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

People are arguing they "believe" the same about gay marriage, yet you dismiss their concerns.

So the issue is not who is "equal" or whether they "love" each other (which may not be your stance, but is the foundation of the gay activism), it is simply a matter of "whether society is ready", which is a rather weak justification for any law reform whatsoever.

That is one fat red herring.

Was our society ready to decriminalise abortion or prostitution?
Did "the people" want to ban capital punishment?
When did anyone ask us in a democratic poll?
How could they know we were "ready" for those reforms, if they never asked?

99% of laws and policies were never put to a public vote, so almost all legislation and regulation is therefore invalid, since we have no idea whether we were "ready" for it.

//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.//

Yeah, this is coming from the fella who thinks that blowjobs are disgusting and abnormal XD

I don't think anybody will be taking your views on sexual morality seriously after that admission. Everyone likes blowjobs.

AH Tony, I think you have just shot yourself in the foot. 'everyone likes blowjobs'? There it is finally. Your perception of 'everyone' and the 'majority' are finally exposed as figments of your imagination. You have continually premised that the 'majority' agreed to this and that. Now we know that you make these statements lacking 'real' proof and so you argue as if you are right. Well finally we have your number and it turns out that it is you and your comments that should not be given consideration. You and ALL the commenters know very well that 'everyone' does NOT like, in fact, are repulsed at the very idea. It's bad enough copping it up the arse, but in the mouth? Really? This is OK with you is it? We all know this sort of crap goes on but being mature means knowing good, bad, right and wrong. Honestly you queers are like kids in a candy store. You will scream and throw hissy fits and make life unbearable for everyone else just so you can have your own selfish and un-disceplined way.

Leo Lane,

You are yet to demonstrated that it is either baseless or idiotic.

<<Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”>>

No, my response to the claim immediately preceding the above statement of yours is that you have not provided a reason why. You have simply stated that it is currently between a man and a woman, therefore it should always be that way.

Your reasoning is circular.

The suggestion, that humans will go extinct if we allow people (who are having children, mind you) to have the relationships that they’re already in legally recognised, is just plain dumb.

--

Shockadelic,

Yes, I do.

<<People are arguing they "believe" the same about gay marriage, yet you dismiss their concerns.>>

Because every concern that I have heard thus far is baseless (see Leo Lane's arguments, for example). I have demonstrated this in numerous discussions on OLO. I’m sorry you missed them.

<<So the issue is not who is "equal" or whether they "love" each other … it is simply a matter of "whether society is ready">>

No, that was just one of a couple possible motivations that I listed for not demanding across-the-board equality. This is yet another straw man from you, so your silly questions are irrelevant.

Incidentally, you noted earlier that too many questions in a poll could discourage people from answering (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19225#341864). Now, suddenly, you ignore the perils of bombardment simply because it suits your confused argument to do so.

<<… which is a rather weak justification for any law reform whatsoever.>>

Indeed it would be. It would, however, be a good reason to not propose too much in one hit.

<<99% of laws and policies were never put to a public vote, so almost all legislation and regulation is therefore invalid, since we have no idea whether we were "ready" for it.>>

At no point have I even suggested that society being ready for any given change determined the validity of it.

See what happens when you create a straw man and run with it? You make an ass of yourself.

"Now, suddenly, you ignore the perils of bombardment simply because it suits your confused argument to do so."

I have proposed that issues be polled to a small random sample, *one* issue at a time.
A voter might get one poll in the mailbox each year or seven.
Hardly "bombardment".

"At no point have I even suggested that society being ready for any given change determined the validity of it."

You have "suggested" that whether society was "ready" should determine what reforms people promote.

"Society back then wasn't ready for quite so much change, but that didn't make arguing in favour of decriminalisation wrong."

The current furore over gay marriage indicates many are not "ready" for this reform, that it is "too soon".
It does not matter whether YOU think their arguments are valid.

Shockadelic,

Yes, to varying degrees, readiness may be a useful consideration to factor in when deciding which ideas are worth promoting, and which would be a total waste of time.

<<You have "suggested" that whether society was "ready" should determine what reforms people promote.>>

But that’s very different to the straw man you presented earlier, which claimed that I had argued that the validity of any given change rested on a society’s readiness for it.

It amuses me, the suggestion that it is somehow disingenuous, cynical, or sinister to exclude other forms of marriage just because same-sex marriage wouldn’t pass if bundled with polygamy and incestuous marriage. It is form of the False Dilemma.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

Not bundling same-sex marriage with polygamy and incestuous marriage (assuming, for the moment, that the latter two are even worthy of equality) is smart planning and resource management. Nothing more. And suggesting that sincerity demands that they be bundled together or not at all is a False Dilemma designed to shut the opposition up, with the admission that one doesn't have a good reason to object to the actual issue at hand.

<<The current furore over gay marriage indicates many are not "ready" for this reform, that it is "too soon".>>

Yes, but a majority agree that it is time - according to all polling since 2004, and a longitudinal study conducted since 2003 involving 17,000 subjects.

<<It does not matter whether YOU think their arguments are valid.>>

Correct, it only matters what I can demonstrate through reason and evidence. At no point have I suggested otherwise.