phanto,

There is a difference between having A standard, and assigning something to be THE standard.

<<We already have two standards. Why should marriage be the standard?>>

I’m not suggesting that it should be. Marriage does, however, offer STANDARDISATION. Which is useful in all sorts of circumstances.

Circumstances which require two people to have considered their relationship seriously, and contemplated the level of trust they are willing to place in each other.

Circumstances which require more commitment and trust than, say, the relationship of a pair of horny kids who have shacked-up together ‘cause mum and dad suck, and they wanna smoke weed.

<<Disingenuousness is not relevant …>>

It is if it suggests bigotry, as bigotry is harmful.

<<… only arguments are relevant.>>

Arguments certainly are important, which is why I discredit yours before concerning myself with your disingenuousness.

--

Speaking of disingenuousness, though. I loved this bit from the article:

<<To reinforce that, they came up with an argument that relies on a remarkably stereotypical, if not homophobic, premise - that gay and lesbian people are just too fragile to countenance a public debate.>>

Suddenly were worried about gay people.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that giving bigots a platform with a public debate would have resulted in increased mental health issues. Indeed, it has done exactly that in other countries.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=marriage+equality+debate+mental+health&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

<<Apparently this affliction only applies to Australian gays and lesbians, who are not quite as tough as the Irish.>>

Straw man.

The Irish had to have a referendum because marriage was defined in their constitution.

Phillips:

“There is a difference between having A standard, and assigning something to be THE standard.”

The government is quite specifically committed to two standards. There is the standard whereby married people qualify for privileges and advantages and the standard whereby couples qualify. It does this because it has accepted that not all couples want to marry and yet they agree that they should have the advantages given to married people.

There are differences in the way these two standards are enforced despite the fact that the relationships as human relationships are fundamentally the same. This is an example of the invasive questions that can be asked before any privileges or advantages can be granted to couples -

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/sites/default/files/ss284-1611en.pdf

Married couples on the other hand need only to show up at the registry office with a few hundred bucks. No questions are asked.

Why does the government discriminate in this way when they are dealing with human beings in identical relationships?

“Circumstances which require two people to have considered their relationship seriously, and contemplated the level of trust they are willing to place in each other.”

How is a marriage certificate proof of this when it is not tested as part of the process of obtaining such a certificate? Cannot people who do not possess a marriage certificate also consider their relationship and the level of trust they are willing to place in each other?

“It is if it suggests bigotry, as bigotry is harmful.”

Yes, but this is not the place to fight bigotry. No one is saying that bigotry is a good thing. It is the place to counter arguments about specific issues of social concern. You are just abusing the forums for an unrelated personal agenda.

Yes, I’m fine with that too, phanto.

<<The government is quite specifically committed to two standards.>>

I even explained why that’s reasonable.

<<There are differences in the way these two standards are enforced despite the fact that the relationships as human relationships are fundamentally the same.>>

Yes, and that’s as it should be, for reasons I’ve already mentioned.

If de facto couples don’t like Centrelink’s invasiveness, then they’re free to get married (so long as they’re the opposite sex), but then they have the additional hassles that a relationship breakdown would entail. There’s a trade-off either way.

<<Married couples … need only to show up at the registry office with a few hundred bucks. No questions are asked.>>

And de facto couples are free to do this too.

<<Why does the government discriminate in this way when they are dealing with human beings in identical relationships?>>

I’ve already explained why in many different ways.

<<How is a marriage certificate proof of this when it is not tested as part of the process of obtaining such a certificate?>>

Why does there need to be proof beyond the signatures?

<<Cannot people who do not possess a marriage certificate also consider their relationship and the level of trust they are willing to place in each other?>>

Of course they can. And, indeed, many would.

<<Yes, but this is not the place to fight bigotry.>>

Why?

<<No one is saying that bigotry is a good thing.>>

No one has to.

<<You are just abusing the forums for an unrelated personal agenda.>>

Bigotry is related to any topic in which it may play a role as a driving factor. I am abusing nothing.

You're not the moderator of this forum. You don't make the rules. There is no rule here against fighting bigotry.

From amateur psychologist to self-appointed forum moderator.

Here’s a question for you, since you’re so-o-o-o concerned about rights: if the Marriage Act were to never be repealed, and you could know that it never would be, would you then support same-sex marriage?

Or do you not deny that you are being disingenuous?

