AJ Philips "Just how exactly do you think marriage could cater for bisexuals..?"

You can only marry one person.
If you have significant relationships ("love, love, love") with both a man and a woman, you must choose one and only one to marry.
Is this "equality", respecting the dignity of sexual identity?

"Firstly, societies that have allowed [polygamy] have always had immense social problems"

Apparently, this an issue of individual rights, not what's best for "society".

What precedent can you show for the social benefit of same-sex marriages? (Crickets chirping).
Probably the only societies that permitted same-sex marriage were those that also allowed polygamy (e.g. Rome), which you disapprove of.

Polygamy does not mean people "compete for a limited pool" of partners, as everyone can marry as many people as they want.
You are still thinking in terms of *exclusive* relationships, which is beside the point with polygamy.

"Secondly, having governments limit the number of parties to a contract is an entirely different story to excluding certain people because of their sex."

Why is it "entirely different"?
It's all about love, love, love, right?

Can't you love more than one person? Can't you love your sister? Can't you love your formerly adopted sister (who's no longer adopted)?

People can enter into many other multiple contracts.
You can lease 2 houses, work for 3 employers, sell your books to different publishers.

"discriminating against someone because of how they are born"

Nobody actually knows *exactly* what factors may result in people being "gay".

Being exclusively gay with one exclusive partner is certainly not the way you're born. That is a choice.
You are born to the same parents as your sister. But that prohibition is valid, eh?

"There is no word for "partner" reserved specifically for heterosexual couples to indicated that the partner is a heterosexual partner".

Husband.
Wife.

Gender-specific paired words that an only exist in mutual context (i.e. a "marriage").

I believe there was a word in medieval times for male "friends" who vowed a life-long "love" bond.
I can't recall what it was, but it certainly wasn't "marriage".

So you’re conflating with bisexuality with polygamy then, Shockadelic?

<<You can only marry one person.>>

I thought so.

<<Apparently, this an issue of individual rights, not what's best for "society".>>

Actually, it’s both for reasons I have pointed out numerous times. I’m sorry you missed them.

<<What precedent can you show for the social benefit of same-sex marriages?>>

The fact that marginalisation has never benefited a society and that an inclusiveness has always proven to be beneficial.

<<Polygamy does not mean people "compete for a limited pool" of partners, as everyone can marry as many people as they want.>>

This only strengthens my point. Unless you can argue why jealousy wouldn’t be a problem?

<<Why is it "entirely different"?>>

Because the number of people allowed to enter a contract does not go to who they are as a person.

<<It's all about love, love, love, right?>>

No. There are also financial benefits and drawbacks.

<<Can't you love more than one person? Can't you love your sister? Can't you love your formerly adopted sister (who's no longer adopted)?>>

Now you’re talking about family. That’s a different type of love. Incest has its own problems.

<<People can enter into many other multiple contracts.>>

That would be bigamy, which has the same problems as polygamy.

<<You can lease 2 houses, work for 3 employers, sell your books to different publishers.>>

You don’t say.

<<Nobody actually knows *exactly* what factors may result in people being "gay".>>

So you choose to be gay then, do you? We know enough to know that there is a biological/genetic component.

<<Being exclusively gay with one exclusive partner is certainly not the way you're born. That is a choice.>>

You’re not born with a partner, no. Hence my third point.

<<You are born to the same parents as your sister. But that prohibition is valid, eh?>>

Correct. Incestuous relationships are harmful.

<<Husband.
Wife.>>

Damn, you beat Chris C to this dumb argument. I was expecting him to say that. I said “reserved specifically”. A married same-sex couple could use those words too.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

The Hansard debate you quote is actually in relation to the external affairs power, not marriage.

