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.