Well, you got off to a good start there at least, phanto.

<<OK let us focus on the here and now.>>

Yes, Let us.

<<You are here in this thread arguing in favour of a change in legislation to allow same-sex marriage.>>

Correct.

<<You would not be doing that unless you agreed that the government has the authority to define the relationship between same-sex couples as a marriage if they see fit to do so.>>

Correct, and they do, for their part, for so long as they remain in it. Please see the Marriage Act. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185)

<<Why have you decided that it is appropriate for the government to be involved?>>

Bzzzzt!

Get back to me when you can argue against what I have said rather than putting words into my mouth.

If you want to start a discussion about whether or not the government should be in the marriage business, then by all means, please do so. I will look on with keen interest and perhaps even contribute and form a more solid opinion on the matter, depending on who I feel is presenting the best arguments. But until then, I will continue to ignore your red herrings and throwaway lines.

Good bye.

A J Philips:

“Correct, and they do, for their part, for so long as they remain in it. Please see the Marriage Act.”

The government can create a Marriage Act and define marriage but why do they need to do that? You are appealing to the government to change the definition of marriage when there is no good reason why they should need to define it in the first place. Every couple has the freedom to call their relationship a marriage they do not need anyone outside of the relationship to agree with them including the government. Same-sex couples can call their relationship a marriage if they want and that is all they need to do. Why do they need the government’s acknowledgement that their relationship is a marriage?

You seem to be saying that because the government is in the marriage business at present that they need to be. So why do they need to be?

Why wouldn’t you suggest to same-sex couples that they take up their freedom to define their own relationship? Their stated aim is to be married but the problem is that they define marriage as a relationship which must be acknowledged with a certificate from the government. The problem is not that they cannot marry at all but that they cannot be married according to the government’s definition of marriage. Why do they need government recognition?

cont.

cont.

Those in favour of government sanctioned same-sex marriage claim that their opponents are bigoted because they seek to exclude homosexuals from calling their relationship a marriage. The reality is that people who define marriage as something which must be acknowledged by the government are excluding all those couples who do not have certificates but nevertheless define their relationship as a marriage. This also constitutes bigotry. It is about trying to make couples acknowledge what they do not need to acknowledge.

So while you come in to this thread accusing others of bigotry you are indeed a bigot yourself because you have demonstrated by your behaviour that the only valid marriage is one which is acknowledged by the government and thus you exclude others who have every right to call themselves married. Where is the equality in that?

Not only are you a bigot but also a coward. While you arrogantly promote your superior understanding of these matters like some egotistical prize fighter such as in this example -
“Do we have anyone else? Are we missing any other disingenuous arguments?”

You readily dismiss reasonable questions put to you and run away when challenged. What have you got to fear except the loss of your own inflated sense of self?

That's an interesting question, phanto, and one for another thread.

<<The government can create a Marriage Act and define marriage but why do they need to do that?>>

Do you know what 'red herring' means? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) You really think you're on to something here, don't you?

Now where's that mhaze character?

This rubbish about the nuclear family being the bedrock of society, and the talk of the collapse of civilisation as we know it, is where this debate really gets interesting.

Dear Poirot,

A very good question: "Where are heterosexual rights being threatened?"

Married heterosexual couples got married under certain assumptions, including what "marriage" means, or at least what is used to mean at the time. That is a contract they entered in good faith with the marriage-registrar.

Now, if the definition of "marriage" is changed on them, then not only have the other side failed to keep the contract, but moreover, they become parties and locked to a contract they never agreed to.

In the least, if the definition of "marriage" changes then such heterosexuals that were married according to the older definition should be able to revoke the contract, deregister their marriage and become unmarried, of course without the agony of having to physically separate for at least a year and pretend to never get back together.

Yuyutsu,

What an absolute crock of an argument. But thank you for providing us with a fifth socially acceptable way of saying, “I don’t want same-sex marriage legislated for because I can’t stand the idea of those bloody poofters gettin’ hitched.”

<<Now, if the definition of "marriage" is changed on them, then not only have the other side failed to keep the contract, but moreover, they become parties and locked to a contract they never agreed to.>>

Is mise tried this one on once and I’ll say to you the same thing I said to him: when heterosexual couples get married, they don’t do so with the proviso that ‘marriage’ will only ever stay as a heterosexual union. I certainly didn’t when I got married and I was a bigot too back then.

The love and commitment heterosexual couples legalise is not usually done so on the condition that marriage will only ever be defined as a union between one man and one woman. And any married couple who do actually marry on such a basis should probably not be getting married, or could remain married in the eyes of the bigoted church of their choosing. Although, they may have to shop around for that nowadays. Perhaps you should provide some contacts? It sounds like you may know of a few.

Once again, your argument is ridiculous.