This should not even be an issue since there are no good reasons why the marriage act should be changed. The government is entitled to draw the line at recognising marriage as being between one man and one woman. It can draw the line where it likes and if you do not like where it has drawn the line then present a good argument in favour of it being re-drawn.

The government should not give in to the bullying and emotional manipulation of the homosexual lobby. It is the government who decides what types of marriage it will support and it should stand firm unless there is a good argument to change. There is no good argument and there never has been.

In reality, very little has ganged to the true intent of subverting society for their own cynical ends. Take no prisoners with negotiations. In fact don't negotiate. No is the answer to stupid ideas of normalising the abnormal!

wasn't it just a few short years ago that Penny Wong was against same sex 'marriage'? What hypocrites!

Now replace “same-sex” with “black” and “gay lobby” with “civil rights movement”, then read the article again. Those concerned about the freedoms of cake makers and religious institutions need to justify why it’s alright to discriminate against gay people, but not alright to discriminate against people of different skin colour. It’s all good and well to talk of differing ethos, but what if one's ethos were to not deal with people of different races? Where are the concerns for the freedoms of racists?

phanto,

No, the onus is on those want to withhold rights to justify why they should continue to be withheld. Nevertheless, a case for change has already been successfully made: equality.

Marriage is not the issue since in any case, receiving a piece of paper from the government does not make one married and not receiving such a paper does not make one un-married.

The deeper issue is the denial of freedom of association: people and groups of people, including businesses, churches and schools (provided that they receive no state-assistance) should always be able to choose whom they want to deal with. Why they choose so is nobody else's business, but if you don't like their choices, feel free to boycott them.

Phillips

On what grounds are gay people being discriminated against? They are not the only ones who do not receive government support of marriage. Polygamous marriages are not supported nor are marriages between same-sex heterosexual couples. There are many other types of relationship that people might like to call marriage but one type is enough to reject the claim that it is discrimination against homosexuals.

“the onus is on those want to withhold rights to justify why they should continue to be withheld.”

Who says they have a ‘right’ to government support of their marriage? Just because the government supports marriage between one man and one woman does not mean that those people have a right to that support. How do you judge what is a right and what is merely support to a particular type of relationship?

“Nevertheless, a case for change has already been successfully made: equality.”

So why are you bothering to argue the case? Are you trying to suck people into your paranoid web?

C’mon, phanto. Do I really have to answer that for you?

<<On what grounds are gay people being discriminated against?>>

They’re denied the same privileges as straight people when it comes to marriage.

<<Polygamous marriages are not supported ...>>

Yes, and for good reason too. Polygamy is usually a religious arrangement that involves rape and incest. Appealing to polygamy, or people marrying their dogs, is a false analogy.

<<Who says they have a ‘right’ to government support of their marriage?>>

Who says non-whites have the right to not be discriminated against? If you can answer my question, then you can answer yours.

<<Just because the government supports marriage between one man and one woman does not mean that those people have a right to that support.>>

Just because the government has one standard for whites, does that mean they should have it for non-whites?

<<How do you judge what is a right and what is merely support to a particular type of relationship?>>

By assessing whether the denial of “support” (as you put it) to a particular group constitutes discrimination.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination

<<So why are you bothering to argue the case?>>

Because, apparently, some still don’t get it.

<<Are you trying to suck people into your paranoid web?>>

What paranoid web is that? You still haven’t explained this from a previous thread.

Time to grow up AJ Philips, no one is being denied anything.

Poofters, I refuse to give these people the right to claim a perfectly good English word, before they contaminated it, are entitled to everything a natural person is entitled to.

They can marry a person of the opposite sex, just as everyone else.

They can live together & do what ever they like to/with each other & others if they chose. They can will all their worldly possessions to each other, except for one thing, & I believe this is the crux of the matter.

What they can't do is "inherit" their mates public service superannuation, & why should they? If I share a home with one or more people of any sex, they can't "Inherit" any super I may have, why should a poofter. After all this was organised to cater for any children of a mirage, not to keep an ex sex partner in comfort.

If we changed the law to allow the passing on of public Super to a poofter mate, all this garbage would disappear

Its only a matter of time bigots.
The minute Labor gets in they will call a vote and it WILL pass.
Where will all you homophobes be then hey?
All your hatred will have been for nothing. Like the losers that you are.

You wish!?

The very next election will ram home a message you will no longer be able to ignore!

As will recent medical discoveries that seemed to have found a gay gene, not as a single gene, but quite a few and down near the bottom of the DNA spiral.

And given everything in that DNA spiral is the handiwork of the creator, you and your lot have an ultimate day of judgement and accounting to face and pay for!

How many young lives have been snuffed out in a suicide noose etc/etc. Because of the patent discrimination and denial of human rights, every other person in this place accepts as their God given legacy!

You think a glib tongue will save you from one that sees everything you've done or been responsible for? And knows your real motivation or what's truly in your heart! The misery your barely veiled, control freak politics/messaging has created?

Bring on the next election and then we will see if there's as much as a single division in the rainbow community or their extended, (straight) family members and friends!

You assume rights you've never ever had and divisions which have never ever existed!
Alan B.

Dear Alan,

No gay gene was ever found: what was discovered are genes that contribute to homosexuality.

Being homosexual is a benign biological trait - while being gay is an anti-religious political orientation.
Are you perhaps claiming that the creator is a masochist who designed genes that cause people to harass His followers?

I'm Sorry Yuyustu, but your knowledge of medicine is decidedly dated. And according to one of the premier researchers, and straight from his mouth and in his words, during prime time TV. Which means I can't be the only one hearing that long overdue admission.

Yes, there is a gay gene, but not just one gene but many and located toward the bottom of the DNA spiral. Quote unquote.

But you may know something that the professional research has missed and may like to share with us and the errant research professors. As always, those who don't like the accumulated evidence, just reject it out of hand, and on the most flimsy or spurious grounds?

And just as vocal as the establishment medical community, when a couple of "courageous" nobel prize winning West Australian medical researchers bucked conventional wisdom and condemnation; to prove quite conclusively, that ulcers were caused by bacteria, rather than stomach acid.

To reiterate, there is no one Gay gene but rather, many. And the research places them toward the bottom of the DNA spiral. Denial only serves the needs of bigots. And not how I picked you.
Alan B.

Dear Alan,

I am well aware of the discovery of several such genes, toward the bottom of the DNA spiral, which contribute to homosexuality.

Can you please point me to any scientific evidence that the genes in question cause people to become gay (rather than homosexuals, which is an established fact)?

This would be a fantastic and sensational claim, akin to finding genes for communism, capitalism or any other political tendencies, but if this is the case, then it is surprising and requires an explanation, how come these same genes have only began to express themselves some decades ago. Why have they failed to show for thousands of years earlier? Do we have any earlier records showing that people with the above genes hated religion and wanted to harass its followers?

Philips:

“They’re denied the same privileges as straight people when it comes to marriage.”

So are straight people who want to marry someone of the same sex or who want to marry more than one person. It can hardly be discrimination on the grounds of sexuality if both homosexuals and heterosexuals are denied the same privileges.

“Polygamy is usually a religious arrangement that involves rape and incest.”

It does not have to be a religious arrangement. Heterosexual marriage can also be a religious arrangement that involves rape and incest should that be banned? Rape/incest does not happen in homosexual marriages where it is legal?

“Who says non-whites have the right to not be discriminated against?”

If they are being discriminated on the grounds of race then of course it is wrong. What are the grounds for discrimination when marriage is denied to couples who are not made up of one man and one woman? It can’t be sexuality.

“By assessing whether the denial of “support” (as you put it) to a particular group constitutes discrimination.”

What are the grounds for discrimination in this case?

“Because, apparently, some still don’t get it.”

What does it matter whether they get it or not if the argument has successfully been made? Surely ‘successfully’ means that it has achieved its aim of the legalisation of same-sex marriage. There is no point in arguing if you have what you want.

“What paranoid web is that?”

That is a very paranoid question.

The country's sinking fast, and the best a Senate Select Committee can come up with is SSM! The Senate would have to be the most useless political entity in Australia: a total waste of money that frustrates the working of government to the extent that elected governments cannot get their 'promised' policies into action.

And what about Shorten's warning that continuing to talk about SSM after he and Left had knocked back a plebicite would cause sensitive queers to top themselves left, right and centre? How irresponsible of the Senate Select Committee to ignore Mr. Shorten's concerned warning!

The whole SSM business is complete rubbish. Australian politicians wasting time on it when we are going down the gurgler are also complete rubbish, not worthy of anybody's vote.

History can, and often does, repeat itself, thanks to human stupidity. A re-run of Sodom and Gomorrah is only a matter of time.

AJ, when you talk about " gay genes" I presume you are referring to the recently discovered epigenetic changes that have been found in some gay people, however you forget to mention that epigenetic changes can occur in response to stimulus that occurred AFTER birth, and as such are not present at birth, so no, scientists are not saying people are born gay, rather, that they can have life experiences that may make them gay.
As for the lack of equal marital rights for gay people, as has already been stated, many people are not allowed to marry who they want. Not only polygamous couples but siblings and other close relatives.
To demand equality for all people means all those currently banned from marriage would mean that everyone, siblings, parents and children, groups and threesomes should be allowed to marry.
Which is fine but it renders marriage meaningless.

Hasbeen,

I find it ironic that you tell me to grow up, and then immediately proceed to slag off at a minority group using the most offensive possible term that you can think of.

<<If I share a home with one or more people of any sex, they can't "Inherit" any super I may have, why should a poofter.>>

They shouldn’t be able to. Unless they’re in a committed relationship with you, that is.

--

phanto,

If polygamists want a form of marriage that encourages the exploitation of poor people and favours the upper classes, then they can leave the country.

Attempts compare gay people to polygamists, relatives, pets, or inanimate objects is a false analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy).

<<It can hardly be discrimination on the grounds of sexuality if both homosexuals and heterosexuals are denied the same privileges.>>

It has everything to do with sexuality, because the only form of marriage that is not allowed is the form that gay people would feel romantically and sexually satisfied in. The fact that straight people cannot enter into same-sex marriages either, is a technicality.

<<Heterosexual marriage can also be a religious arrangement that involves rape and incest should that be banned?>>

No, because heterosexual marriage is not (or is at least no longer) based on exploitation. Crime script analysis surveys of rapists do not reveal marriage as a modus operandi.

