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.