Dear Herman,

I'll keep it simple.

You ask, "What's depriving people of educational
funding got to do with SSM?"
It all a question of size to you isn't it?
You brought up the question of size remember -
2%?

Australian Religious Right groups, and yourself
argue on the
grounds that a small minority is unworthy of
civil rights such as the right to marry, adopt
children and so on.

You brought up the argument
saying that homosexuals are only 2% of the
population and are therefore unworthy of consideration.

This argument makes no sense as you don't find these
same people (Religious Right and yourself) calling
for tiny Christian sects to be stripped of
government funding to run their own schools on the
basis of their size.

You then ask, "shouldn't we legalize polygamous
marriages?"

Perhaps one day we will - who knows?
But that's not the topic of this thread.

However, as someone stated on another website:
And I quote:

"The most plausible argument I have heard against
polygamy is that it would create an administrative
horror story for the government and other agencies.
...When you have(wedlocked) significant other, you
also have significant partner benefits and
entitlements. In relation to, for example, life
insurance, workers compensation, maintenance and
child support payments, recognizing more than one
partner could mean government agencies and the private
sector (insurance companies etc) are hit with more and
more claims if we are going to treat the first husband/wife
as being as worthy of child support payments as the
second, third, fourth ...

The arguments from here can go on and on...whether
society shrinks back from polygamy because of
administrative worries or if its more of a moral cringe
whether administrative/financial complexities are even
justifiable reasons for outlawing polygamy in the first
place, whether this is about religious views having
a stronger hold on our society ..."

These are all questions that need to be considered
possibly in a future debate. Let's for now stick to
the topic of same-sex marriage in this one.

CONT'D

Dear Herman,

I forgot to add in answer to your statement:

"There are at least as many Muslims as there are
homosexuals in Australia..."

Actually, at the 2006 Census there were 340,000
Muslims in Australia, of whom 128,904 were born
here. And since the 1970s Muslim communities
have developed many mosques and Islamic Schools
and have made vibrant contributions to the
multi-cultural fabric of Australian Society.

If you're seriously interested in raising the subject of
polygamy for further discussion
why don't you start your own thread?

C J Morgan

In your breathless haste to convince readers of your cleverness in thinking of it, you obviously did not read all of the Wikipedia article about Godwin's Law. Here is the telling bit that applies to you:

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons"

Your last paragraph is classic C J Morgan - what a vain, pompous and pathetic little dog whistler you prove yourself to be. You have pirate fantasies too?

Almost as funny as your recent clanger where in your effort to appear superior to other voters who do not have your boasted knowledge of 'civics', you advocated an examination that would have disenfranchised many indigenous voters, whom you claim to support.

Cornflower, the point is that Nambla and paedophilia have about as much relevance to gay marriage as does Philo's obsession with anal sex, i.e. zilch.

Since you're here, why is it that you think that gay couples who wish to marry shouldn't be allowed to by the State?

C J Morgan

The point is that you are prone to vanity and boasting.

Your false dilemmas might work better at your local pub. Hire a mate and go for a drink.

Otherwise, go back and read the thread - that would be a first time for you.

Foxy,
You're trying to exclude polygamy from the argument by relegating discussion of it to another thread.
But it is very relevant to Australian marriage law and equality.
Australian law prohibits homosexual marriage.
Australian law prohibits polygamous marriage, whereas Islamic law sanctions it.
There are approximately the same number of Muslims as homosexuals in Australia.
If Australian law should be changed to include homosexual marriage,
why shouldn't it be changed to include polygamous marriage?
In fact, part of the pro-SSM argument is that homosexual marriage is already allowed in Sweden, Netherlands, etc.
On this basis, polygamous marriage has a greater claim to legalisation in Australia because
more countries sanction it and have done so for far longer than SSM has been around.
Your failure to address this issue shows the weakness of your argument.
I'm also personally disappointed at your summary dismissal of this problem which
appears to reflect a deep-seated Islamophobic attitude.
To change the marriage laws from a man and a woman to two consenting adults would
forever preclude Muslims from practising their sincerely held religious belief.
Shame on all SSM proponents who would allow homosexual marriage while
denying polygamous marriage (Islamic or otherwise).