<<Your twisted logic in comparing incest and paedophilia with homosexuality is flawed in so many ways>>

Your twisted logic in comparing objection to same sex "marriage" with "criminalising interracial marriage, shooting aborigines, removing children based on race, and barring women from employment" is flawed in so many ways.

<<Laws based on preventing harm to individuals, such as theft, murder, paedophilia, and incest are fundamentally different>>
Your statement presupposes paedophilic incest.
Where is the harm in consenting adult incest between, say, homosexual brothers?
How is homosexual incest between adult consenting brothers different from homosexual relations between non-relations?
There can be no difference in your relativistic wonderland.
You're making it up on the run and the flaws in your argument are widening.
Once you separate marriage from its time-honoured uniqueness you inevitably open it up to any bizarre interpretation whatsoever.

"don't try to derail the discussion by emotive anecdotes."

That's a bit of a joke, isn't it?

This entire discussion began with the posting of
an ill-informed, emotive anecdote that distorted
the facts of the story, as the OP lately acknowledges.

In the face of reasoned arguments that point this out,
the OP reverts to ridiculous conspiracy theories and
pines for the good old days of the 1960s.
Another commenter "derails the discussion" by using
this discussion as yet another platform for his/her
endless homophobic rants.

I'd say the discussion was "derailed by emotive anecdotes"
from the moment it started.

Boaz,

<<And I feel like jumping up on your kitchen table with a HUGE sign which says "On WHAT authority?">>

The duty and desire to maximise well-being and the consequences of not doing so; a demonstrable and reality-based ‘authority’ that doesn’t require the subjective cherry-picking of which parts we’re going to follow in a book with more contradictions than you can poke a stick at - a lazy, thoughtless and potentially dangerous form of morality.

<<This is the whole problem with you progressives....you canonize your own subjective opinions.>>

So while us “progressives” use a reliable and largely objective form of morality that requires thought and consideration, Christians cherry-pick their holy book in a way that suits them best, based on their own subjective opinions. And hey, if they disagree with other Christians...

“We Christians have a simple solution ... we can just move away and build our own group, and many do.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1810#36651)

Proxy,

Whether or not the value that family members should behave as family members is immutable, is a side issue (introduced by you to attack a non-existent contradiction due to the weakness of your own argument) and irrelevant to my point.

But if you can find enough good reasons for family members to ditch their roles as family members in exchange for intimate relationships so that they out-weight the cons, then fine; all you’d be left with is an ick factor hard-wired into our brains from thousands of years of viewing incest unfavourably.

I’d doubt anyone could though.

So you’re alleged contradiction has turned out to be nothing more than a red herring.

Like I said before, Proxy, it’s back to the drawing board for you.

My points still stand.

<<all you’d be left with is an ick factor hard-wired into our brains
from thousands of years of viewing incest unfavourably>>

What's the difference between that and the ick factor hard-wired into our brains
from thousands of years of recognising homosexuality as being abnormal and unnatural?

How do the pros of SSM (making homosexuals feel good about themselves)
<<out-weight the cons>>
of depriving innocent children of their natural birthright of a mother and a father?

<<My points still stand.>>
Your points, if one could decipher them, don't have a leg to stand on.

Yes they do Proxy.
The undeniable fact is that it is 'LEGAL' to practice homosexuality, whether you like it or not.

Your rather silly argument about sisters marrying each other is truly laughable. The law states we cannot marry our immediate family members, and that's that.

We seem to be repeating ourselves with you and the sarcastic AGIR, so I am getting bored of this thread.
See you all on another thread.

<<The undeniable fact is that it is 'LEGAL' to practice homosexuality, whether you like it or not.>>

The undeniable fact is that it is 'LEGAL' to practice polyamory, whether you like it or not.

According to your logic, therefore, people should be able to marry more than one person.

<<Your rather silly argument about sisters marrying each other is truly laughable.
The law states we cannot marry our immediate family members, and that's that.>>

Your rather silly argument about homosexuals marrying each other is truly laughable.
The law states we cannot marry someone of the same gender, and that's that.

You can see from the above that your "arguments" are not very well thought out.
Have you actually thought about this issue or are you just parroting what you've heard from homosexual activists?

I would advise you to think about the issue, not just parrot.
Think of all the children who will be deliberately, forever denied their natural birthright of a mother and a father if homosexual "marriage" is legalised.

Or is it that you just don't care about the children?