Really, phanto? Every last one of them?

<<Homosexuals do not want equality - they want the government to acknowledge their sexuality.>>

What is your evidence for this claim?

<<Do you have an example which shows it is untrue?>>

This is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy, and an appeal to ignorance.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Do you have evidence against Russell’s Teapot? How about universe-creating pixies?

No AJ, homosexuals do not want equality, they want their relationship to be seen the same as a heterosexual one.
If homosexuals were at all interested in equality they would be supportive of all forms of marriage between consenting adults, but they are not.
Nor are most of the heterosexual supporters of SSM.
Mention adult incest, group marriage, polygamy and all you get are reasons why they are not beneficial to society. Mind you, they haven't come up with any ways SSM is beneficial to society but thats beside the point isn't it. And I get a lot of amusement from watching the contortions of people trying to justify refusal of adult incest marriage. Things like the risk of genetic disorders in children, when there is no restriction on marriage between people with known genetic disorders now. When we have really efficient contraception and even more laughable, if the couple were same sex, as in brothers or sisters and can't procreate.
When proponents of " marriage equality" support all forms of marriage I will reconsider my position.
I notice that in recent times the terminology has changed from same sex marriage to marriage equality, in an effort to evoke even more feelings of guilt in opponents.
Sorry, doesn't work.

That looks to me like equivocation, Big Nana.

<<... homosexuals do not want equality, they want their relationship to be seen the same as a heterosexual one.>>

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation.

The same, as in a committed relationship with the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples, yes. That’s equality. But if by “same” you mean identical in every respect, then no, that would be delusional. Clearly there are differences.

<<If homosexuals were at all interested in equality they would be supportive of all forms of marriage between consenting adults, but they are not.>>

Really? All of them? And what if those, who are not supportive of other forms of marriage, are not so because they believe they will have deleterious effects on society? That WOULD be a valid reason to exclude them, after all.

You really want to go down this road again? We’ve done it a couple of times before.

<<Nor are most of the heterosexual supporters of SSM.>>

As above.

<<Mention adult incest, group marriage, polygamy and all you get are reasons why they are not beneficial to society.>>

No, more why they’re harmful. This is a straw man you've set up to present your next bogus argument.

<<Mind you, they haven't come up with any ways SSM is beneficial to society but thats beside the point isn't it.>>

To some extent it is, yes. However, greater equality is, in itself, beneficial (provided no harm will result from it). History and multiple studies demonstrate this.

<<And I get a lot of amusement from watching the contortions of people trying to justify refusal of adult incest marriage.>>

I bet you do. Are you suggesting an insincerity? Maybe they’re just not aware of your arguments for incest and polygamy, or believe they can counter them?

Did that ever occur to you?

Of course not. You're determined to interpret their motives as cynically as possible.

<<I notice that in recent times the terminology has changed from same sex marriage to marriage equality, in an effort to evoke even more feelings of guilt in opponents.>>

Perhaps. The term is still accurate, though.

Dear phanto,

The Howard government had already made a value judgement.
They were the ones that changed marriage in the Marriage Act to
be "between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all
others." Therefore this can easily be changed back to its
original form which did not specify anything of the kind.

Foxy:

Just because the Howard government changed the law does not mean it was reasonable for them to do so. It is not reasonable for them or any government to make value judgements about emotional relationships.

Governments do many things which they should not do and endorsing or rejecting emotional relationships is beyond what they need to do in order to govern. Only the two people involved can say to what extent their relationship has value. Such a thing cannot be measured nor is it discernible to exterior parties such as governments. If you cannot make a judgement then you should not make a judgement but the government is making judgements and we should be concerned that it is going beyond its reach in doing so.

Dear phanto,

The fact remains that the Government has effectively
changed the Marriage Act under Mr Howard and it is
up to the government to correct it.