Actually, phanto, I’ve mostly been talking about the former.

<<You are not just talking about equality as some abstract concept – you are talking about the benefits that homosexual people do not enjoy in comparison to the supposed benefits that heterosexual people...>>

But more specifically, the benefits that improved equality provides societies.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14563071
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/The%20Cost%20of%20Inequality%20%20-%20full%20report.pdf

There’s decades of research on this stuff. I’m not just crying, “Equality!”, out of some hippie desire to hold hands and sing kumbaya. There are real, measureable benefits to equality.

But if you want benefits to the latter, then the Australian Marriage Equality’s website provides a few: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters.

<<OK so finally you have raised a supposed benefit.>>

What do you mean “finally”? These are the types of benefits that I’ve been referring to all along. It’s not “supposed” either. There’s plenty of research demonstrating such links:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=the+cost+of+marriage+inequality&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

<<The relationships of gay people are only second-rate if they agree that they are second-rate.>>

It’s about how they’re treated or regarded. Not what they themselves think.

<<Are the relationships of heterosexual couples who do not possess a certificate from the government also second-rate?>>

No, because marriage is an option there.

<<Why do you feel the need to take cheap shots at me?>>

Why do you feel that I’ve taken cheap shots at you? Surely you wouldn’t be so sensitive if you didn’t think they were warranted? Why would you be asking me why, if you were so secure in the belief that I had?

Gets annoying, doesn’t it?

<<I thought you had left the conversation...>>

Is that why you thought you could get away with continuing to dismiss equality as anything of value?

I hadn’t left. I won’t, however, engage with your amateur psychology or second-guessing of my actions and presuming to tell me how I should or should not respond to a given belief.

Presuming that if someone believes [insert belief here] then they should (or why would/wouldn't they?) [insert action here], is not a valid argument and becomes particularly stupid when you are provided with perfectly valid reasoning, only to ignore it.

A j Philips:

So you think equality as a principle is a good idea but that hardly means that every issue of inequality is of equal importance. Why is this issue of obtaining a government issued certificate of so much importance to same-sex couples?

You point to the mental health issues affecting same-sex couples because they cannot marry. They can marry they simply cannot obtain a government issued certificate. If not being married causes so much hardship then why not just call your relationship a marriage and your problem is solved.

Same with all the advantages. If there are all these advantages to be had then just get married and you will instantly feel all the benefits.

Or are you saying that all those health issues and all those benefits have nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with having a government issued certificate? If you just need to married to fix everything then why not get married. How could all those things hinge on the possession of a piece of paper? Who would give any government all that power to control their well-being

These proposals are a secular push to make ONE culture, ONE world order; controlled by the United Nations. One either believes in the right of the individual: or the right of the State. It is part of a plan to destroy personal rights and religious belief; and the State impose what one is to believe and how to behave. It is an endeavour to rule over personal conscience and right, as is evident is countries where LGBT rights of equality have been granted by discrimination laws. It is a push by Marxist for control.

Hasbeen,

What is the evidence that the polls are unreliable?

There are plenty of reasons to avoid a plebiscite other than fear of loss. Probably the best reason would be to avoid giving hate preachers a podium. In all jurisdictions in which marriage equality was decided by referendum, mental health issues and drug and alcohol abuse among the gay population rose significantly during the debate.

http://healthcareguild.com/presentations_files/Download%20-%20Marriage%20Equality%20for%20Same-Sex,%20Counseling%20Psychs%20as%20Social%20Change%20Agents.pdf

<<If you can breed naturally together, or could have if you are past it, you can get married.>>

So that excludes old couples and infertile couples then. Why should it have to be “together”? Shouldn’t children, regardless of whether or not assistance was required to conceive them, be a more important point of consideration?

phanto,

That’s correct.

<<So you think equality as a principle is a good idea but that hardly means that every issue of inequality is of equal importance.>>

But I’ve already addressed this. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226757, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226768)

<<Why is this issue of obtaining a government issued certificate of so much importance to same-sex couples?>>

The answer to that would differ from couple to couple.

<<They can marry they simply cannot obtain a government issued certificate.>>

Oh, you make it sound so dry and so un-small-government-Libertarian-ist when you say it like that. Symbolism counts and has real-world effects.

<<If not being married causes so much hardship then why not just call your relationship a marriage and your problem is solved.>>

For the same reason I can't just call myself a bird and fly. There are practical benefits to a marriage certificate issued by that dreadful, dreadful Big Government.

That link again: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters

But it’s not just about “not being married”. That much should be obvious to you by now. So I don’t think there’s any need to respond to the rest of your questions.

Start addressing what I’ve actually been saying, rather than asking questions that deliberately miss the point. I know you’re not that stupid.

“The answer to that would differ from couple to couple.”

Can you give me an example then?

“Symbolism counts and has real-world effects.”

This symbolism and its real world effects do not seem very important to all those people who do not bother to pursue a government issued certificate. That is a lot of human beings who seem able to live happily without them. Should the government be in the business of pandering to symbolism and real-world effects that seem important for a few when they seem so unimportant to so many?

“For the same reason I can't just call myself a bird and fly.”

So all those people who call their relationship a marriage are not married because they do not fit the bigoted definition of marriage being a relationship which must have a government certificate?

“There are practical benefits to a marriage certificate issued by that dreadful, dreadful Big Government.”

Can you name any which are not also available to couples? You do not need a marriage certificate to access any of these benefits.

“So I don’t think there’s any need to respond to the rest of your questions.”

You said that before already. Do you mean it this time?

What kind of a stupid question is that to ask me, phanto?

<<Can you give me an example [of why obtaining a government-issued certificate is of so much importance to same-sex couples] then?>>

Equality.

<<This symbolism and its real world effects do not seem very important to all those people who do not bother to pursue a government issued certificate.>>

Again, beside the point. We’re not talking about them, and I’ve already explained why their situation is irrelevant. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227191)

<<So all those people who call their relationship a marriage are not married because they do not fit the bigoted definition of marriage being a relationship which must have a government certificate?>>

“Bigoted”. That’s cute.

<<Can you name any which are not also available to couples? You do not need a marriage certificate to access any of these benefits.>>

That link once again: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters

<<You said that before already. Do you mean it this time?>>

Oh, you’d love it if I left, wouldn’t you? Then you’d get to just spout off any old red herring and not have it challenged. And no, for the second time now, I had no intention of leaving this discussion. I said I wouldn't respond to your putting words into my mouth. I'll probably be here for the long haul, so you may as well start addressing what I actually say.

Sorry to get your hopes up there.

Anyway, when I said, “So I don’t think there’s any need to respond to the rest of your questions”, I was just talking about the rest of your questions in that last post of yours. That's all. You see, my comment just before that remark of mine (i.e. “But it’s not just about “not being married”.), should have made it clear as to why the rest of your questions were irrelevant to anything I have been saying. So there was no need to waste time and word-count in addressing them.