Tony Lavis,
I note you are able to define difference among these people while you are wanting to remove the definition of difference between Homosexual unions and Heterosexual unions. There is a defined difference?

You define difference,"wealthy people and one for poor people,...,rich, poor, tall, short, black, white, disabled, able-bodied, insane, sane." None of these people are equal under the definition you give them, that is according to you what defines their difference. There is no law that defines these definitions differences as the same.

So you argue to want all people to be defined the same, as you argument that there in inequality before the law is spurious as there is no law that makes any individual unequal. There is no law that states everyone must be married so all people are not equal under marriage laws. Marriage is a lifelong commitment covered by a State contract and not a law of enforcement to make all persons equal

Dear Josephus,

We are told in the booklet published by the
Australian Government, "Becoming an Australian
Citizen," the following - under the heading -
"Equality Under The Law." That -

"All Australians are equal under the law.

This means that nobody should be treated differently from
anybody else because of their race, ethnicity,
country of origin, because of their age, sex, marital
status or disability, or because of their political or
religious beliefs. Government agencies and independent
courts must treat everyone fairly."

And denying couples the right to marry if they so choose
just because they happen to be of the same-sex is
treating them differently - and accoridng to the government's
own literature - against the law.

Equality under the law means - Being treated the same.
Currently this is not true for same-sex couples.

Dear Foxy,

Sounds great: "nobody should be treated differently from anybody else because of their disability" - I wish they followed it through and had parliament, government and the public service be comprised of people who are blind, deaf and dumb, thus who could do us no harm!

"because of their age"... Why am I not getting a letter from the Queen for my birthday? why only those who turn 100? Why are two-year-olds not allowed to drive?

"because of marital status"... Why are bachelors not allowed to divorce?

"because of their religious beliefs"... Why is parliament sitting late on Friday afternoons, sometimes even on Saturday? Surely this prevents observant Jews from being elected!

"because of their political beliefs"... Why are Greens not included in the Liberal government?

I have a question for you:

Had a law been legislated stating that you are a camel - would you then become a camel?

Ooo.... ooo.... Can I answer this one?

<<Had a law been legislated stating that you are a camel - would you then become a camel?>>

Too bad. I'm going to anyway.

No, but if being legally recognised as a camel was important and provided certain benefits and a symbolic equality, then being legally recognised as a camel would still be something worth fighting for. But, unlike being a camel, marriage is a social construct. So this analogy of yours, Yuyutsu, is invalid.

It is for reasoning similar to the above that your analogies regarding age and political orientation are just plain stupid and irrelevant. Like most of what you say, really.

All that aside, what you're essentially saying, Yuyutsu, is that gay couples can never actually be "married" (in the eyes of some grander or transcendent realm/being). Is it any wonder that I had you in mind when I discussed, on several occasions, the disingenuity of the marriage privatisation approach to homophobia?

I don't think so.

You need to practice a bit more on your "sagely" advice because, at the moment, you just look like a bigot.

//None of these people are equal under the definition you give them, that is according to you what defines their difference.//

//Whatever our differences, we are all members of the set of people//

All right Josephus, which of the sub-sets of people that I have mentioned do you think doesn't belong to the set of people?

Here's some background reading in case you need to brush up on your set theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

//So you argue to want all people to be defined the same//

No, I want them all to be defined as members of the set of people. Do you understand the difference?

//There is no law that states everyone must be married//

No of course not. How on earth would you enforce such a law? How on earth is this relevant to anything?

//so all people are not equal under marriage laws.//

Marriage law would only be fair if it made marriage compulsory? You are a true master of the non-sequitur, Josephus.

//Marriage is a lifelong commitment covered by a State contract//

Not always lifelong, but broadly I accept your point.

//not a law of enforcement to make all persons equal.//

Because we can only have marriage equality if we force everyone to marry? No, sorry, your non-sequitur isn't any more convincing the second time around.

Foxy,

"Equality under the law means - Being treated the same.
Currently this is not true for same-sex couples."

That is true and will still be true if the Marriage Act is changed to recognize SSM.

Just as an aside, could posters please consider using either single ' or double " quotation marks when making direct quotations, the use of other marks is a tad confusing.