<<If they are being discriminated on the grounds of race then of course it is wrong.>>

Thank you.

<<What are the grounds for discrimination in this case?>>

Sexuality. See above.

<<What does it matter whether they get it or not if the argument has successfully been made?>>

Because you said earlier that same-sex marriage advocates need to present a good argument if they want the changes made. Remember?

--

Big Nana,

That wasn’t me who raised the issue of genetics. I don’t see the point because it is already well established that all behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between genes and environment.

The rest of what you’ve said in your post to me is essentially the Slippery Slope fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html).

Why not develop a new word and act of law with similar meaning and purpose to marriage and the marriage act?

Some people are born with both male and female genitalia and so can be regarded as handicapped, though some such persons may not like that word. I think they are handicapped in that they are unable to naturally give birth. Then there are people that just have the hormone imbalance that usually usually a handicap in some way.

Most of us understand handicapped people should not be victimised nor suffer discrimination.

Marriage is an already well established situation bound by law between a man and a woman and I think it should stay that way.

Why not just accept there is need for a marriage-type of new law and vow and situation between two homosexual people?
Would gay people accept that and if not, why not?

Perverts and/or paedophiles also come into the picture because they can turn a young male toward having sexual feeling toward other males, and perhaps it's vice versa with some females.
I think such people can be turned back if they receive counselling.

I think there are a lot of older homosexuals that have lived very lonely lives, especially later in life, a sad situation just because they were born or turned homosexual.

I think there is need for open debate and a new word and act that would satisfy gay people.

AJ, the problem with your response is that the " slippery slope fallacy" is not a fallacy.
I can remember when the gay lobby was pushing to legalise homosexuality and one of the arguments against that was that once it was legal, that would lead to promotion of the gay lifestyle,which would indoctrinate children. Ie, a slippery slope argument.
And of course that's exactly what happened. Gay Mardi Gras, the push for gay marriage, the promotion of gay lifestyle through Safe schools programs, the portrayal of gay lifestyle in the media.
Decades ago adult incest would never even be mentioned, yet now we have support groups and advocates and in a few countries, including Australia, we already have one form of incestuous marriage, which is avunculate marriage.
So to dismiss the issue just because it doesn't fit with your " equality" argument is disingenuous to say the least.

Big Nana, something I never expected from you! That our DNA can be altered after birth? And errant rubbish put out by those who just can't let go of their bigotry? Next you'll be claiming that left handedness also imprinted in our DNA in the womb, is just more after birth learned behaviour?

Yuyustu, Most Gay folk don't split hairs they way you seem to want to? But see the modern interpretation of being gay, the same as being homosexual!

Our sexual orientation is decided in the womb and by our DNA! And I take it you don't have a problem with our genetic code, with all its inherent variations, being the mindful deliberate work of an all knowing creator?
Alan B.

Now to address the issue of equity.
The whole argument for same sex marriage is that all people are entitled to equality in marriage. That all consenting adults should have the right to marry who they wish.
So, how does that face up to the wishes of polygamous groups or adult incest partners who wish to marry?
Why don't they have the same rights as everyone else?
Just because you think the whole issue is gross and repulsive doesn't mean a thing because plenty of people think homosexual relationships are gross and respulsive.
Either marriage is kept as it has always been and gays find another word for a legal Union or the whole concept is opened up to everyone so all consenting adults have the same rights.

AJ, I suggest you do some research on epigenetics. Changes to DNA response can happen before, during or after birth and this has been known for some time.

"Epigenetic changes alter the physical structure of DNA. One example of an epigenetic change is DNA methylation — the addition of a methyl group, or a "chemical cap," to part of the DNA molecule, which prevents certain genes from being expressed. Another example is histone modification.Jun 24, 2013"

As for people being born gay, well no, studies with identical twins has proves this is not necessarily true and many studies show that environmental factors may lead to homosexuality.

Big nana,

It is, if one cannot provide a credible mechanism by which the slippery slope will occur.

<<… the problem with your response is that the " slippery slope fallacy" is not a fallacy.>>

The page I linked to should have explained that.

Did these people, who predicted the so-called promotion of homosexuality and indoctrination of children, provide a credible explanation as to how this would occur? If not, then it was still a fallacious argument, and the fact that they allegedly turned out to be right could, therefore, be put down to a fluke.

And are you suggesting that homosexuality should never have been legalised?

<<Gay Mardi Gras, the push for gay marriage, the promotion of gay lifestyle through Safe schools programs, the portrayal of gay lifestyle in the media.>>

How is something like the Mardi Gras a bad thing, and how does Safe Schools “promote” homosexuality? You make it sound like homosexuality is a ‘condition’ to be discouraged. No one chooses their sexuality.

<<Decades ago adult incest would never even be mentioned …>>

Until you can explain how homosexuality is harmful, any comparisons with incest are a false analogy.

<<So to dismiss the issue just because it doesn't fit with your " equality" argument is disingenuous to say the least.>>

Where have I done this?

<<The whole argument for same sex marriage is that all … consenting adults should have the right to marry who they wish.>>

No, that’s not the argument. Some relationships would have adverse societal effects. Like polygamy. Get over the polygamy already. It’s old and it doesn’t work.

<<Just because you think the whole issue is gross and repulsive doesn't mean a thing because plenty of people think homosexual relationships are gross and respulsive.>>

Correct. This is what I remind homophobic people of.

<< As for people being born gay …>>

Twin studies do not disprove the claim that people are born gay. Twins grow up in the same environment. Things can happen in the womb too. But even if homosexuality were purely the result of environmental factors, how would that justify discrimination?

Phillips:

You argue that polygamy has adverse effects on people but that is not the reason that governments do not allow it. They do not allow it because they only support marriage between one man and one woman. Dysfunction can occur in any type of marriage so that cannot be a reason for limiting the types of marriage they endorse. They do not give any reason why they do not endorse other types of marriage – they simply draw the line at one man and one woman. They are entitled to draw the line where they see fit.

Your attempts to discredit other types of marriage are irrelevant because governments do not make their decision based on any of those factors only on the factor of the make-up of the relationship. They only allow relationships of one man and one woman.

“Attempts compare gay people to polygamists, relatives, pets, or inanimate objects is a false analogy”

There are no attempts to make comparisons. They are just being shown as examples of other types of marriages which are not allowed. No one is making judgements about their relative value as relationships except you. Certainly the government does not make comparisons and they are the ones who decide which relationships will get certificates and which will not.

“It has everything to do with sexuality... satisfied in.”

The government do not give out marriage certificates to anyone on the basis of romantic and sexual satisfaction. This is hardly a responsibility of government.

“The fact that straight people cannot enter into same-sex marriages either, is a technicality.”

How is it a technicality? Couldn’t the same be said for all homosexual marriages as well?

“Because you said earlier that same-sex marriage advocates need to present a good argument if they want the changes made. Remember?”

But you said the argument was successfully made. So which is it? Is it already done and dusted or do you have to convince 100 per cent of people? Your behaviour does not match your rhetoric.

AlanB
I think you should "fess-up" . It's all a question of credibility .
If you are homosexual, then your comments and attitudes towards homosexuality can be excused.
Your loud and furious trumpet calls, mustering the gay hate brigade, derailed from the gay Mardi gras and careering down William street , "next stop Kings Cross", would be forgivable.
Till then, it's nauseating and repugnant.

Phanto,

I don’t care what reason governments have for not allowing polygamy.

<<You argue that polygamy has adverse effects on people but that is not the reason that governments do not allow it.>>

What I am pointing out are the reasons why it is not analogous to same-sex marriage.

<<They do not allow it because they only support marriage between one man and one woman.>>

So they're otherwise fine with polygamy then? C'mon, phanto. Get real.

<<Dysfunction can occur in any type of marriage ...>>

It’s not just about the dysfunction. Having wealthy people snatch up multiple partners, leaving the poor with little choice by to become one of many husbands or wives, is not conducive to social contentment. Neither is it about what CAN happen either. Anything can happen.

<<They are entitled to draw the line where they see fit.>>

Only if they can justify their position, and if our discussions on the topic are anything to go by, they can’t.

<<No one is making judgements about their relative value as relationships except you.>>

Some are. Either way, judgments about relative values are appropriate where a slippery slope argument is made, because they highlight why the slippery slope is unlikely to occur.

<<The government do not give out marriage certificates to anyone on the basis of romantic and sexual satisfaction.>>

This is irrelevant to whether or not discrimination is occurring. It’s also another mere technicality.

<<How is it a technicality?>>

Because it is a small detail that ignores the result of the current setup.

<<Couldn’t the same be said for all homosexual marriages as well?>>

No.

<<But you said the argument was successfully made.>>

Okay then, a rational argument that has not yet been rebutted with a rational counter-argument. I think you understood what I was getting at. By playing dumb, you only waste our time and demonstrate that you are not here to have a serious discussion.

Phillips:

“What I am pointing out are the reasons why it is not analogous to same-sex marriage.”

It does not have to be analogous it just has to be a relationship which people want defined as marriage by the government. They have as much right to government support as any other relationship except that the government has drawn the line at one man and one woman.

“So they're otherwise fine with polygamy then?”

It doesn’t matter whether they are fine or not. All they need to know for their purposes is that it is not a one man/woman relationship.

“Only if they can justify their position”

Why do they have to justify it? They have to draw lines about levels of government support in hundreds of different areas. If you do not agree with their decision then present an argument against their decision. Discrimination is not an argument because all they have to do is point to their lack of support for other types of marriage other than homosexual marriage to negate such an argument.

No one has mentioned ‘slippery slope’ arguments accept you. Big Nana mentioned other types of marriage and so have I but we did not mention anything about those types of marriage being in any way a slippery slope. We are not judging those relationships at all. You are the one doing all the judging.

“Because it is a small detail that ignores the result of the current setup.”

The inability of heterosexual same-sex marriage is a mere detail? It is not a mere detail to those who want to marry – that is extremely insulting and bigoted. Would you accept such an attitude aimed at homosexual couples?

“Okay then, a rational argument that has not yet been rebutted with a rational counter-argument.”

If the argument has successfully been made then isn’t that the same thing as an argument that has not been rebutted? If it were rebutted then it is obviously not successful.

It is not playing dumb to point out the lack of integrity in what you do compared with what you say.

Yes, phanto.

<<It does not have to be analogous it just has to be a relationship which people want defined as marriage ...>>

... so that an analogy can be drawn.

