is unknown. Indeed, how can we determine the winner in future? Should we give members of the audience rotting tomatoes to throw, and deem the winner to be the speaker receiving the fewer hits? Should we attach a polygraph to each speaker, with the winner being the one telling the fewer fibs? Should we find Sydney’s village idiot to decide which speaker makes the most sense, and award the other speaker? Let this scribe know your thoughts on the matter.

2. The question is prompted: Who is Sydney’s Village Idiot? It can’t be Tony or Mirko, because they’re not smart enough. Should we find the Village Idiot and bring him/her to Speakers’ Corner, to give the hecklers something to aspire to?

And, he/she could translate for Jovo.

3. Helmut has challenged Peter to a third debate this coming Sunday. The topic: ‘Science is primarily metaphysics’. Helmut will state the affirmative. Steve has agreed to chair the debate again, which will begin at precisely 2.25pm. Sharp.

4. Albert is trying to persuade the speakers to join the Secular Party. The party’s aim: to change the world. That’s a good aim, but we don’t fancy his chances. Asking the speakers to unite and reach a consensus would be like asking the Keystone Cops to create a Think Tank.

5. A touch of irony. Mr B had only just finished explaining why we should repeal the sexual harassment laws when smooth talking 92 year-old Arthur propositioned a woman standing by. She and her husband took Arthur’s advances in their stride, but if Arthur keeps this up, will he get to 93?
Honestly, is Speakers’ Corner some sort of psychic magnet for idiots?

6. The Irish voted to support gay marriage, prompting a heckler to claim that the Irish would wake up tomorrow with a ‘moral hangover’. Those words were challenged by the shy Mr B, a lesbian teen and a gay man. A Christian joined in, as did Andrew Toth, and pretty soon a crowd of thirty were discussing the matter heatedly. It is fair to say the speaker, Mr B, became secondary. He resorted to pretending he was the moderator, but fooled no one. It was an entertaining hour and one well spent.

Anti-gay laws