Back to name-calling, eh Leo Lane? It's always a sure sign of desperation in you.

<<You find my constant exposition of your lies and nonsense repetitious do you, idiot boy?>>

You are yet to point to a single lie or bit of nonsense from me.

<<You could try telling the truth, and admitting facts, for once.>>

In other words, just agree with you and your fallacious ‘is-ought’ assumption.

<<Marriage is between a man and a woman.>>

In Australia currently, yes. But, again, this doesn’t explain why the law can not or should not be changed.

<<[Gay] relationships are not marriage. You quoted the Marriage Act to me, remember?>>

And therein lies the circularity of your reasoning:

The Marriage Act doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage, because [gay people] can’t get married, because the Marriage Act doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage, because [gay people] can’t get married, because the Marriage Act doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage, because [gay people] can’t get married, because the Marriage Act doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage.

Ad infinitum.

This also demonstrates that you were telling porkies when you said that there was no legislation preventing gay couples from marrying. You just make stuff up as you go, don't you?

<<You have demonstrated the merits of voting NO.>>

Apparently not. Keep trying ol’ chap.

Toni Lavis, whom "ought" marriage to be between?

There is no *correct* answer!

Marriage can be defined in many ways, so there is little point arguing that any definition is right or wrong.
It is contextual.

The only question is what *legal* definition do the people of Australia want, as laws apply to *all* citizens, not just special interest groups.
The definition's context is *our society* not any individual's personal, subjective reality.

I cannot redefine the meaning of the words "murder" or "robbery" to suit my own personal desires.

//Marriage can be defined in many ways, so there is little point arguing that any definition is right or wrong.
It is contextual.//

I concur.

//The only question is what *legal* definition do the people of Australia want//

Umm... isn't that why we're having a postal survey? Sorry, I feel like I've missed something here.

Did you read the link about Hume's guillotine? This isn't a new idea in philosophy. Pretty much any philosophy course which includes even a little bit of ethics, will include Hume's guillotine.

Fact: Marriage is only between a man and woman. Thus, marriage should only be between a man and woman.

Fact: Fatal workplace accidents happen. Thus, fatal workplace accidents should happen.

Fact: people get robbed and murdered. Thus, people should get robb... are you beginning to see the problem with the is-ought argument yet?

Ought does not logically follow from is. Never has, never will.

Note that Hume's guillotine does not invalidate arguments against gay marriage that don't attempt to derive ought from is, although they may still be invalid or unsound for other reasons.

Just because I cannot make the argument to convince an audience that I am right, merely shows me up as a poor litigant and in no way diminishes the veracity of the point being made. It simply means the one attempting to make the point is ill-equipped to do so. Why are we having this debate when it appears that same sex marriage is currently illegal in Australia. We cannot entertain what might be or speculate accordingly as it is not within the terms of reference of the question posed for this article.

ALTRAV,

Are you saying that we’re just going to have to trust you that there was a point in amongst all the vitriol and accusations?

<<Just because I cannot make the argument to convince an audience that I am right, merely shows me up as a poor litigant and in no way diminishes the veracity of the point being made.>>

If you are THAT inarticulate, then perhaps you should do yourself a favour and abstain from commenting at all? I don’t think you are though. I think your points were clear enough, unless you’re referring to a feeling that there is something wrong with gay people and same-sex marriage, but just can’t express what that is? In which case, I suspect the irrationality of your intuition-lead position is more the problem. Not any issue you may have with verbal expression.

<<Why are we having this debate when it appears that same sex marriage is currently illegal in Australia.>>

Um, that’s precisely the reason why we’re having it. That, and the fact that gay people (or at least most of them, anyway) don’t want to be treated like second-class citizens.

<<We cannot entertain what might be or speculate accordingly as it is not within the terms of reference of the question posed for this article.>>

Is this a really convoluted and inarticulate (sorry, you said it first) way of saying that we can’t discuss it because we’re slightly off topic? Don’t worry about that. Most discussion threads on OLO eventually go off on a tangent to some degree or another.

Hi Toni,

The current legal position is that marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman sanctioned by the State, [and often by a religious ritual as well]. That's the law. It 'is'. Whether it 'ought' to be so is another matter. That's what the plebiscite will hopefully show.

Joe