<<Polygamists/incestuous-couples/etc. have as much right to government support as any other relationship ...>>

Not if the recognition of the relationships would have negative effects.

<<All they need to know for their purposes is that it is not a one man/woman relationship.>>

The government needs to justify that position too.

<<Why do they have to justify it?>>

Because the current arrangement is discriminatory.

<<They have to draw lines about levels of government support in hundreds of different areas.>>

And those lines should be reason-based, not arbitrary.

<<If you do not agree with their decision then present an argument against [it].>>

I have: equality.

<<Discrimination is not an argument because all they have to do is point to their lack of support for other types of marriage other than homosexual marriage to negate such an argument.>>

Those other types of marriages have negative drawbacks, so pointing to them negates nothing.

<<No one has mentioned ‘slippery slope’ arguments accept you.>>

I mentioned them, Big Nana used one.

<<Big Nana mentioned other types of marriage and so have I but we did not mention anything about those types of marriage being in any way a slippery slope.>>

Big Nana did. She even defended it by claiming that the slippery slope isn’t a fallacy.

<<We are not judging those relationships ...>>

Big Nana was.

<<It is not a mere detail to those who want to marry – that is extremely insulting and bigoted.>>

Yes, and I bet there are so-o-o-o many heterosexuals just itching to marry someone of the same sex. Quit the feigned outrage.

<<If the argument has successfully been made then isn’t that the same thing as an argument that has not been rebutted?>>

Not according to you a couple of posts ago.

<<It is not playing dumb to point out the lack of integrity in what you do compared with what you say.>>

You have in no way done that.

//The inability of heterosexual same-sex marriage is a mere detail? It is not a mere detail to those who want to marry – that is extremely insulting and bigoted.//

So where are all these heterosexuals that want to marry people of the same sex, phanto? I mean, you'd think they'd have spoken up at some point during the last few years of debate about same sex marriage - if they really existed, that is. I would like to see reliable evidence of the existence of even one of such beast. Until then, I shall be forced to classify them as a species of cryptid like the yeti - the figment of a fevered imagination. It follows that any perceived discrimination against them is also a delusion, since they don't exist.

And what's with all this talk of polygamy? Have the government promised us a referendum on polygamy while I wasn't looking? Because if not I don't know why we're discussing it - we can have that particular argument if it ever becomes a major political issue. But until then it's a blindingly obvious red herring.

As are any Helen Lovejoy 'Oh please won't somebody think of the children' arguments (gays are already allowed to be parents, and not everyone gets married for the purpose of breeding), and a whole raft of other red herrings that always get trotted out when people are trying to distract from the fact that they haven't got any sound arguments against two homosexuals solemnifying a committed relationship through marriage.

Phillips:

You have said there are negative effects of polygamy although there are other cultures which do embrace it and so you think it should not be considered by the government. What are the negative effects of two heterosexual same-sex people getting married and how would that differ from two homosexual people getting married?

I notice you are derisive of two heterosexual same-sex people wanting to get married simply because you think that the numbers would be so-o-o-o -low. Is the issue for you about the integrity of the relationship and the avoidance of negative effects or about the numbers who hope to marry?

Toni Lavis:

So because they have not spoken up they do not exist? Maybe they have not thought about it. If there are such wonderful advantages to be had in being married then why wouldn't two people want to take advantage of those advantages regardless of their sexuality? Why should they be denied the opportunity even if they do not take it up. Not all homosexual couples will decide to get married either. As they so often say it is about having the choice.

There is no movement for same-sex heterosexuals to get married right now but there was a time when homosexuals were not lobbying for marriage either.

Polygamy is not a red-herring to those who want to be in a polygamous marriage. Do you deny such people exist?

We are talking about who can and who can't get married. Why would homosexuals bother about discussing other groups or couples who also cannot marry? It should not in any way affect their argument unless they base their argument on discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

Dear Alan,

«Our sexual orientation is decided in the womb and by our DNA!»

Even so, using one's will power and/or the grace of God, one can get rid of their sexual orientation (whether heterosexual or homosexual makes no difference, they are both harmful just the same).

But you were not talking about sexual orientation - you were talking about being gay, which is a political orientation: you claimed, without any evidence, that there are certain genes that cause this orientation.

Most homosexuals, and I know a few, are not gay, never were, and would be insulted if you called them so. They go peacefully about their life, never participated in any parade, never signed any petition, never made a political fuss about their sexuality. On the other hand, many of those who take part in the "gay" political movement are not homosexual, just activists who invent sexual issues in order to fight religion.

Y-y-y-yeah, phanto. I might just leave those last two posts of yours ri-i-i-ight there and slowly back away.

Diver, I am not homosexual! I don't have a homosexual bone in my body and if anyone tried to put one in there, my first and instinctive reaction would be to knock his ivories so far down his throat, his arse would look like a piano keyboard.

I don't rave, I just try and acquaint the outrageously homophobic flat earthers with a few salient facts, so as to end, hopefully, occasionally some of the persecution or blatant discrimination. And soley on the basis of hugely errant medieval/stone age belief!

Your side are the only ravers and demonstrably so, given you point blank refuse to accept even a single grain of a mustard seed of a veritable tide of evidence, that shows that homosexuallity is part on normal aberrations from the norm, which is hugely complex.

And just as diverse as fingerprints and retinas, which are different, even in identical twins!

You need to sit down and quietly contemplate, could you and your like minded ilk have been wrong all these years?

And given that appears very much the case, are you prepare to stand in the dock on your final day of judgement and accept for yourself (so as you do unto others) all you have dished out in word, deed and harm, but in spades!

Something to think about as you mindlessly bang away, with your endless homophobic messaging!

What's next? Critiquing the blind for being born blind or being the left handed identical twin, or for having one blue eye and one brown one, when the identical twin has a matching pair? And not that different from homophobic messaging?

These folk aren't interfering with any of your rights or privileges! So who the hell do you think you are and who gave you the right to persecute them or deny them the same rights to fair and equal treatment you expect for yourself as your God given legacy!?

You need to fess up? You re just a fanatically obsessed homophobic R sole, merely masquerading as a fair minded, reasonable and naturally empathetic human being, aren't you?
Alan B.

//So because they have not spoken up they do not exist?//

Not necessarily, in the same way that the lack of tangible evidence for gnomes doesn't mean that they don't exist either. They might - but on the other hand, they might not. Since nobody can prove their existence and it's essentially impossible to conclusively disprove their existence, it boils down to a question of belief: whether or not one believes in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster in the absence of conclusive proof or disproof. I don't because I'm fairly sceptical by nature, but there are plenty of people who do.

Even if one does believe in unicorns, they make a lousy premise for any argument. It doesn't matter what the argument is for, or what the other premises are. If you have any argument that goes:

1. Premise 1.
2. Premise 2.
3. Bigfoot is real.
4. Premise 4.
Therefore: Conclusion.

It's going to come unstuck at premise 3, because you can't prove the truth of that premise. That puts your argument on some pretty thin ice. Solid conclusions are built on a foundation of solid facts.

//Do you deny such people exist?//

No, they definitely exist. And when any political party with any representatives in the Australian Parliament proposes legislation to legalise polygamy, or promises us a referendum so that we might have our say on the matter, then I will start to pay attention to arguments for or against. Until then, there's not really much point is there? Since it's all just conjecture.

// Why bother about discussing other groups or couples who also cannot marry?//

Why indeed, phanto - since it's irrelevant to the debate at hand? The only answers I can come up with is that some people mistakenly believe irrelevant arguments to be sound arguments, or that they are deliberately attempting to distract from the debate at hand for whatever reason.

AJ, you keep evading the whole focus of the SSM campaign.
That every consenting adult has the right to marry the person they love. That every consenting adult has the same rights currently held by heterosexual men and women.
There are no qualifiers.no " but only homosexual couples qualify for this" .
It's a straight out, non ambiguous statement that applies to very single adult, regardless of the type of relationship that marriage would involve.
It's not up to you to say, well polygamous couples can't do it, incestuous couples can't do it, mixed gender groups can't do it.
Either you believe in equality of marriage or you support the traditional view. There is no such thing as partial equality.

I am not evading anything, Big Nana. Your take on what is at issue is simply wrong.

<<That every consenting adult has the right to marry the person they love. That every consenting adult has the same rights currently held by heterosexual men and women.>>

Where are you getting this from? I think you are making it up to later insert a false dichotomy fallacy, or to justify your earlier slippery slope.

<<There are no qualifiers.no " but only homosexual couples qualify for this" .>>

I think, at this point, a reference is in order. You don't get to just invent your own official statement and then say, “Hey look, no qualifiers!”

<<It's a straight out, non ambiguous statement that applies to very single adult, regardless of the type of relationship that marriage would involve.>>

Your statement is, yes. I don't see anyone else saying that.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters

<<It's not up to you to say, well polygamous couples can't do it, incestuous couples can't do it, mixed gender groups can't do it.>>

At no point have I assumed the position of arbiter in this debate. All I have done is provide rational arguments as to why your unhealthy forms of marriage are not analogous to same-sex marriage.

This is a little rich coming from someone who just invented their own official statement, too, by the way.

<<Either you believe in equality of marriage or you support the traditional view.>>

This is a false dichotomy.

<<There is no such thing as partial equality.>>

I know. But equality, as a humanitarian principle, does not automatically and blindly extend to everyone. By that logic, we'd have to release every prisoner

AlanB

There is nothing new from anything in your response.
Quite frankly, I have no care at all what anybody may think in forming conclusions about me and my worth as an an individual.

Homophobic? Who cares. That is a divisive tag with no relevance to the vote on marriage. But folk like yourself believe that to place a tag of homophobic, (whatever the specifications for a conclusion on the tag are), diminishes the opinion of that person so tagged, to irrelevance.
That thinking is thick headed!

All sorts of people will vote in the referendum. Murders, rapists preachers, clerks, divers,et al.
You and your "lot", use that derogatory term to neutralise debate. But yet, your howls for the justice of homosexuals, screams over the top of the very nature of justice.
On this subject your a hypocrite, pure and simple.

That is the point of my asking, are you a homosexual to speak so passionately for he wrong cause.
The wrong cause from my view, homosexuals are presenting themselves as a RADICAL political group with deliberate aims to destabilise the establishment, by overturning the status quo on this totally unreasonable demand, overturning that which obviously should be left to represent the marriage of male to female, with all the benefits of its designed purpose, to nurture those individuals and their natural off-springs, in a society which prioritises them above all others, (including homosexuals)!

