Crikey philips, you really are a phallus see!

Really, FireballXL5? So, who's sock puppet or reincarnation are you, anyway?

The butthurt must be thick around here if you can go to the effort of logging on and posting just to insult me.

That's all you lot have left, isn't it?

Your position AJP, is that there is inequality before the law because perverts cannot marry.
Earlier in this thread, you responded to the statement:” <<In Australia Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman.>>” with the response :”Correct”
The law of marriage concerns men and women, and the law treats them equally. The law of marriage is nothing to do with people, men or women, in their capacity as perverts, wanting a union with a person of the same sex , so the law of marriage does not deal with such unions in any way, since there is no basis for any treatment of them, or reference to them, in relation to marriage.
Relationships between persons of the same sex do not constitute marriage, as you have acknowledged, so the law of marriage has no application, and cannot be unequal in its treatment of them, because it does not apply to their relationships, and thus does not treat them in any way at all.
Your assertion of unequal treatment is a blatant lie, and is the untruthful basis of your assertion of “inequality. Your only basis for your position is a falsehood.
The perverts who claim inequality, are falsely claiming that their relationships are “marriage”. They have avoided naming their relationship, and have sought no legal basis for such a relationship, no doubt believing that this ploy assists their baseless and scurrilous claim that such a relationship is a marriage.
As I have pointed out before, Phillips relies on nonsense, the non-existent “same sex marriage”, and the blatant lie of inequality in the law of marriage. His nonsense about “fallacies” is of no effect, because he has no case to defend, just lies and nonsense, of no force or effect. He has nothing

That’s correct, Leo Lane.

<<Your position AJP, is that there is inequality before the law because perverts cannot marry.>>

And that you have not yet demonstrated that they are perverts.

<<The law of marriage concerns men and women, and the law treats them equally.>>

Correct, and correct. The law discriminates equally between lesbian and gay-male couples.

<<The law of marriage is nothing to do with people, men or women, in their capacity as perverts, … since there is no basis for any treatment of them, or reference to them, in relation to marriage.>>

Correct, only you are yet to demonstrate that they are perverts and that there is no basis for marriage equality.

<<Relationships between persons of the same sex do not constitute marriage, …>>

Not legally in Australia yet, no.

<<… so the law of marriage has no application, and cannot be unequal in its treatment of them, …>>

Yes, is can. By not including them at all.

<<… it does not apply to their relationships, and thus does not treat them in any way at all.>>

That fact that it does not apply to their relationships is what is discriminatory. It does not have to actively treat them in any way, in order to discriminate.

You’re not going to fool me with BS lawyer-speak. I’m quite used to it.

<<Your assertion of unequal treatment is a blatant lie, and is the untruthful basis of your assertion of “inequality.>>

Well, apparently not. See above.

<<The [gay people] who claim inequality, are falsely claiming that their relationships are “marriage”.>>

That they are marriage, or that they should be allowed to be called marriage?

<<They have avoided naming their relationship, …>>

Have they? Deliberately? Why do they need to do that, and why have they avoided it?

<<… and have sought no legal basis for such a relationship …>>

So, they need a legal basis to attain a legal basis? If that were the case, then no one would ever attain a legal basis for anything.

No, the principle of ‘equality before the law’ is all they need.