Joe,

Try not to take my descriptions of your arguments as comments on who you are as a person. People can make stupid arguments without being stupid themselves.

<<As an asinine but curious person (just ask anyone), can you spell out for me how 'history shows same-sex marriage' to be in any way, ever, legal ?>>

Not marriage specifically, no. Why do you ask?

<<Says who that a plebsicite is 'out of step' with the voice of the people ?>>

I’m not sure. The authors might have been suggesting that. Why do you ask?

<<God, really, who cares ?>>

A lot of people. Not the least of all, you.

AJ Philips, your exemplary elitist smugness is exactly why this vote may fail.

Loudmouth and myself have both referred to historical (Rome, Greece, initiation rites) and hypothetical "love" relationships (incest, polygamy) that clearly show that all kinds of sexual, romantic and cultural practices may have and do exist, but you do not address *why* these sexual/romantic/cultural relationships do not deserve legal EQUALITY too?

"Why do [I] ask?"

Because it negates the argument *exclusively* based on "love" as justification for reform.

Love, sex and relationships exist in many forms, but only heterosexual monogamy has been *officially* recorded in European law for MILLENNIA. (and yes mr Smartypants, before you bother being even smugger, *we* are part of that European historical continuum).

Majority opinion may well favour "gay marriage" but the same *argument* ("love") can justify incestous and polygamous "marriage" and you fail to address why these too should not be permitted, if all people should be "equal" under the law.

"Perhaps we could fight for that next"?
But why should we wait, when we're having a debate *right now* in this country about marriage reform?
Because you're afraid it will derail your "love" train.

Hi Shockadelic,

Well, maybe lust rather than love - not that there's anything much wrong with lust, it's just that people can confuse the two, and seek to marry in haste. I recall a Greek friend from a remote village speaking of his first lust, a donkey who spent the rest of the day braying around the village with her tail up.

Cheers,

Joe

I haven’t claimed that they don’t, Shockadelic.

<<… you do not address *why* these sexual/romantic/cultural relationships do not deserve legal EQUALITY too?>>

At least not in this discussion. I’m happy to argue in favour of them if they’re always consensual and there is no reason to believe that they would be detrimental to societal health.

<<Because it negates the argument *exclusively* based on "love" as justification for reform.>>

Who here has used love as an argument, exclusively? I certainly haven’t. Not in any other discussion either, for that matter.

<<Love, sex and relationships exist in many forms, but only heterosexual monogamy has been *officially* recorded in European law for MILLENNIA.>>

Indeed. So, what? Is this a fallacious appeal to tradition?

<<Majority opinion may well favour "gay marriage" but the same *argument* ("love") can justify incestous and polygamous "marriage" …>>

Correct. Which is why equality is a better argument than love. With equality comes the weighing up of the risks and benefits, as I noted at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#244345.

<<… you fail to address why these too should not be permitted, if all people should be "equal" under the law.>>

Perhaps that’s because I’m not claiming that they shouldn't. Marriage opponents seem so in favour of recognising these other relationships that I think I might be warming to them, actually.

<<But why should we wait [to fight for polygamy], when we're having a debate *right now* in this country about marriage reform?>>

Perhaps many believe that those other forms of marriage will have deleterious effects on societal health? Perhaps it would be too much too soon?

After all, it would have been foolish for gay people to argue for marriage equality at the same time that they were campaigning to have homosexuality decriminalised, would it not? Society back then wasn't ready for quite so much change, but that didn't make arguing in favour of decriminalisation wrong.

Your logic sounds flawed.

Anyway, this is all one big fat red herring. Just because no-one is fighting for those other forms of marriage, that doesn’t mean that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be fought for.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, so a relationship between people of the same sex cannot be marriage, so people talking same sex marriage are talking ridiculous nonsense.
Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”
The parties to a marriage are a man and a woman, and they are currently treated equally under the law. A man entering a relationship with a man is nothing to do with marriage, any more than a woman entering a relationship with a woman, so Phillips is talking baseless nonsense. He admits that he is only talking about possibilities.
In the remote possibility that the NO vote fails, he may have an opportunity to partake in the serious damaging of society.

Of all the human species which have existed, homo sapiens is the only species which has not become extinct, so the process of extinction looms over us, as the sole remaining species.
The process started when we went against every instinct for survival, and removed the death penalty which initially applied to the crime of perversion, being same sex relationships. The slippery slope then encompassed decriminalising of perversion, and we have now sunk to the point of tolerating an attack on the venerable, important institution of marriage, the joining of a man and a woman, which produces children.
The perverts aim to destroy marriage, and hijack the name to encompass relationships between people of the same sex, which relationships are not marriage.
The principle matches the idea of genetically engineering a pest species so that their breeding process fails.
This destructive endeavour is unconsciously pursued by the perverts, aided and abetted by people whose survival instinct has failed, and are part of a group in self destruct mode

I don't believe it, I've been on a number of other topics since this one so you can imagine my surprise to see it still going on, and clearly no end in sight. The YES people cannot, no, must not give ground because to do so will weaken their stance. I had moved on because I could see that the yes camp just kept refusing to accept the inevitable. Not the yes or no vote but the fact that what they are pushing cannot be accepted by mature, healthy, normal people. Every point made was based on what is good and decent as expected by the normal people and society. And every time they would come back with rejection asking for proof? Proof of what? We don't have to prove anything, they do. Even when I suggested that what the yes camp engaged in (sodomy and buggery),was disgusting, they still rejected it saying this was acceptable. You guys in the NO camp, just forget it, they will not listen to anything that is not in their favour. Because to agree with us would mean they had to go back in the closet, and as I said, once in there they can do whatever they like as far as the rest of us are concerned.