You have a sick view of life on this one!

Phillips:

“I might just leave .....”

Of course you might because you are too cowardly to admit that your argument on the basis of discrimination is not reasonable. Heterosexual people of the same sex are also denied the right to a government marriage certificate so the Marriage Act does not discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. If you continue on with your argument you might have to admit you are wrong and nothing terrifies you quite like that proposition.

Toni Lavis:

If you are interested in marriage equality rather than just marriage equality for homosexuals then you will want the legislation to reflect that. You will want everyone to have equal opportunity to obtain a marriage certificate from the government. You will want heterosexuals to have the opportunity to forge a government accredited same-sex marriage and you will want polygamous groups to have the opportunity to have their relationship to be defined as a marriage by the government. That is what marriage equality means. It means giving everyone the opportunity whether they take up that opportunity or not. It is about equality of opportunity.

What harm can be done to simply give people an opportunity? Why should people be denied an opportunity on the basis that they have not made as much noise as the homosexual lobby? If you have a problem with polygamous marriages or same-sex heterosexual marriages then you have obviously considered them enough to form objections as to why they should not be treated equally– so what are your objections?

You say you will only consider it if need be. There is a need. Here are at least two groups of people being treated unequally in comparison to heterosexual opposite sex couples. What say you about this inequality? You cannot bury your head in the sand until more numbers object. Injustice is injustice is it not?

// Why bother about discussing other groups or couples who also cannot marry?//

If you are going to quote me then do it properly. I said –

“Why would homosexuals bother about discussing other groups or couples who also cannot marry?”

Why not just leave marriage for man and woman.

As for relevant equality, how could there be equality involving a hetrosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage?

There is need for a different name/title and different legislation and a different Act

Erm, y-y-y-yeah phanto. Yes. After all your unsuccessful attempts to reveal my “insincerity”, you finally did it with your questions about a non-existent demographic.

Yes. Yes, that's it. Um, good work! I guess. Why, you sure showed me!

*Nervous laughter*

I'll just keep smiling and continue to step backwards slowly.

--

JF Aus,

Another person who apparently doesn't understand what ‘equality’ means in a humanitarian context.

<<... how could there be equality involving a hetrosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage?>>

It is the fallacy of equivocation to deliberately confuse the two senses of a word.

I keep hearing this claim that there should be a different word for same-sex marriage, but I never hear a reasonable justification for it.

Dear Alan,

In answering Diver Dan you have not answered my last post: please realise that we have our two separate and different views.

Diver Dan seemed to repeat my claim: "are you a homosexual to speak so passionately for he wrong cause. The wrong cause from my view, homosexuals are presenting themselves as a RADICAL political group" - and that far I agree with him.

However, I do not agree with the rest of his sentence: "with deliberate aims to destabilise the establishment, by overturning the status quo on this totally unreasonable demand, overturning that which obviously should be left to represent the marriage of male to female, with all the benefits of its designed purpose, to nurture those individuals and their natural off-springs, in a society which prioritises them above all others, (including homosexuals)!"

First, destabilising the establishment seems to me a good thing (though not at any price),
Second, I believe that the state should not involve itself in any way with personal relationships and it is not for the state to express society's priorities.
Third, in theory it would seem to me that [people of, not the government of] society ought to prioritise homosexuals because they do not produce off-springs which infest this already crowded planet with even more humans. In practice however, homosexuals do produce off-springs, probably in similar numbers. While they may not enjoy the heterosexual act, they still do it when that's what it takes to produce off-springs: life is full of examples where we willingly do things that we do not enjoy.

---

Dear JF Aus,

«There is need for a different name/title and different legislation and a different Act»

There is need for completely repealing the Marriage Act and never again referring to private personal relationships in legislation.

Phillips:

It looks like you can’t step back. Why do you want to step back slowly? Either my argument is totally wrong or it’s not so why would you not stop entertaining it immediately?

But since you have come back to make another point perhaps I could ask you to answer the following question which is more or less the same question I already asked you. If two same-sex heterosexuals decided they wanted to get married would you support them? I know they might not constitute a ‘demographic’ but they are nevertheless two human beings who want to marry. They want marriage equality so what would you say to them? You say you do believe in marriage equality unless there is some good reason why it should not happen. So what good reason would you have for denying them? It could happen couldn’t it? I mean who are you to define what a marriage is? Wanting to deny them would be bigotry wouldn’t it? Discrimination even? You agree with same-sex marriage for homosexuals but not for heterosexuals. What could that be except discrimination on the basis of sexuality?

I mean two little old ladies in their dotage want to cement their relationship and call it a marriage before they die. You would have to be a bitter hard-nosed bigot to deny them their wish just because they are heterosexual. Even you could not be so cruel.

//If you are interested... is it not?//

Jesus, no wonder the anti-SSM crowd aren't 'cutting through'. You point out that irrelevant arguments are unsound, and what's the response? Three more paragraphs of the same irrelevant argument. Talk about flogging a dead horse...

And since you know they're unsound but still persist with them, it can only be assumed that you are deliberately attempting to distract from the debate at hand. Why is that, phanto?

//If two same-sex heterosexuals decided they wanted to get married would you support them?//

And we're back to Bigfoot... but this time, he's been wrapped up in the Cloak of Conjecture. If gnomes are real, then is it ethical to leave them saucers of milk when we don't really understand their biology? We could be poisoning the poor little fellas.

I am reminded of an old story from Ancient Greece. The Macedonians invaded and after conquering several other city-states sent this message to the Spartans: "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

The Spartans sent back a single word in reply:

"If"

The Spartans got it - the trap that people fall into when considering hypothetical situations is that they have a tendency to focus on the consequences of the 'then' rather than the likelihood of the 'if'. This is how bookmakers, casinos, lotteries et. al. turn a profit. But the 'if' comes first grammatically, and I think it should also take precedence logically. If the 'if' is the sort of 'if' that involves unicorns, then one is entitled to dismiss the 'then' as fantasy.

Toni Lavis:

“You point out that irrelevant arguments are unsound”

So are the arguments irrelevant or unsound? If they are irrelevant then their soundness or otherwise does not really matter. All you need say is that they are irrelevant and then move on but you seem to want to show that they are unsound so what kind of fool does that make you?

Why do you consider the arguments irrelevant? Taking advantage of what the government has to offer is relevant to all Australians. If there are advantages on offer to people who get married then all citizens would be interested and some will want to take up that offer. At present only those relationships which consist of one man and one woman can take up those advantages. Homosexuals want to take up those advantages so why wouldn’t two heterosexuals go through the mechanics of the marriage ceremony in order to also get those advantages. You would actually be stupid not to take up that offer if you believed in those advantages.

Homosexuals say that those advantages should be available to them. Heterosexuals who want those advantages with a same-sex partner should also have the opportunity to have them unless you can show good reason why they should not have them. You seem to be suggesting that because they have not asked for them then they are not entitled to them. Do people not have rights unless they formally ask for them? The question is what would you say to them if they asked?

//what kind of fool does that make you?//

And now we're up to the bit where they get all cranky and start attacking your intellect :)

This is my favourite bit. It's amusing to watch and when you can goad them into attacking your intellect rather than refuting your arguments, that's a win.

Hooray for me, for I have all the cake.

Well that little stoush between Toni Lavis and phanto was thoroughly enjoyable. It’s nice to see a fresh approach to cutting though phano’s BS.

phanto,

There’s not much more I could add to what Toni Lavis has said. But since you came across as ever-so-slightly sincerer in your last question to me, I might answer it.

<<If two same-sex heterosexuals decided they wanted to get married would you support them?>>

Of course. I mean, who am I to stop them? Even though that is not what society traditionally sees as being the purpose of a marriage.

But your point, regarding heterosexuals who want to marry members of the same sex, was to suggest that sexuality was not the focus of the discrimination, and that governments had merely drawn an arbitrary line somewhere. But the line is not arbitrary. There is reason behind the line being drawn where it is, and some of it is homophobic. To claim otherwise is to ignore the homophobia (for mostly religious reasons) that has existed throughout the past and the fact that much of our law has its roots in scripture.

There, I answered your question. Please don’t make me regret it.

The usual empty rhetoric from Lyle Shelton who finishes with the statement, 'That there are far reaching consequences of redefining marriage is further reason why a people's vote is the fairest way to settle this debate.'

What are those 'far reaching consequences...'? I have never, ever seen anyone who against same-sex marriage answer that with any sort of substance. And as evidenced by the posts of those against same-sex marriage so far all they come up with are their usual distractions and false bluster in order to try and disguise their shortcomings. And of course the usual homophobic stab of calling gay men 'poofters', which completely ignores the fact that woman can be gay.

Naturally, I do not expect anything new to be put up by the anti-same sex marriage lobby as they simply don't have any credible answer to the question posed above.

I am opposed to the idea of SS marriage, not specifically on religious grounds, but in the secular sense because of what I see as the sociological impact that this further destruction of the social institution of marriage, what it means to the concept of family and hence harmony in society. Society and its legislators really need to evaluate how "marriage" and "family" have been degraded over the past 5 decades and the social costs as a consequence. Let us have some common sense, a commodity that is sadly lacking among many of our present day legislators of all political forms of wooliness.

And Bagsy 41 proves once again that those opposing same-sex marriage have no substance to their arguments. There are some of the usual words and same old vague reasoning for objection but nothing substantial. Typical.

Toni Lavis:

Don’t you just love it when SSM advocates feign injury to avoid answering a simple question? Like prize drama queens the back of the hand goes to the forehead, the eyes go back in their sockets, the other hand reaches out for the sofa as if any moment they are likely to lose consciousness. “That horrible person suggested that one of my minor infractions was foolish. How will I recover from such violence to my ego?”

“I am much too weak to go on with this discussion”

Phillips:

“There is reason behind the line being drawn where it is, and some of it is homophobic.”

If there is a good reason why the line should be re-drawn then you should tell us what that is. If there are good reasons then you would not need to resort to the appeal on grounds of discrimination. There is no law against homophobia only - against discrimination. The government is entitled to be homophobic, we all have a right to be homophobic, but they are not entitled to be discriminatory so the fact that they are homophobic is not an argument for changing the legislation.

