Phanto
Yes, you’re right, it is certainly possible to see homosexuality as intrinsic and still oppose SSM. I believe, though, that the reason we now see majority support for same sex marriage is that people’s views on the nature of homosexuality have changed.

Rhian:

“Yes, you’re right, it is certainly possible to see homosexuality as intrinsic and still oppose SSM.”

That is not what I said. I said that just because people support same-sex marriage it does not follow that they support the view that homosexuality is intrinsic.

It also does not follow that people who say they support same-sex marriage actually do so. Polls like this do not take into account that people may well be afraid to say what they truly think or they are trying to gain peer acceptance or some other benefit that has nothing to do with the issue. This issue has seen an unprecedented amount of bullying and intimidation by those who support same-sex marriage. Like many politically correct opinions it is impossible to say whether people agree because there is a reasonable argument or because they are afraid not to.

Because of all the emotional manipulation same-sex couples will never really know whether those who vote for them actually agree with them. They may well get the law changed but that is not what they really want – they want acceptance of their homosexuality. That is all they could possibly want since the change in legislation will give them nothing they cannot already attain without such a change.

So they will never be satisfied by being able to get married. Acceptance does not come from law but from the hearts of those from whom they want acceptance and you cannot make that happen. As we have seen in other countries that have same sex marriage they then want more control over law in another vain attempt to get acceptance. No matter how many laws they can bully legislators into changing it will never give them what they want or need. The only place they need to look for acceptance is in their own hearts and not the courts or parliaments of the world.

"Against marriage reform"

Goebbels would have been proud of that spin and it is only the heading.

Rhian wrote:
"You are right, that’s what the law says. But it is not an argument for why the law shouldn’t change, so it begs the question - a form of circular argument."

Again, no. Begging the question is a fallacy based on assuming the conclusion as part of the premise. It is the structure that defines the fallacy, which as you say, would constitute circular reasoning.

The law (the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman) is a statement.
It’s not a claim nor an argument, and it doesn’t contain that structure.

However that’s not to say that you might not argue about the validity or appropriateness of the actual law itself.
I suspect that’s what you’re driving at.

Phanto I think you are wrong in attributing any sort of 'bullying' causing an apparent majority of same sex marriage supporters.

If we look at Ireland as an example of a majority Catholic population that voted in same sex marriage last year, it is a well known fact that a big backlash against the Catholic Church hierarchy, for all the lies they told their 'flock' , was at the heart of that vote.
My husband is Irish and he has been told this by all his friends and family still living in Ireland.

At the end of the day, we are all alone with our pencil in the voting box...we can all vote for or against same sex marriage if we are given the opportunity, and no one will ever know what each individual votes for at all. No bullying will be involved.

Rhian wrote:
“And, I accept that there are sometimes good reason for discrimination to be lawful. But I don’t think there are good reasons for marriage discrimination to be mandated by law.”

“[…]Marriage has already changed radically in the last few decades.[…]”

Points taken but currently, the eligibility issue is an embedded and defining characteristic of the law.
It may well be more a paradox but it doesn’t embody discrimination.
The discrimination argument is itself a fallacy - it’s a Strawman.
I know . . it is nuanced eh.

Presumably the argument is that given marriage has evolved beyond all recognition over the course of history it’s in need of being ‘updated’. Of course this is another fallacy - Non sequitur.

Certainly all those changes you list have taken place.
Now let’s ask ourselves what is the one (OK, probably more than one) thing that has remained constant through all those changes?
Let’s also ask ourselves why that is so?

The point being that one would need to construct a compelling argument as to why a small minority of people who aren’t eligible, would suddenly become qualified when the institution in question was never intended to address them in the first place.

Perhaps the next question should be; is this inclusion a need or a want?
Let’s be specific. Is it really equality that’s sought?

My sense is that if we were to clear away all the hyperbole, we’d discover the want / need is for acceptance and affirmation of worth more broadly, and the call for ‘Marriage Equality’ is perceived to provide the validation for it.
The question then becomes; would it?
I’m thinking that marriage doesn’t validate straight people and it won’t validate gay folk either.