“This then makes their motive for change fraudulent and deceitful.”

This may well be the case but there is no way you can ever prove it. You can hope that people would see this and vote against change but that seems unlikely.

There is a bigger principle under threat here and that is that someone is innocent until proven guilty. It is a corner stone of our system of justice. The claim is made by homosexual people and their supporters that the government is discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. For discrimination to exist there must be two things – an action which denies some thing to someone and also a basis for that denial. It is true that homosexual people are being denied government sanction of their marriage – this can be proven. What cannot be proven and would need to be proven in each separate case is that a person has the sexual orientation that they claim they have.

If you abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty then you cannot avoid dealing with this issue. If you are unable to prove sexual orientation then you have no case. The principle must remain in place until such time as proof was able to be established. Once you remove the burden of proof then you really are on a slippery slope of an entirely different kind.

Hey AJP, I really like you. You're funny. But before I have your baby, let's just do a pre-nup check on your "principles" - kinda like a Top Gear test of logic, reasoning and moral suspension on the Nurburgring of Relativism. Here goes...!

AJP's three turbo-charged reasons hit the track:
1. there's no reason not to (fill in blank - e.g., do pederast marriage);
2. equality (fill in blank e.g., for pederasts and their catamites);
3. arguments against using the word "marriage" are driven by ignorance and a desire to portray pederast-boy couplets couples as inferior or bad.

So much for "discrimination" eh? Team NAMBLA, start your engines!

Cruel nasty discriminations against age, quantity, kinship proximity, species. Where's that good ole late Roman Emperor Elagabalus when we need him?

Phanto,

Civil law works based on a 'balance of probabilities' (as opposed to the requirement for 'guilt beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal law). It is unlikely that an individual would fake their sexuality to such a great extent and given the reduced standard of proof required with the ‘balance of probabilities’, I don’t think any legal principals are under any great threat. Sharing a house together for a couple of years and some joint bank accounts would be sufficient evidence for a same-sex relationship in a civil case.

mil.observer,

A minor can't consent. My arguments still stand. Apparently I do need to bore others by repeating myself.

Relations with minors causes demonstrable harm, as does polygamy and incest. Zoophilia is a waste of public resources given that it provides no practical, legal or symbolic benefit to the zoophile. Your arguments are invalid.

Nice Slippery Slope Fallacy, though.

Wow AJP, that put me back in my box! Leibniz and Kepler got nuthin on you m8

Yeah, your "race" theory is no "fallacy" either is it? Real science stuff innit?

Like er marriage between male and female of most dynamic possible genetic difference to produce healthy hybrids preferably from parents of two different cultures and languages.

And to you that's just like luvverly David Furness and Elton with their rent-a-womb slavery to buy a baby.

Nicey nice

The moon must be full...

Yep, it certainly did, mil.observer.

<<Wow AJP, that put me back in my box!>>

It’s kickin’ arse like that that just keeps me coming back to OLO no matter how much I try to pull myself away from it.

<<Yeah, your "race" theory is no "fallacy" either is it? Real science stuff innit?>>

I never claimed that the similarities between the arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage were scientific, or on a scientific level. The fact that they’re almost word for word identical is enough by itself. Clearly you didn’t bother to watch the video I linked to. You really should check out the links that others post. It can save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

<<Like er marriage between male and female of most dynamic possible genetic difference to produce healthy hybrids preferably from parents of two different cultures and languages.>>

The fact that those against interracial marriage were ignorant of the biology you mention doesn’t detract from the similarities between the two lines of protestation. In fact, it actually adds to them because those who argue against same-sex marriage are often ignorant of the fact that sexuality is not binary but varying points on a broad spectrum. So there is no biologically right or wrong way and even if there were, have fun trying to scientifically pinpoint it.