What other arguments do you have?

“There, I answered your question. Please don’t make me regret it.”

I don’t have to. You are far too obsessed to stop.

Minotaur:

“those opposing same-sex marriage have no substance to their arguments”

Do you have any arguments of substance which are in favour of same-sex marriage?

I have already, phanto.

<<If there is a good reason why the line should be re-drawn then you should tell us what that is.>>

In short: equality. I have also expanded on this in the past.

<<If there are good reasons then you would not need to resort to the appeal on grounds of discrimination.>>

I don’t. See above. Either way, discrimination is a good enough reason in itself.

<<There is no law against homophobia only - against discrimination.>>

Correct.

<<The government is entitled to be homophobic …>>

Not if being homophobic has demonstrable adverse effects. Which it does.

<<… they are not entitled to be discriminatory …>>

But earlier, you said that discrimination was not a good enough reason. Apparently, it is now.

<<… so the fact that they are homophobic is not an argument for changing the legislation.>>

Actually, it is. But never said that it was.

You’re also forgetting that the onus is on those who want to withhold rights to justify why they should be withheld. The US Supreme Court, for example, handed down the decision that they did with regards to marriage equality because opponents of same-sex marriage couldn’t present a credible argument for their case.

<<What other arguments do you have?>>

I don’t need anymore.

<<You are far too obsessed to stop.>>

This coming from someone who is still here presenting all the same arguments that I’ve discredited before.

Phanto, as usual from those against same-sex marriage, fails to provide an answer to my question and instead poses a diversionary question in response; 'Do you have any arguments of substance which are in favour of same-sex marriage?'

In many previous forums on the same topic that question has been answered with details. In summary giving legal recognition to same-sex marriage is about giving those couples the very same rights and protections that married heterosexual couples (of different genders) currently receive. What is it about that that is so hard to comprehend?

Come on Phanto, and all you other opponents to same-sex marriage, give some substance to your objections instead of the flimsy 'window dressing' arguments (and I use that term very loosely as they barely fit the definition of an argument) that have thus far been provided.

Yuyutsu on page 7 OLO says it all.
Repeal the Marriage Act.

But I would say do it at the correct time so as to allow existing marriage to adopt or dismiss amendment to Marriage Act, if that was to be voted for.

In an encompassing new act of matrimony, modern day law could truly bond people from all different tribal or religious beliefs.

Men might gain equal custody rights.

All persons are equal, aren't they?
I think it's called "humanitarian equality".

Something like that.

Phillips:

I’m confused now. You think that the argument in favour of SSM is based on discrimination on the basis of sexuality and you say that discrimination is a good enough reason in itself(then you proceed to try and present other reasons anyway).

You also say you would support same-sex marriage between two heterosexuals so your principle of equality also extends to them. Equality is a principle – so these are your principles. So both homosexuals and heterosexuals are being discriminated against because they are not one man and one woman and yet you say that the discrimination is based on the fact that only homosexuals are being denied government support.

Is it not true that in principle both homosexuals and heterosexuals are being denied the right to marry? If you agree with this summation then how can you say that one sexuality alone is being singled out i.e. they alone are victims of discrimination?

It makes no sense. How can you have principles about equality and then principles about discrimination which are so contradictory? Two sexualities are being denied and yet you acknowledge that only one is being denied. You are totally contradicting yourself. Your principles are totally contradictory.

Minotaur:

“In summary giving legal recognition to same-sex marriage is about giving those couples the very same rights and protections that married heterosexual couples (of different genders) currently receive.”

That is what your argument may be in summary but what about in detail? What are some of those rights and protections? It is easy to make vague generalisations.

You usually are, phanto.

<<I’m confused now. You think that the argument in favour of SSM is based on discrimination on the basis of sexuality and you say that discrimination is a good enough reason in itself(then you proceed to try and present other reasons anyway).>>

Yes, and what’s wrong with strengthening a point that has already been made with further reasoning?

<<You also say you would support same-sex marriage between two heterosexuals so your principle of equality also extends to them.>>

Correct.

<<Equality is a principle – so these are your principles.>>

Correct.

<<So both homosexuals and heterosexuals are being discriminated against because they are not one man and one woman and yet you say that the discrimination is based on the fact that only homosexuals are being denied government support.>>

Yes, and when your hypothetical unicorns appear, perhaps I'll start including them.

<<Is it not true that in principle both homosexuals and heterosexuals are being denied the right to marry?>>

The same sex? Yes. But only heterosexuals can marry their preference.

<<If you agree with this summation then how can you say that one sexuality alone is being singled out i.e. they alone are victims of discrimination?>>

Okay then. If it makes you feel any better, I’ll say that the discrimination MOSTLY based on sexuality and homophobia. Your implication, that the discrimination is not based on sexuality at all, is still wrong.

<<It makes no sense.>>

Well if it doesn't now, then it never will.

Minotaur I believe that society has to seriously look at the issues around the current Marriage 'equality' debate. I would argue that there are social consequences that many have not seriously considered because of the ongoing cultural degradation of marriage as an institution vital for the well-being of children and the stability and harmony of society.

'Marriage' no matter how enacted or described across most cultures and traditionally for millennia has been the union of a man and a woman usually with the purpose and hope of a family. Traditionally this has been recognised as requiring love and commitment between the man and the woman to ensure the best chance of providing the necessary nurturing and stable environment for raising a family.

When a man and woman marry they have traditionally made their public commitment to each other with a number of elements or levels of commitment

1) before their respective families,
2) before their community, tribe, state
3) and usually with a religious and/or cultural component –which in the Christian sense is a commitment before God.

The very biological nature of what it is to be man and woman – their natural complementarity underpin the basis of the family unit not just in the procreation of children, but in providing the natural sociological components for the nurturing and social development of any children arising from the union. Historically the family has been seen as the basic institution and building block of society.

Part 2

The past 50 years have seen great changes in Western culture and no more so than the way that marriage and family are viewed. We have seen the impact of
1. globalisation of jobs which can often cause the fragmentation of the extended family network which traditionally had been support seen as an important component of family stability;
2. a massive increase in de facto relationships and an equivalent decline in committed marriages;
3. no fault divorce also due to less commitment a significant factor in the increase in broken and blended families;
4. increased levels of domestic violence and child abuse because of lack of real love and respect for and between man and woman;
5. increased and ready access to pornography through especially the Web;
6. paedophilia and other perversions of sex;
7. abortion on demand because of factors such as increased promiscuity, lack of commitment, lack of social and personal responsibility by both genders;
8. invitro-fertilisation which although initially seen as helping married childless couples have children, but has also introduced gender selection, and along with being questionable in both ethical and social consequences,
10. the use of sperm and egg banks, and surrogacy;
increased promiscuity and irresponsible sexual activities by both genders has been a factor in the major increase in the number of single parent families;
11. increased drug and alcohol problems arising in many cases from family instability and lack of personal respect and youth alienation and homelessness;
12. The use of surrogacy, sperm banks also raises social questions and issues - example of young people desiring to know their real biological mother or father. Children are not commodities or fashion accessories;

All have had a sociological impact on 'the family' – and hence the stability of society.

Part 3
I believe governments and society should be doing more to:

1. restore respect for and social stability of 'marriage' as an institution which provides at its best, stability, love and nurturing environment for children
2. encourage young men and women to respect themselves and each other and be responsible in their attitude to sexual relations and ideally save for unity in marriage. Remember “love” is not infatuation.

Where does that approach leave same sex attracted person or couple? I honestly cannot see how 'same sex marriage' fits the biological and sociological needs of society. From my perspective the proposed legalisation of same sex marriage is an oxymoron in the sociological and biological meaning of marriage and is just another factor in the cultural degradation of family as a social institution.

There is the sense of need in every human being to feel wanted to feel loved and to feel valued no matter their sexual orientation, so how can those needs be met and recognised in those with same sex attraction if as I argue 'marriage' is not the social institution that can be open to them?

That does not make those who experience same sex attraction any less human, or have any less human rights or any less able to love another human being, in fact as human beings we have a much better chance of peace if there is greater love between all mankind, but sexual activities between same sex attracted couples must by its very nature raise questions if we are honest. I have a degree of understanding of same sex attraction issues and I am not homophobic but I see no biological or social sense that justifies same sex marriage.

Philips:

The trouble with you Phillips is that you never give up and you never admit defeat. You simply just out last everyone else. This way you can convince yourself that they have all left the argument because you are too clever. You often ask people to argue with you and prove you are wrong but they know that even when they are right they will never get the satisfaction of their arguments because you always find a way of side-stepping or changing the subject or manipulating language.

They give up not because their arguments are not good enough but because you are too dishonest to admit that they are. Ultimately it is futile to argue with you if you hope to have any satisfaction of your arguments having penetrated their target and this is why we all argue in the first place.

People argue because they want to see the truth come to the fore but you are not interested in truth. You are only interested in trying to convince yourself that you are superior. When people walk away in frustration you interpret that as being caused by your superior intellect. You never give up because you need to keep convincing yourself of your superior intellect and you think that others might interpret your walking away as a sign of a weak intellect. This is how you operate – to protect your own view of yourself as a great thinker and debater.

It is easy for you to maintain this illusion because you are the sole judge of your own intellect and debating skills. There is no independent judge who would critique your posts according to the principles of debating, reason and logic so you can safely maintain your illusion.

It is an illusion and you take advantage of the forum format to hide behind that illusion. You have found a little niche where you can hide and maintain your own fantasy and that is what matters to you more than anything else.

//Don’t you just love it when SSM advocates feign injury//

You seem to be mistaking genuine amusement for feigned injury. I am falling about - but it is with laughter, rather than wounds sustained from the searing burns you launch through your devastating rhetoric.

//“I am much too weak to go on with this discussion”//

Nah, you'll be back. The Phanto, Ghost who Struggles With Rhetoric, The Man that Cannot Argue Well, Guardian of the Courting Same Sex Heterosexuals always comes back.

//I’m confused now.//

Told you so. I've been reading The Phanto for so long that I can predict the plot pages in advance.

//Two sexualities are being denied and yet you acknowledge that only one is being denied.//

And we're back to gnomes.

Hey, did I ever tell you guys the joke about the sadistic necrophiliac arrested for bestiality, or would that just be flogging a dead horse?

I figured you had the wrong thread before, phanto.

