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.