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?