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.