Phillips:

Once again you have been sucked into an argument not because you care about the subject but because you want to expose the perceived flaws in anyone who dares to challenge the arguments for same-sex marriage.

You want to talk about motivation, sincerity, disingenuity and other traits like homophobia and bigotry. These are your real concerns. The argument just becomes a vehicle for you to express all your resentment and bitterness.

None of those things should come into account when a decision about same-sex marriage is being considered. The only things that matter are the reasonableness of the arguments.

All I did was present a few arguments which appear to me to be reasonable. If they were not then the only alternative in this forum would be to show that they were unreasonable. Nothing else is appropriate. However, that is not enough for you. You have to focus on my supposed flaws, as you do with most people you disagree with.

This bitterness and resentment comes through in most of your posts. It is not anger or desire for justice. It is bitterness and resentment and these are largely narcissistic traits where you think the world owes you a better deal than the one you have.

I don’t think this forum is the place to deal with those personal problems and anyone who abuses these forums for other purposes should be exposed. This place is too important and valuable to be poisoned by your immature needs.

I thought you no longer cared about motivations, phanto.

<<Once again you have been sucked into an argument not because you care about the subject but because you want to expose the perceived flaws in anyone who dares to challenge the arguments for same-sex marriage.>>

Oh, I absolutely care about this topic, and any other topic regarding equality, for that matter. I will admit, however, that I find it endlessly fascinating to watch you lot cling so desperately, to such a negative position, that is shown to be so utterly irrational, despite how harmful it is.

You lot must be very unhappy people.

<<You want to talk about motivation, sincerity, disingenuity and other traits like homophobia and bigotry.>>

Correct. But, again, only after I’ve dealt with the arguments. Otherwise one starts to tread dangerously close to the ad hominem fallacy.

<<These are your real concerns.>>

And you can pick this despite my dealing with the arguments of others first and foremost?

I somehow doubt that.

<<None of those things should come into account when a decision about same-sex marriage is being considered.>>

“[They should] if [they suggest] bigotry, as bigotry is harmful.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753)

<<The only things that matter are the reasonableness of the arguments.>>

“Arguments certainly are important, which is why I discredit yours before concerning myself with your disingenuousness.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753)

<<This bitterness and resentment comes through in most of your posts.>>

(Now we’re back to the amateur psychology.)

In real psychology, this is what they refer to as 'projection'. You are 'projecting' your own feelings of resentment on to me, as I am a source of the distress which you are clearly feeling right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

<<I don’t think this forum is the place to deal with those personal problems ...>>

Well, we agree on that much at least.

So, do you actually have any counter-arguments? Or will it just be the ad hominem fallacy from here on in.

Incidentally, kudos for not lying. You could have said that you'd support same-sex marriage in my hypothetical scenario, but you chose not to. I guess that just makes you disingenuous.

Phillips:

“I thought you no longer cared about motivations, phanto.”

Only about the motivations of those who abuse the forums.

“I will admit, however, that I find it endlessly fascinating to watch you lot cling so desperately, to such a negative position, that is shown to be so utterly irrational, despite how harmful it is.”

That is a rather perverse sense of fascination. Shouldn’t you be concerned about the harm rather than the ‘desperate clinging’? Why are you fascinated by the act of someone clinging? Do you enjoy watching people who are desperate?

“You lot must be very unhappy people.”

In real psychology that is called projection.

“Correct. But, again, only after I’ve dealt with the arguments.”

So it is a reasonable thing to do just because you do it after something else? Why do you need to do it all? Either your arguments are not good enough or your arguments are just a cover for your obsession with bigotry. Why not just talk about bigotry? Start your own topic in the general forum and leave this discussion about same-sex marriage? Otherwise it just looks like you are trying to hijack this topic for your own personal agenda.

“And you can pick this despite my dealing with the arguments of others first and foremost?”

The fact that you do this is to try and hide your obsession with bigotry. Either talk about same-sex marriage or start up you own discussion on bigotry. It is illogical to mix the two.

“bigotry is harmful”

That is a revelation. You must be the only one who has worked this out. What is your point exactly? If something is harmful then we should stop it? Why do you need to state the bleeding obvious?

“Now we’re back to the amateur psychology.”

Anyone can pick resentment and bitterness except the bitter, resentful person.

“So, do you actually have any counter-arguments? Or will it just be the ad hominem fallacy from here on in.”

No I will be just focusing on your obsession with bigotry.