<<... you never give up and you never admit defeat.>>

I give up, admit defeat, and even alter my views accordingly when I am shown to be wrong. I've done it before, even on OLO. The reason why is because I care about the truth of my beliefs and want to hold as many true beliefs, and as fewer false beliefs, as I possibly can.

I look on in fascination at how some here can cling to a belief that has clearly been shown by another to be false. And even repeat it in a later discussion. I guess I just don’t become so emotionally attached to a belief, or define who I am according to them. Perhaps that’s a protection mechanism I developed after the confusion and anguish I experience when I discovered that my religious beliefs were false?

<<You simply just out last everyone else.>>

Not if I'm shown to be wrong about something. I will stay for so long as I have a valid response to offer (or until I get bored).

<<… you always find a way of side-stepping or changing the subject or manipulating language.>>

If you can find one example of that. I will acknowledge it and walk away now with my tail between my legs. But it is unfair and discourteous to talk of alleged occurrences and not afford those whom you accuse the ability to rebut, by conveniently failing to offer an example.

<<People argue because they want to see the truth come to the fore …>>

Most don’t, actually. That’s very rare. And even when it’s presented to them in black and white, they still don’t believe it.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

<<When people walk away in frustration you interpret that as being caused by your superior intellect.>>

No, you’re thinking of LEGO. He’s the one who gloats and parades around like a narcissist when someone gives up and walks away because of the sheer futility of the situation.

<<… you take advantage of the forum format to hide behind that illusion.>>

How so?

//Historically the family has been seen as the basic institution and building block of society.//

Really? How far back in history are we talking? I'm guessing about 50 years ago when you were a kid and the world was a better place. The world was better place when I was a kid too. It is always is. Peter Pan was right.

But you should be aware that the middle ages, for example, were a good deal more unpleasant than what you see on Game of Thrones. And that up until quite recently, there was a staggering mortality rate for women during childbirth not to mention the staggering mortality rate from other causes like smallpox, bubonic plague etc. Children often grew up without the nurturing influence of dear old Mum or Dad because she died giving birth to a potential little sister (also dead) and he got a cut working the farm and it went septic. And you know what? They still did OK. They must have, or we'd not be here.

Look, it's great that you have such a Mormonic view of the importance of family. I love my family too. But don't imagine for a second that the nice cosy picture of the nuclear family you value so much is the historical norm, because history will take a big steaming dump all over any Disneyesque notions like that.

//The past 50 years//

Well that's just spooky.

//but sexual activities between same sex attracted couples must by its very nature raise questions if we are honest.//

I concur. Why do lesbians always have such long fingernails? It just seems impractical. Giggity.

And regarding oral sex - can you tell the difference in the dark?

//I have a degree of understanding of same sex attraction issues and I am not homophobic but I see no biological or social sense that justifies same sex marriage.//

The social sense is easy to see: more freedom for people, at no harm to anybody. Exactly what J.S. Mill would have wanted. I'm not sure what biology has to do with a social construct like marriage.

Dear JF Aus,

«But I would say do it at the correct time so as to allow existing marriage to adopt or dismiss amendment to Marriage Act, if that was to be voted for.»

Sorry, but I don't understand your statement:
First, grammatically, how can a marriage adopt anything?
Second, how can a repealed Act have amendments?

Repeal means repeal: not replaced, not amended - gone, forever!

You can have any relationships you like and call it by any name(s) of your choice, but the state is to stay out, completely out of any and all private/personal relationships and no laws should ever even mention them.

Now you asked me a question, so I am obliged to answer despite not finding it related to my previous post:

«All persons are equal, aren't they?»

Obviously not. Observe it from any perspective, nothing is equal about persons: both their bodies and their minds are different in thousands if not billions of ways. Where did you get this strange idea from?

It so happens that repealing the Marriage Act will result in treating people more AS IF they were equal: homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, long, short, fat, skinny, bipeds, quadrupeds, whatever - the law will treat them all equally as far as their relationships go and this will be a good thing, yet it won't mean that people have suddenly become equal: had they indeed been equal, then one sample would be sufficient.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Sorry, I was trying to say too much in one sentence on a smartphone.

An existing heterosexu marriage is between two people.
Accordingly I think a majority of those people would need to agree in a vote to amend OR repeal present Marriage Act law.
Then they would need to agree or disagree to change to their own agreement between each other, because their marriage is between two people.
In other words, both the law and personal agreement has to be modified or changed.
There would need to be mutual understanding that their vow in their existing marriage m be ayvirtually amended, to comply with, say a new 'Matrimony Act'.
Of course they would/could still love each and adhere to their marriage vow.

Existing marriage could gain from such change, not lose.
For example the male could gain equal custody right.
The children could benefit from equal custody.
The woman could benefit from rest during fair/equal custody time.

Where did I get the 'strange idea' from?
On page 7 AJ Philips refers to equality in a humanitarian sense.
Indeed, I think all we humans are equal in a humanitarian sense.
Do you think otherwise, Yuyutsu?

At present heterosexual males are not treated equally in Court.
Children that belong to both parents are virtually stolen by Court order that can be based on a lie in an Affidavit, a lie that the male is given no court time to challenge there and then during the sitting.
Proof should be required to verify a sworn statement but the Family Court system does not have required resources and time available for that purpose, does it?

From a humanitarian perspective, fathers should have equal right to raise their children that are not just the children of the mother.

There are also deep divisions in heterosexual marriage law that should not be glossed over either in debate and drafting of legislation or in Court.

Spellcheck drama in my post above. Jumping cursor. Due climate change maybe! LOL

Yuyutsu:

“the law will treat them all equally as far as their relationships go and this will be a good thing”

This not what homosexuals mean by equality. They do not want marriage equality – they want equality of sexuality. The government acknowledges heterosexual marriage but in doing so it is not acknowledging the validity of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality does not need validation.

Homosexuals do not want marriage as much as they want to have their sexuality validated by the government. If the government agrees to SSM, however, it in no way validates homosexuality any more than the present Act validates heterosexuality. They have tried to make out that the refusal to agree to homosexual marriage is a refusal to validate their sexuality but marriage never has and never will validate it. It should be valid in its own right. You should not have to be married to validate your sexuality and most people feel validated in their sexuality whether they are married or not.

The problem is not one of equality but why some homosexuals feel the need to be married to validate their homosexuality. They give all sorts of reasons for wanting to marry but none of them stack up because as you say these relationships do not need to be acknowledged by the government. There are no good reasons why anyone would want a government issued marriage licence.

They can try and manipulate others into feeling sorry for them and cry ‘discrimination’ but anyone with critical faculties should be wary of this hidden agenda. No such wariness is required in the case of heterosexual marriage because heterosexuals do not have to try and justify their own sexuality with government approval.

If the government opted out of all involvement of marriages then homosexuals would be very upset because they could no longer point to government approval of their marriage as validation of their sexuality. Even where they can legally marry they continue to strive for more and more validity from the state. They will never be satisfied.

Dear JF Aus,

I was not suggesting to only "repeal present Marriage Act law", but rather to repeal forever any similar laws that attempt to define personal relationships.

At present, no law deals with whatever agreements and/or vows are made between two people on the basis that they are deemed to be legally married. In fact, the state doesn't even know or record such agreements and vows (if any) that are made upon marriage and I'm not suggesting that it should.

All that the state does anyway, is to accept your payment, make a few checks, then hand you a meaningless piece of paper that reads "Marriage Certificate" (then you make another payment and receive another paper that reads "Divorce Certificate"). This stupid practice should stop (and doing so will automatically also produce marriage-equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples).

If married people wish to modify their agreements, then they can already do so now, with or without, before or after any marriage/matrimony laws.

I'm afraid that I am not at all familiar with family-court proceedings and custody issues, so I cannot really comment on them, but to the best of my knowledge, it makes no difference whether the parents are legally married or otherwise.

«I think all we humans are equal in a humanitarian sense. Do you think otherwise, Yuyutsu?»

Again I'm afraid that I do not understand the question. Please explain:
1) why the word "we"? If you think that all humans are equal, then please explain why, but then surely this would be regarding humans, not regarding us. Yes, it is agreed that WE are equal, but not so the humans that we identity with, which come in all shapes and sizes, etc.
2) what you mean by "humanitarian sense".

Dear Phanto,

Yes, it should never be the role of government to acknowledge anybody's sexuality. The only valid role of government is defence (external against enemies and internal against criminals).

While homosexuality is not perverse, wanting to be validated by a government is, so I disagree with any such notion as if homosexuals are perverts - this whole trouble is rather the making of certain political activists who are predominantly not even homosexual in their personal life. Their aim is not to validate either themselves or others, which is only a pretext: their only aim is to destroy religion.

Oh dear Bagsy, yearning for a bygone era that wasn’t half as nice or utopian as you make it out to be is pointless. You also need to do some research into the evolution of marriage as you clearly don’t know it. Your long and winding soliloquy also failed to address what consequences there may be once same-sex marriage is legally ratified.

What you, and almost every other opponent of same-sex marriage, completely ignore is that it is not illegal for same-sex couples to enter into relationships and they do so daily. They are also able to have marriage ceremonies and no one gets arrested. It is not illegal. Therefore same-sex marriage does not need to be ‘legalized’. What is being sought is having the very same rights and protections that state recognized heterosexual married couples have given to same-sex married couples via minor legislative amendment.

So, tell me again exactly what adverse consequences will come from giving legislative recognition to relationships that in many instances are already in existence. If in doubt consult Phanto as he’s got a crystal ball that is able to predict everything, heck it even reads the thoughts of each and every gay person. He’s gonna make a fortune!

Hi Yuyutsu,

I think the state should record prenuptial agreement and make provision for it to modified at any time by the couple. That would help courts determine custody and divorce settlement, saving time money and hardship.

I think you should study family court proceedings and custody issues, especially custody issues that deprive the male of fair time with their child/children.

We, humans, are of the same species, generally we have same or similar natural instinct and compassionate feelings.
Agreed in all different shapes and sizes.
What some individuals might identify with is their view.

Not knowing about being arthur or martha may involve confusion including about what some homosexuals may actually want out of marriage.

So I take it then, phanto, that you have no examples of my alleged side-stepping, subject changing, or language manipulating? That’s alright. I didn’t think you would have. Which is why you didn’t provide examples in the first place.

