@rational-debate...

> "An analogy is not name calling but anyway..."

haha, if saying marriage-equality advocates are like petulant children isn't "name-calling", then saying those who oppose equality are childish can hardly be name-calling either, now can it?

But anyway...

> "How about you start with the above? Why is what is on offer not enough? Why does it have to be marriage?"

You wrote earlier, "I have raised my other points before (re equality and point proving) and no one has yet denied them. Might just be a good reason for that..."

I assumed you meant you have raised points purportedly demonstrating why the Federal Government of Australia should exclude same-sex couples from its definition of "marriage".

Instead, the "point" you seem to have raised to start with just now is that even though you don't understand why or how marriage would benefit anyone or what problems it may ameliorate, you're against it anyway.

Since I'm short on time and you're manifestly short on empathy, the simplest answer to your question "why does it have to be marriage?" is this: Why does anyone want to get married?

When you've had a think about all the reasons people get married, then you will have your answer.

Now a question for you...

Why is it so important to you that I remain forbidden to marry my guy?

( C'mon now... the real reason it's oh-so important to YOU? And I can spot an excuse constructed after the fact a mile away, so be honest now! )

:-)

Tony L,the definition of marriage is a union between a man and woman, get over it and move on.

At the moment: my point was that you can't automatically assume it will always have that meaning.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/31/735843/-The-Mad-Logophile-Words-That-Have-Changed-Their-Meaning-Part-1

Cheers,

Tony

It will in my world!