AJ says:”“when marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman,”
That is off topic, AJ, we are talking about the real situation, not a hypothetical situation, which you throw up because you have no valid justification for your position. The facts are against you, the law is against you.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, the assertion of same sex marriage is baseless nonsense, and an invalid concept.
Marriage inequality is a ridiculous lie.
You have nothing to justify your position, so you respond with irrelevant nonsense.
Your argument is that if the facts were different, you would not be wrong. The facts are not different, marriage is between a man and a woman, so you are wrong. There is no shred of justification for your nonsense.

AJ Philips you are the most boring, know it all, on this entire olo and Forum. You must be a homosexual guy and have no friends, and it is no wonder nobody likes you on the Forum. You tell many lies about who you are and all your qualifications being a criminalogest and other things. So now, you should just go away please AJ Philips, because you are just a, know it all person. So just go away please.

Leo Lane cannot put together a logical or coherent argument against same sex marriage and Misanthrope resorts to insults. Pretty obvious A.J. Philips is clearly winning the argument. As usually happens when against those opposing same sex marriage equality.

What are you talking about, Minotaur?
The fact is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
There is no argument, and no basis for the attempted concept of marriage between individuals of the same sex, whose proponents are making futile arguments against irrefutable facts.

Leo Lane,

No, my hypothetical was perfectly on topic where your reply was concerned because it showed the flaw in your thinking.

<<The facts are against you, the law is against you.>>

So, once again, presumably, when marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, you'll be fine with it because the term will then be valid.

<<Marriage is between a man and a woman, the assertion of same sex marriage is baseless nonsense, and an invalid concept.>>

The debate is not over whether or not same-sex marriage is currently legislated for, but whether or not it should be.

<<Marriage inequality is a ridiculous lie.>>

Not so long as same-sex couples aren't able to marry.

<<You have nothing to justify your position, so you respond with irrelevant nonsense.>>

Yes, I have: better equality. It is you who has not justified their position, and you're committing the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy in the meantime to distract from the fact.

<<Your argument is that if the facts were different, you would not be wrong.>>

No. Unlike you, I am not relying on legal status to justify my position. The legal status of same-sex marriage says nothing for whether or not it should be legislated for. If that were the case, then the laws would never change.

Misanthrope,

Of course most here don't like me. Most on OLO are of a conservative bent. I would be worried if they did like me as it would suggest that I'm either not doing a very good job of articulating myself or I'm not presenting very convincing arguments.

Thanks for the ad hominem too. The fact that you lot can't present a rational argument and rely almost entirely on personal attacks suggests that I'm on the money. And no, I won't be going anywhere. Ever. So either get used to me or leave. Learn to be a bit more civil, too, while you're at it.

AJP's patience is amazing. He bases his call for marriage equality on the accepted rules of reasoning and calls out those who violate them. However the differences are not in the reasoning process but in the premises. If the definition of marriage requires marriage to be between a man and a woman then no homosexual union is a marriage. The debate is over removing that arbitrary requirement.

Basically the public debate is really about laws relating to marriage, and a call for these laws be rewritten so the sexual definition re-asserted in Howard's Marriage Act is abandoned.

What are the rules governing heterosexual marriage? What would be the consequences if these rules were extended to homosexual wheelbarrow (I know, I know, the homophobe lobby don't want it called marriage). Well one consequence would be that same sex couples would have available to them the same laws that are now available to a man and a woman who marry. What person who can mind his or her own business over other people's lives is harmed by this? What person who can't mind his or her own business over other people's lives is worth the slightest consideration in Australian law? I'd give any such a person no consideration, only contempt.

So what is stopping Mr Turnbull showing leadership and making Mr Abbott's opus dei metastases put up or shut up in a vote on the floor of the parliament?