It’s always easier to personally attack another - with a hit-and-run spray over several discussion threads, full of slanderous claims - than to admit that your arguments have problems and that your way of thinking is flawed. I’m always fascinated to see the different ways in which people resist admitting they were wrong and transfer blame to the one whose words caused the feelings of anxiety and conflict.

I see that you have now resorted to conspiratorial thinking by presuming to know the motives of the marriage equality movement, just as you attempted to portray me as some insincere and sinister character who is somehow pathetic enough to spend 10 whole years of his life trolling forums to make himself feel better, when his wife and children are more than enough of an ego boost.

You’re right about one thing though, phanto. I am obsessed. I’m obsessed with arguing for more equality, and I can’t imagine why anyone who was happy with their life would want to devote so much time and energy arguing for something as negative and ugly as discrimination and inequality, or dreaming up insincere motives on their opponents’ behalves to avoid having to face the fact that they are on the uglier side of the debate which history will show to be the wrong side.

Dear JF Aus,

«I think the state should record prenuptial agreement and make provision for it to modified at any time by the couple»

This service is already provided by lawyers and indeed some people use it.
Perhaps there should be dedicated offices that specialise only in this service and provide it cheaper? why not, but why should it be run particularly by government? Do you expect government to also provide milk for its citizens, for example? Communist states do that, but then they also have rationing and you need to stand in queues and get only that much milk a week.

«I think you should study family court proceedings and custody issues»

I have no objection in principle, but my time is limited and doesn't allow me to study everything under the sun.

«We, humans, are of the same species»

All humans are of the same species, correct, but why do you write "We, humans"? We are not humans, we only identify with a human body for some 100 years or so, during which we fall under the illusion as if we are Arthur or Martha. We are indeed equal, but Arthur and Martha are not. Arthur and Martha might have similar natural instincts to some degree, but this they also share with their dog and nobody suggests that Martha and her dog are equal.

Whatever homosexuals want out of marriage, they can already get married and have it right now. This piece of paper that government provides for a fee, is not marriage anyway, it's a sham.

Toni Lavis:

“And we're back to gnomes.”

Well if they are only gnomes then what are you arguing for. How foolish is that to be arguing when you do not believe in their existence? Or are you trying to convince yourself that they are only gnomes? Maybe they are not.

Do you really believe that in the whole of the country there does not exist two heterosexuals of the same sex who are not eyeing off the advantages that can be gained from government certified marriage? The advantages are there for all regardless of sexuality. All that is needed is a change in legislation and they are just sitting back while homosexuals do all the dirty work in making that happen. Why wouldn’t heterosexuals want the same perks from the government? You would be incredibly naive to think that such people do not exist or else homosexual people are entirely stupid and deluded about the existence of those advantages. Which do you think is true?

minotaur:

“What is being sought is having the very same rights and protections that state recognized heterosexual married couples have given to same-sex married couples via minor legislative amendment.”

Is change to the marriage act the only possible way to get such protections and rights? Surely if you have rights to these things you have them on the basis that you have a relationship. None of these things need to be dependent on you having a government issued marriage certificate. In fact it is quite discriminatory to make them so. If you have rights then you should fight for your rights and not get married so that you can obtain what you have a right to regardless. Why would you get married to obtain what you should be entitled to whether or not you are married? It shows a lack of dignity to lower yourself to do what you should not have to do and dignity is much more important than any of those things which you are willing to resign yourself to marriage for.

Phillips:

I don’t need to present examples. I am not making an argument. I am just making a statement. People can take it or leave it. Why are you so worried? If it is not true then no one will relate to it. This is just your defensive paranoia at work again.

You know you are paranoid when you have to drag you wife and kids in as references to your charm.

“I see that you have now resorted to conspiratorial thinking by presuming to know the motives of the marriage equality movement”

I have an opinion about their motives and I cannot see what other motives they might have. Until I see a good reason why they might need to obtain a government marriage licence then I will remain suspicious. They do not need to be married in order to be considered equal but that is not what they feel nor is it what you think or else you would not be supporting them.

There is no evidence whatsoever that they are being discriminated against. They are being excluded which is not the same thing. They want to call it discrimination in order to manipulate others like you into siding with them. You have been sucked in by your own naiveté and you do not have the integrity to admit it. You are not so clever at all or you would not be so blind to the fact that you are being emotionally manipulated.

“they are on the uglier side of the debate which history will show to be the wrong side.”

History isn’t over yet and people might wake up to the fact that they have been conned

phanto,

Arguing, stating, it doesn’t really matter what it was that you were wanting to do. The fact remains that you could not provide an example of any of those accusations, even if you wanted to. Your “statement” was also an accusation, I might add. So, again, providing examples would be the polite thing to do.

Anyway, you keep telling yourself that you could provide examples if you really wanted, if that’s what soothes the cognitive dissonance.

<<You know you are paranoid when you have to drag you wife and kids in as references to your charm.>>

I never mentioned or alluded to charm. I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist applying your amateur psychology there, though. That's why I left it in after umm-ing and ahh-ing over it.

Speaking of paranoia, though, that’s another accusation that you’ve never substantiated. You also don’t seem to know what paranoia is, either. Although psychological diagnoses have never been your forte, have they? Paranoid people are obsessively anxious, suspicious, or mistrustful. Three characteristics that, again, I don’t think you could provide any examples of in my behaviour.

<<I have an opinion about their motives and I cannot see what other motives they might have.>>

Here’s one for you: a desire for better equality. You prefer your theory, however, because that way you don’t have to reconcile the fact that your position promotes ugliness and division, with the good person that you presumably believe you are.

<<Until I see a good reason why they might need to obtain a government marriage licence then I will remain suspicious.>>

Equality. It has numerous benefits, and no drawbacks. It's win-win.

<<There is no evidence whatsoever that they are being discriminated against.>>

See above.

<<They are being excluded which is not the same thing.>>

Exclusion without good reason is unjust, therefore, it is the same thing.

<<History isn’t over yet and people might wake up to the fact that they have been conned>>

Just like that disingenuous Civil Rights movement conned everyone, too, I suppose? After all, those blacks weren’t being discriminated against, they were being excluded.

"Equality. It has numerous benefits,"

Name one benefit of having a government marriage licence.

"See above"

See above.

"Exclusion without good reason is unjust, therefore, it is the same thing."

Inclusion without good reason is unreasonable. Citizens have a right that their government acts with reason.

The Civil Rights movement was a fight in favour of something worth having. A government issued marriage certificate is not worth having.

//A government issued marriage certificate is not worth having.//

Unless, apparently, you're a heterosexual couple. Or the argument would be to repeal the Marriage Act completely, rather than to preserve it in its current form.

That’s simple, phanto. I’ve listed some several times before.

<<Name one benefit of having a government marriage licence.>>

Here’s four:

“Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

“This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

“A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

“Another practical benefit of marriage is that it is a widely recognised legal relationship. The criteria for establishing de facto status, and the rights ascribed to de facto partners, are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other nations.” (http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters)

<<See above.>>

Obviously you had forgotten.

<<Inclusion without good reason is unreasonable.>>

No, exclusion without good reason is unreasonable, because it’s discriminatory. Inclusion without good reason is harmless, unless there is a reason for exclusion.

You again forget who here is obliged to present a case.

<<Citizens have a right that their government acts with reason.>>

Agreed.

<<The Civil Rights movement was a fight in favour of something worth having.>>

As is equality in all circumstances.

<<A government issued marriage certificate is not worth having.>>

That’s your opinion.

Toni Lavis:

Why wouldn’t you include heterosexuals? It stands to reason then that the Marriage Act has no use and should be repealed.

Phillips:

“Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

“ de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

That is discrimination against de facto couples. Why should you get a free pass to immediate access because you are married? A marriage certificate is no guarantee of anything about the relationship. Married people should also have to wait for a certain period. Do you agree with this discrimination?

“A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations.”

So we will just let this person die because you don’t have your marriage certificate in your pocket right now?

“The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.”

See above.

“The criteria for establishing de facto status, and the rights ascribed to de facto partners, are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other nations.”

This is an argument to make sure there is no difference between those jurisdictions – not an argument for getting a marriage certificate. Why should de facto partners be disadvantaged while married partners are not? This is discrimination against de facto relationships. Do you agree with this kind of discrimination?

“Inclusion without good reason is harmless,”

Just because it causes no harm does not make it reasonable. It is not reasonable to want to be included because it is not reasonable to want a marriage certificate from the government.

“You again forget who here is obliged to present a case.”

There is no case for government issued marriage licences.

“As is equality in all circumstances.”

Some people have cancer. We should all strive to have cancer because equality is a good thing in all circumstances.

phanto,

If you have a problem with marriage or discrimination towards de facto couples, then start a discussion thread on it. But for so long as marriage exists, it is discriminatory to deny the privilege to same-sex couples. But you asked for a benefit of government-granted marriage licences, and I provided you with some. You are simply changing the topic now. Something you accused me of doing.

<<Do you agree with this discrimination?>>

No, I disagree that it is discrimination in the first place, because de facto couples (provided they are heterosexual, of course - and THAT is where the discrimination comes in) have access to the benefits of marriage. If they choose not to take them, then that is their prerogative.

<<So we will just let this person die because you don’t have your marriage certificate in your pocket right now?>>

What you quoted had nothing to do with saving lives, but access to family members in the event of an emergency. Your response is irrelevant.

<<This is an argument to make sure there is no difference between those jurisdictions – not an argument for getting a marriage certificate.>>

My quotes were in regards to the benefits of State-recognised marriage after you requested them. They weren’t arguments for same-sex marriage.

You’re getting yourself tangled up into a right mess here now, aren’t you?

<<Just because it causes no harm does not make it reasonable.>>

It doesn’t make it unreasonable either, and that’s what counts.

<<There is no case for government issued marriage licences.>>

I presented some earlier. You even responded to them.

<<Some people have cancer. We should all strive to have cancer because equality is a good thing in all circumstances.>>

That’s not what equality is. Your argument here is a fallacy of Equivocation.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

We've been through all these arguments many times before, phanto. Why not devote some of your time and energy to something positive instead for a change?

Oh, and you'll be sure to point out my alleged side-stepping, subject changing, and language manipulation when I do it, won't you?

“But for so long as marriage exists, it is discriminatory to deny the privilege to same-sex couples.”

That does not mean that homosexuals should pursue marriage. Do you think they should behave irrationally just to prove a point? Why would you pursue a government certificate just to prove a point? Perhaps it is not their point that you want them to pursue but your point. You are urging them on just so you can ‘win’. If you really cared about them you would not encourage them to behave irrationally.

