AJP ..

The difference between homosexual and incestuious is indefinitive ...

AJ Philips "I don’t see too many gay siblings complaining of discrimination over their inability to marry their same-sex siblings, though."

So it's a matter of numbers?
I thought it was a matter of principle.
There are very few gay couples who want to marry, so you just invalidated your whole argument.

I won't be reading links from fascist bodies.

"Equality, in this sense, is the state of being equal with regards to status, rights, or opportunities."

Those are three completely different and unrelated things.

"the legal principle of equality under the law" is a only basic starting point, but there are a myriad of exemptions and exceptions written within various laws.

Some prisoners cannot vote, children cannot sign contracts, military have their own courts, etc.

There is no absolute and universally applied "equality". There are *always* conditional limits.

"discrimination is demonstrably harmful (when it is not justified"

"Harmful"? Subjective value judgement. Invalid.
No gay couple has been rushed to the Emergency Room because they couldn't get married.

Gay couples are already recognised as "de facto" by government and major corporations.
Anything not already covered by that can be dealt with by wills and contracts.
Done.

No, it’s not a matter of numbers at all, Shockadelic.

<<So it's a matter of numbers?>>

In fact, I point this out to your side of the debate every time they argue that small numbers are a reason to not allow same-sex married. Let me rephrase that, if you’re going to take me that literally (perhaps my tone is too subtle):

I don’t see any gay brother/sister-couples arguing that they should be allowed to marry.

If there are some, though, then let’s put that on the agenda next. As you point out, what could be the harm? Right?

<<I thought it was a matter of principle.>>

Partly, yes.

<<There are very few gay couples who want to marry, so you just invalidated your whole argument.>>

No, I didn’t. My argument rests mainly on the principle of equality.

<<[Status, rights, and opportunities] are three completely different and unrelated things.>>

On the contrary, they overlap significantly. There was an ‘or’ their, by the way, if that makes you feel any better.

<<"the legal principle of equality under the law" is a only basic starting point, but there are a myriad of exemptions and exceptions written within various laws.>>

Correct. That’s why I’ve spoken on numerous occasion about weighing up the risks and benefits of allowing equality in each individual situation.

<<Some prisoners cannot vote, children cannot sign contracts, military have their own courts, etc.>>

Yes, good example. What was that I was saying about pre-empting irrelevant analogies?

<<There is no absolute and universally applied "equality". There are *always* conditional limits.>>

I know. Try telling that to Dustin, though. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7904#244810)

Tell me, though, why should the limit be set to heterosexual marriage only, in this instance? THIS is the crux of the matter.

<<"Harmful"? Subjective value judgement. Invalid.>>

No, harm is usually objectively demonstrable. Valid.

<<No gay couple has been rushed to the Emergency Room because they couldn't get married.>>

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

<<Anything not already covered [de facto status] that can be dealt with by wills and contracts.>>

Or we could just simplify and standardise the process (and nationwide, too) by letting them marry.

Dear Alan,

«recent studies have reportedly confirmed a gay gene, not just one, but several down near the bottom of the DNA double helix spiral.»

This is amazing: can you point us to these studies?

Take for example homosexuality or diabetes: we know that they existed from time immemorial, even in apes, so finding corresponding gene(s) would not come as a surprise. The question is, how come this/these gay gene(s) were dormant for millennia and failed to express themselves until about the 1960's? Or are they new mutations? Perhaps resulting from nuclear experiments or vaccinations?

Just consider the implications and dangers of genetic mass-control: to the best of my knowledge, so far science never found any other genes to be responsible for political orientation!

//The question is, how come this/these gay gene(s) were dormant for millennia and failed to express themselves until about the 1960's?//

No gays before 1960? Well that's a new one.

Ever heard of Alan Turing (1912-1954), Yuyutsu? He was gay. Or Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)? Also gay. Or Sparta (900's BC-192 BC)?

I believe gayness has been around since before we were homo sapiens. Bonobos, our closest genetic relatives along with chimpanzees, are very gay indeed.

Alan Bsays :” by John Howard to change the wording from two people to a man and a woman.”
We know that Alansuffers from verbal diarrhoea, and has little control over his output, but John Howard did not change the law of marriage, it was never between two people, as in Alan’s ridiculous assertion, Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and still is. The “same sex” marriage is a nonsense promoted by the fraudulent political arm of the perverts, who want to call their recently decriminalised relationships 'marriage". It would be simpler to reverse the decriminalisation.