<<There can be no reasonable discussion on ssm when one party adopts such an illogical and unsubstantiated position>>
There can be no discussion at all when you fail to meaningfully address any points raised by anyone else.

One final question:
Can you publicly and honestly state that, everything else being equal, you believe that a child's interests are equally well-served whether that child is raised by its mother and father or whether that child is raised by two homosexual men?

"Yes nice people commit sodomy but nice people also fiddle with kids. This is not about being 'nice' people or not."
-runner

You believe pedophiles are 'nice people'? Dude, that's pretty fcuked up.

"This is about giving children a fair go rather than brainwashing them with the 'gay' agenda."
-runner

WTF? Exercise for the reader: propose a plausible causal mechanism by which legalising gay marriage leads to the brainwashing (the forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs) of children.

"It won't be our culture anymore, it will be "gay culture"."
-Proxy

ROFLMAO. Gosh, how I love your paranoia, Proxy. Giving equality to minority groups does not lead to a tyranny of the minority. If you're lucky, it might put a dent or two in the tyranny of the majority, by no means a bad thing (unless you support tyranny, of course).

When we decided to include Aboriginals in the census, did Australia transform magically over night into an Aboriginal culture? No, it stayed Western. When we gave women the vote, our culture magically transform from being male to female dominated? Well, no. So why on Earth do you think letting gays marry will magically transform our culture into something else? Is homosexuality the exception that proves the rule?

"Sexual behaviour is mutable.
Just check the ex-gay web-sites."
-Proxy

We've been over this already, champ. But you seem to be hard-of-thinking, so maybe I should spell it out for you.

YOU CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET, no matter how credible some websites might appear (well, I suppose you can, but it'll leave you looking a right pillock). One of the funniest websites I've been to, Truthism, (www.truthism.com), claims that the sun is not spherical, but rather a cube. It's just that it spins so fast that it looks like a cube. Which is obviously complete bloody nonsense - there is no evidence that says that the sun is cubical, and a truckload that says it is a sphere.
To be continued...

...continued
But if you really believe that assertions made by random strangers on the internet meet the same standard of proof as solid evidence, then you should a) check out Truthism - it'll blow your tiny mind and b) take into account my contradictory assertion that sexuality is not mutable, 'coz I've tried and failed.

Or is it only assertions that concur with your pre-conceived notions that meet the same standard of proof as solid evidence, whilst contradictory assertions may be dismissed out-of-hand as 'progressive propaganda'?

"I note she doesn't ever explain to us how anal sex is healthy, in fact - the very thing that defines homosexuality she avoids mentioning."
-ReasonM_123

Homsexuality is not defined by or as anal sex. Look it up in dictionary - if it says 'homosexuality: 1. Anal sex', I'll eat my left arm. And I'm pretty sure that about half the homosexual population has very, very litle anal sex - the lesbian half.

"The point is that any argument homosexual activists make can be equally applied to incestuous couples and polyamorous groups."
-Proxy

Abject nonsense. This statement would only be true if incestuous relationships and polyamorous groups were equivalent to homosexual relationships. They're not; the only person who honestly seems to believe they are is you, Proxy; and thus far, you have completely failed to establish why anybody other than yourself should regard them as equivalent.

"You have absolutely no right to exclude anyone from marrying
when you are demanding the "right" for anyone to marry."
-Proxy

The only person demanding the right for anyone to marry is you, Proxy. The rest of us are arguing for the rights of gay adults to marry - a whole different kettle of fish.

"Can you publicly and honestly state that, everything else being equal, you believe that a child's interests are equally well-served whether that child is raised by its mother and father or whether that child is raised by two homosexual men?"
-Proxy

Yes.

Proxy - the argument had become repetitive, which is a sign that it is over.

However, consider the following.

Any arguments about polygamous marriage will be numerical arguments, based on whether or not a man or a woman can legally marry more than one spouse.

The arguments about incestuous marriage will be based around the advisability of people marrying their blood relatives.

The arguments about ssm are based on the gender of the couple concerned.

Does this demonstrate why the three arguments have nothing to do with one another?

You ask me: "Can you publicly and honestly state that, everything else being equal, you believe that a child's interests are equally well-served whether that child is raised by its mother and father or whether that child is raised by two homosexual men?"

What do you mean by "everything else being equal," and how do you make everything else, whatever that might be, equal?

Without knowing your answer to those questions, my view is that it is impossible to honestly answer your question. There is no blanket answer.

Children raised by their mothers and fathers can suffer unspeakably, as we well know. Having a mother and father does not guarantee safety, security and happiness, unfortunately.

While I know homosexual couples, I don't know a couple who are raising a child. It's probably too soon for there to have been any in depth studies of children raised by gay men.

As for the men I know, I would have been extremely grateful for them to take over the raising of my sons, had that ever become necessary.

This is because they are human beings I respect and love, and their sexual preference does not affect my feelings for them. I can't see why it should.

The focus on anal sex in these posts is weird. This is just as much a heterosexual practice.

The case for same-sex marriage is a case for equality. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason the polygamy and incest slippery-slope furphies are irrelevant here is because they are essentially unequal.

>> Any arguments about polygamous marriage will be numerical
>> arguments, based on whether or not a man or a woman can
>> legally marry more than one spouse.

In contrast to SSM, which requires by definition equality within marriage, where they are currently allowed, polygamous marriages are inherently unequal. The female parties to the arrangement are invariably subjugated to the male, who holds all the power in the relationship, sometimes to the extent that the male "owns" his wives. This explains why SSM and polygamous marriage are mutually exclusive: no jurisdictions that allow SSM also allow polygamy, and vice versa.

>> The arguments about incestuous marriage will be based
>> around the advisability of people marrying their blood
>> relatives.

Similar to polygamy, incestuous relationships almost always involve an abuse of power, where one partner exploits a vulnerable relative. Cases that can be argued as genuine equal relationships, such as siblings separated at birth who later meet and fall in love http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/rules-of-attraction-take-strange-twist/story-e6frg6to-1111115309227 are extremely rare. While these are indeed harrowing cases, and (quite independently of the SSM debate) the law is struggling to find a compassionate way of dealing with them, there's no reason why they should have any bearing at all on the same-sex couples in this country who seek marriage equality.

Finally, appealing to our resident homophobes as "mature and civilised people" is very generous, but ultimately a misapprehension - you're detecting civility where none exists. The best that can be said about them is that they are consistent in their pushing of the same tired, discredited claims. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them: http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/454/dbe/454dbe4b-6a87-4e0d-8c0d-5ff7b6ca9569

The only problem with ignoring them is that their voices then dominate the debate.

There has been so much homophobic material published on this site lately (two more articles today) that one has to attempt to achieve balance, even though it means engaging with the same old same old.