“You are simply changing the topic now.”

The topic is about pursuing the supposed advantages of having a marriage certificate. Why would you want to pursue something that gave you an unfair advantage over your fellow humans? Any self-respecting person would not want to take advantage of the ridiculous disparity between certified marriage and de facto relationships that you have supposedly proved the existence of. Why are you encouraging people to show such disrespect to their fellows?

“de facto couples (provided they are heterosexual, of course - and THAT is where the discrimination comes in) have access to the benefits of marriage.”

Only if they get married but why should they have to get married to have those benefits? That is discrimination in favour of married people. They should have those rights because they are a couple and not because they are a married couple. Homosexuals should refuse to marry for the same reasons. It discriminates against de facto couples.

“What you quoted had nothing to do with saving lives, but access to family members in the event of an emergency.”

What kind of emergency are you talking about? If it is an emergency then it will be dealt with as an emergency regardless of the marital status of the person at risk.

“I presented some earlier. You even responded to them.”

But you haven’t presented a viable argument for any of them.

You’re taking us in circles now, phanto.

<<That does not mean that homosexuals should pursue marriage.>>

No, but so long as they want marriage, it is reasonable for them to do so.

<<Do you think they should behave irrationally just to prove a point?>>

You have not shown that it’s irrational, nor that anyone's intention is to prove a point.

<<Why would you pursue a government certificate just to prove a point?>>

I don't know. Ask someone who's doing that.

<<Perhaps it is not their point that you want them to pursue but your point. You are urging them on just so you can ‘win’.>>

Really, now? You must think I’m quite influential!

<<Why are you encouraging people to show such disrespect to their fellows?>>

Why are you still beating your wife?

You haven't shown that I am. Your inability to understand why de facto couples can't always have the same recognition as married couples is not proof of discrimination.

<<Only if they get married but why should they have to get married to have those benefits?>>

Because the nature of the benefits require legal recognition.

<<That is discrimination in favour of married people.>>

“[D]e facto couples … have access to the benefits of marriage. If they choose not to take them, then that is their prerogative.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336731)

<<They should have those rights because they are a couple and not because they are a married couple.>>

Sometimes procedure requires formalities to protect the vulnerable. In some situations, it could prove dangerous or not in a vulnerable party’s best interests for just any old Tom, Dick, or Harry to claim that they are in a relationship with a vulnerable party.

<<What kind of emergency are you talking about?>>

Medical.

<<But you haven’t presented a viable argument for any of them.>>

They were arguments in and of themselves, and your attempts to rebut them completely missed the mark. You want me to provide an argument for an argument? Don’t be so obtuse.

//Why wouldn’t you include heterosexuals?//

An excellent question. You're happy to demand that gays present a 'good reason' as to why they should be permitted to marry, but you don't place the same onus on heterosexuals. You arbitrarily exclude them from the set of the sets of people who need establish a case for being allowed to marry; they just get an automatic free pass.

Why wouldn't you include heterosexuals?

//It stands to reason then that the Marriage Act has no use and should be repealed.//

So why don't you argue in favour of repealing the marriage act, instead of preserving in it's current form? Which is what you have been doing.

If you don't believe the marriage act is worth preserving, you've been presenting the wrong arguments.

Because the arguments you have been presenting imply that you think the status quo is fine - which means retaining the Marriage Act.

But you've just asserted you believe it should be repealed. So which is it to be? Retain or repeal? Because you can't do both.

I've not really given much consideration to the repeal case because nobody argues strongly for it - they argue in favour of retaining with amendments, or preserving in the current form. I haven't seen any good arguments in favour of preserving in the current form, which is why I favour retaining with amendments.

But maybe just repealing the whole damn thing is the best idea. Sadly it seems we'll never know, because apparently nobody on Team Repeal has sufficient courage in their convictions to argue strongly for their case. What a shame.

Hi Minotaur my friend – you are being a bit presumptuous but I notice that is a common factor amongst a number of OLO participants. You have no idea of what I have done over the years which I believe equips me to comment on social issues, by all means disagree but don’t be presumptuous. I am well aware of many aspects of family and its developments and the ups and downs of societies over the centuries and across cultures, but my fundamental argument I believe is correct.

I grew up , lived and was socially and politically active during those postwar years . I certainly do not claim to have come from a utopian period but from a period of history where as result of depression and war there was a soberness in societal norms that I would argue lasted until the mid 60s when it started to unravel with the resulting outcomes I mentioned.

I see the LGBTIQ Agenda as not only a question of SSM but much more society changing – Safe School programs and so on. Frankly I only see the legitimacy of male and female genders, and marriage and family from that background. I am certainly aware that there are those in society who do experience SS Attraction – I do have friends and relatives who see themselves in that light, some have chosen to remain celibate others have entered into partnerships. I still challenge the concept of SSM because to me and others who reason as I do is the fact that biologically man and woman are made to mate, sexual acts have the potential for procreation and are unitive in their nature for husband and wife. SS couples can legalise their union to safeguard their financial etc interests but it is not ‘marriage’ and should not be recognised as such.

I am also concerned that the pushing of the ‘trans’ agenda will do harm to children especially those who are struggling with sexual and psychological confusion – but I cannot see that artificially interfering with surgery and loads of hormones is doing what is right for those young people. I recognise there are many psychological issues experienced by young growing up which has led to various forms of parafilias and fetishes, they need loving families and other social support to help them through. I realise for some that adjustment does not always occur, but I still do not see that surgery and hormones are the answer.

Toni Lavis:

I don’t understand how you draw the implication that I support the status quo. If I say there is no value in having a government certificate then surely the same holds true for heterosexual couples. There is only one certificate that applies to all or would apply to all.

Heterosexuals do not have to give reasons for pursuing a certificate since it is already available to them – they do not need to present arguments. If the act was to be repealed and they wanted it retained then they would have to present arguments in favour of keeping it.

Homosexuals have to present arguments and I respond to these arguments by pointing out that there is nothing to be gained by having a certificate. It is all about responding to arguments. If there are no arguments then there is nothing to respond to.

This does not mean that you cannot also be pro-active in working towards the repeal of the Act. In discussing the claims of homosexuals attention has been focused much more on government involvement in these relationships and more people are thinking about it. This may lead to a ground swell of people lobbying for a repeal of the Act. I have seen many people, including some on this forum, who might be galvanised into doing something about it. It depends on how important it is to them.

Raising awareness of the issues is a first step and who knows where it will go.

The point about homosexuals is that they are actively pursuing change for something which is irrational to pursue. Heterosexuals are not doing this. Each heterosexual couple who pursues a certificate has to live with their own irrational behaviour but at least they are not tying up government resources and millions of tax payer dollars arguing the toss about whether or not to have government involvement in their marriages.

I completely agree with Phanto.

While most people are busy or lack the temperament for political activism, the least that heterosexual couples can do to help repeal the Marriage Act, is to refrain from registering their marriage with the state. Some may go as far as registering for divorce, but it is too much an ask for a loving couple to live apart for a whole year as the current law demands.

Well they started out reining the word gay, are they now into the word rainbow.
I am not against anything but that mob make it hard for themselves.

Bagsy, it is hardly presumptuous to formulate a reply based on the content of a comment that clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the evolution of marriage. And something you still haven’t shown much knowledge about despite an empty claim to the contrary. It is also notable that once again you evade answering my question. Not that you are alone on that one…seems nobody has any answer.

On a side note, you may believe that society has ‘unraveled’ since the 1960s but that is simply an outdated view. You may have preferred a society where racism was rampant to the extent of being government sponsored. The same applied to the overt and damaging sexism of the times. However, I’m certainly glad I don’t live in such a morally bereft and backward society. And the fact you think in narrow terms of strictly male and female gender and views on homosexuality indicates that getting any sort of rational discussion/debate from you is nigh on impossible. That’s not presumptuous but fact based on your clearly stated position

Phillips:

The government gives certain advantages to couples. It gives the same advantages to homosexual couples as it gives to heterosexual couples. It gives the same advantages to married couples as it gives to non-married couples. The defining factor is that the couple be deemed as a couple by the government.

There is no need to have a distinction between couples. The government does not need to know which couples are married and which are not. All couples should be treated equally. To give some rights and privileges to one group over another is discrimination. To give more to married people than to non-married couples is to discriminate on the basis of a marriage certificate.

Whether people are couples as defined by the government’s own criteria or whether they possess a government issued marriage certificate should not make any difference to the privileges which they obtain. They are all human beings with the same rights in relation to the government. Where differences exist then they should be addressed but this would only actually benefit non-married couples.

The fact that married couples have some advantages such as a piece of paper which says that the government thinks you are married is not a reason to get married. If there are inequities that can be shown to be important then they should be addressed but I cannot see how they would benefit anyone other than the non-married.

You do not solve the problems of inequity by forcing people to marry so you must find another way to make things equal. The only people who stand to benefit are the unmarried but they should not have to marry to get what is rightfully theirs.

The argument for same-sex marriage is a fallacy since everything that same-sex couples want can be obtained in more reasonable ways. The only thing that cannot be obtained is the piece of paper which is in itself worthless given that you can have everything you want without it.

Dear Phanto,

«The government gives certain advantages to couples.»

Then perhaps we should go one step further back and ask why government should give advantages to certain people just because they happen to have a personal relationship between them.

Perhaps we should go even one step further than that and ask why government should give certain advantages to certain people to begin with!

Yuyutsu:

I think it is reasonable for governments to do what they do in most cases. They have responsibilities to look after people when they cannot look after themselves. They also have a responsibility to make sure that social services are distributed equitably from the public purse.

They should only be involved as little as absolutely necessary but they cannot avoid those responsibilities.

I think they are reasonable in this regard. We pay taxes to provide services and help to other citizens because we all care about each other and we trust government to distribute those services according to need. I am quite happy with such an arrangement of society.

Dear Phanto,

No doubt that people ought to be looked after when they cannot look after themselves.

The question is just who should do this.

I believe that this and other benevolent functions should be handled by a benign and voluntary body rather than by a violent and compulsory one such as government.

It is inevitable that some violent body has to exist in order to preserve the peace and defend people against the violence of others, but it is not inevitable, nor makes sense, to assign benevolent actions to that very same body, which should remain slim and stick to its specific duty of protection.