The states have the power to legislate on marriage, and indeed until 1961 marriage was regulated exclusively by the states. But their legislation must be compatible with Commonwealth law. That’s the basis on which the ACT’s 2013 attempt to legislate gay marriage was overturned by the courts.

http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56792

Anyway, my main point was that it is the Marriage Act, not the constitution, that specifies that marriage must be between a man and a woman. This was introduced to the Act under the Howard Government by a simple amendment to the legislation, and could equally simply be removed by legislation. There is no constitutional bar to same-sex marriage.

As expected: flippant, shallow, empty responses to my quite valid points.

"So you’re conflating with bisexuality with polygamy then"

If you love both sexes (born that way!), you may want to marry both, but you cannot "publicly affirm your love" for both, only one at a time.
Inconsistency!

"The fact that marginalisation has never benefited a society and that an inclusiveness has always proven to be beneficial."

Never. Always.
The hallmarks of fascist rhetoric.
Has intrusive statism ever benefited a society?
Inconsistency!

"Unless you can argue why jealousy wouldn’t be a problem?"

Monogamous couples can be jealous, even when there's no cheating (just the suspicion).
Redundant!

"the number of people allowed to enter a contract"

And why does *this* contract and its *number* of parties require state control, but not other contracts, which are left to private parties to determine "what's best".
Inconsistency!

"There are also financial benefits and drawbacks."

Irrelevant!
Yes, the lawyers who sue the cake shop benefit and the independent bakers "draw back" into bankruptcy or wage-slavery.

"Incest has its own problems."

But "born that way", honey!
Inconsistency!

"bigamy, which has the same problems as polygamy.""Incestuous relationships are harmful."

*Everything* has the potential to harm, to cause problems. Should the state regulate *everything*?

And monogamy has no problems, never harmful?
Explain the divorce and domestic violence statistics.
Inconsistency!

"same-sex couple could use those words [husband, wife] too."

Without the matching contextual one.
Hence "changing the meaning" of words yet again!

In summary: Inconsistency! Hypocrisy! Irrelevancy! Redundancy!
Blah, blah, blah.

"As a gay man yourself, I'm astonished..."

As a gay man and a genuine liberal (kids, it has something to do with "liberty") I am DISGUSTED that those words are being used as *weapons* supporting an insidious totalitarianism, automatically lumping me in with an agenda that is just Nazism turned inside out.
DISGUSTED!

Shockadelic,

<<If you love both sexes (born that way!), you may want to marry both…>>

But whether or not one does is not inherent to bisexuality. Again, you’re conflating two different ideas.

<<Never. Always.
The hallmarks of fascist rhetoric.>>

Try finding an example that contradicts my claim then.

<<Has intrusive statism ever benefited a society?>>

Yes. The State’s intrusion on the desire of some to murder has been immensely beneficial.

<<Monogamous couples can be jealous, even when there's no cheating (just the suspicion).>>

Sure. I'm willing to bet there'd be far more jealousy with State-endorsed multiple marriages though.

<<And why does *this* contract and its *number* of parties require state control, but not other contracts, which are left to private parties to determine "what's best".>>

I’ve listed a few reasons. If you think can argue otherwise, then you’re welcome to lobby for polygamous marriages.

<<Irrelevant!>>

Not irrelevant!

<<But "born that way", honey!>>

Homosexuality does not have the negative social implications that incest does. This is an invalid comparison.

<<*Everything* has the potential to harm, to cause problems. Should the state regulate *everything*?>>

The key difference is whether those problems are directly attributable to a specific action.

<<And monogamy has no problems, never harmful?>>

I’d prefer to say “less harmful”.

<<Explain the divorce and domestic violence statistics.>>

How would polygamy reduce these problems?

<<Hence "changing the meaning" of words yet again!>>

Apparently not...

Wife: http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3Awife
Husband: http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=define:husband

Ive said it before and Ill say it again.

You godbotherers need to learn it is fine for you to say....
I wont do that because of MY religious beliefs.

It is NOT fine for you to say....
YOU cannot do that because of MY religious beliefs.

It is simple. A simple idea for simpletons.
KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!
Keep your idiotic beliefs out of my life!