Once again Leo Lane offers nothing of substance but plenty of bluster while he lays out the insults. To label someone ignorant but not even acknowledge that the concept of marriage has evolved in so many progressive countries and jurisdictions to include same-sex couples is hypocrisy writ large.

Here's some free education for those such as Leo. Marriage is a human construct and not a natural one. Its very existence is fluid and has involved centuries of change. Read the history of it sometime, if that is not too much trouble for those who seem so intent on maintaining personal opinion as some sort of irrefutable fact. You will see that the evolution of marriage now indeed does include same-sex couples.

I reiterate that to simply repeat the statement that marriage is solely for a man and a woman is not an argument against same-sex marriage. And A.J. Philips has been winning the argument because no one can offer a decent counter...his/her use of homophobe has been invariably well targeted too.

Misanthrope,

No, you weren't right. I am married with children.

<<I am right you are a homosexuaHul man because you did not say no or deny it did you.>>

I didn't deny it for four reasons:

1. My sexuality is irrelevant.
2. I had a word limit.
2. Despite what your ignorant generation thinks, calling someone a homosexual is no longer considered offensive.
3. I have corrected so many people who think it's safe to assume that I'm gay now that you would have to be one of the only people on OLO who isn't aware of the fact that I'm not.

<<I have not a problem with you beeing a homosexual man …>>

Then why assume that if you don't think it's an insult? What relevance would it otherwise have?

<<You think a lot about yourself …>>

No, but I do think highly of the arguments I use. That's why I use them. And the fact that you need to resort to personal attacks to respond is a testament to just how good they are. How about you try mounting a rational argument against them instead of slinging mud? I bet you can't do it.

<<You need a long time in the Army of my <former country Albania> and all that "know it all" syuff you have would be lost from you quick smart.>>

Apparently all that would do is turn me into an ignorant conservative. You're not really selling it for me, sorry.

<<I think it is a sickness and against Gods laws.>>

Well, you're wrong on both counts. Homosexuality is now known to not be a sickness and there is no evidence that your god exists.

But please do keep the insults coming. They make my arguments look good and help to discredit the opposition, who, I might add, still have not managed to present a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

Leo Lane,

My use of the word ‘homophobe’ would only be a sign of failure of it were misdirected or used in lieu of a rational argument.

Repeating the same nonsense, Minotaur? “marriage” means the union of a man and a woman. You have no answer to that, so you repeat the same pointless nonsense. Whatever the union of same sex couples is, it is not marriage.
You have no answer to that , Minotaur, and repetition of your baseless nonsense will not make it true. Your assertions about “winning the argument” are pathetic. Phillips has been unable to advance any basis to include same sex couples in the term “marriage”. He has in effect conceded that it will not happen without a change of the present definition..
You have no rational basis to invalidate or detract from the definition of marriage I have provided. It is the social definition and the legal definition. It excludes same sex unions.

This topic sure has legs given the diversity of some of the commentary and the many insults flying about. For such a minor issue in my opinion, why doesn't government simply allow Gays to marry. They've decriminalised the offence of sodomy, and that in itself was a mighty big hurdle to conquer, given public opinion in the mid-sixties to the early seventies, surely then to advance the next step, and permit them to marry, will not cause any more appreciable harm.

If various religious groups, even churches within those groups, mount any formal objection against performing a marriage ceremony, between Gays - Well exempt them, by allowing them to observe their own religious conscience; consistent with their own particular religious credo. I really can't understand what all the various objections are about?

If the anti-gay marriage proponents think by delaying any government decision, they'll ultimately fraught the entire proposition, well they're wrong. Gays will ultimately have their way in this issue. After all, what's the point in causing any additional pain, by delaying the inevitable.

//It is the social definition and the legal definition.//

Yeah, you do know that the Parliament has the power to change legal definitions, don't you?

With or without a plebiscite.

Leo Lane,

For someone who is a retired lawyer, you are surprisingly bad at articulating yourself. There are three ways to interpret your position, going by what you've said so far:

1. That marriage is not between two members of the same sex because it’s not, and that it is between a man and a woman because it is.
2. That marriage cannot be between two members of the same sex because it’s always been between a man and a woman.
3. That a marriage can just never be between two members of the same sex.

The first is a tautology. The second is the Argumentum as antiquitatem fallacy. The third ignores that marriage is a social construct and relies on the existence of a higher authority (e.g. a god) or a logical absolute.

So which one is it, Leo? Or is there a fourth one I’ve missed? Because until you can articulate your thoughts in a coherent manner, discussion with you is pointless.

<< Phillips has been unable to advance any basis to include same sex couples in the term “marriage”.>>

Yes, I have: better equality.

<<He has in effect conceded that it will not happen without a change of the present definition..>>

“Conceded”, as if it were done reluctantly. You do realise that I can rationally justify my position regardless of the definition of marriage, don't you? The definition includes two members of the same sex in many jurisdictions around the world now. Does that mean that you'd automatically be wrong in those jurisdictions and that I'd be right? What kind of logic would that be?

I'm starting to think you don't know what anyone is arguing here. Including yourself.