I never suggested that it did, phanto.

<<Just because the government is in the marriage business does not mean that it has good reasons for being there.>>

I even put quotation marks around the word ‘privilege’ to avoid suggesting that it does, and going down yet another irrelevant line of discussion.

<<We should not bother about what is ‘socially acceptable’ but what is reasonable.>>

All I was saying there is that if people are afraid to express their bigotry overtly, then that is of interest to us because it means we’ve progressed (i.e. what is reasonable has permeated society enough for those who hold bigoted beliefs (which are never reasonable) to be too afraid to voice them in a direct way).

<<It does not matter what the motivation for wanting the government out of the marriage business is so long as the arguments presented are reasonable and logical.>>

I agree.

And, “I don’t want the government in the marriage business because I can’t stand the idea of those bloody poofters gettin’ hitched”, is not reasonable or logical. Therefore, it is in our interests to know if that is the motivation.

Another point, phanto.

I don’t buy the other popular, more socially acceptable, argument against same-sex marriage that you mentioned to rehctub either.

<<Real leadership would be to ignore the issue altogether and get on with things that matter and affect people’s lives on a daily basis.>>

Because if those who expressed this view really cared about parliament not wasting time, then they would want the government to just get on with it already and push legislation through. A vote in parliament could take as little has half an hour, and given this issue is not going to disappear, avoiding it is actually a bigger distraction and waste of time than pushing the legislation through would be.

The argument doesn’t wash, sorry.

By the way, issues of equality always matter.

What's the point of dragging the entire country through this process for the benefit of some thousands of same sex attracted people who might want to marry and the majority of whom will be divorced with in two years?
Last time I checked, in the UK about 30,000 people out of a population of 62 million had taken advantage of the changes in the law, the majority of them Lesbians who'd been together for an average of 17 years.
50% of those couples already had civil partnerships and chose to marry after it became legal, the average ages were 40 for women and 37 for men.
This is a trivial issue directly affecting around 0.048% of the population, it's not even representative of the majority of Gays.
If we use the same numbers to hazard a guess at the possible beneficiaries of a change to the marriage act in this country we come to the figure of around 11,000.
Overseas figures for same sex divorce are also available, the average seems to be about 14% per annum as opposed to 2% for opposite sex couples. This figure is drastically skewed by the instability of Lesbian relationships so it's not fair to simply break it down into two categories when three are needed, Gay male marriages are only slightly less stable than opposite sex unions.

A marriage between two persons should exclude all other partners; this is not the case in homosexual relationships if children are involved as their others who have contributed to the child's life. From the lies told to children in same sex relationships it has not been to the benefit of the child, either emotionally [who am I" or in their inheritance,if their birth mother dies and the other partner receives all the property of the relationship.

Homosexuals already have equality in society to a married couple; but the lesbian community want the right to children. From the girl children of those relationships it is important the child have a bonded relationship with their biological father.

Dear Mhaze,

<<That's definitely what the the homosexual community want because they see that that is the most likely path to getting what they want.>>

Please don't implicate the poor good homosexuals in this - they have no hand or foot in this matter.

Perhaps what you meant is the gay community, which is a political anti-religious movement, rather than the homosexual community, which is based on sexual attraction: most homosexuals are not gay and a large number of gays are not homosexual.

What the gay lobby wants is to persecute the religious and if it helps their cause, they are even prepared to pay homosexuals to get married. Homosexuals who so wish, already can and do marry each other, even in a religious ceremony which some denominations offer, and their marriage is already even more widely recognised and respected than state-sanctioned marriages.

Ah yes! Thank you Jay of Melbourne. You reminded me of a third more 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.”:

The argument that we’re only talking about a small portion of the population anyway, or that many of them don’t want to get married.

So what?

Many feminists who fought for the right for women to serve in the military didn’t want to join themselves, nor do many women in general want to serve to begin with, but that didn’t make their arguments any less valid.

Yuyutsu,

First you invent your own definition for the words ‘religion’ and ‘exist’, now you’re inventing your own definition for the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’.

<<Perhaps what you meant is the gay community, which is a political anti-religious movement, rather than the homosexual community, which is based on sexual attraction: most homosexuals are not gay and a large number of gays are not homosexual.>>

You desperately need a dictionary.

But thank you for presenting us with a fourth more 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.” Because I don’t believe for a second that not one homosexual person doesn’t want marriage equality, nor do I believe that gay people are just a bunch of rabble-rousing heterosexuals.

Your arguments are absurd.

Do we have anyone else? Are we missing any other disingenuous arguments?