Because, phanto, I believe that bigotry must be fought at all opportunities.

<<So if everyone who does not agree with you is a bigot then why do you engage with them?>>

Whether or not someone agrees with me is not the benchmark either. It could be that I am wrong about something. Which is another reason to engage with others.

<<It does not follow that this particular issue is the government’s responsibility.>>

It is for so long as they are in the “marriage business” for reasons I have already outlined.

<<You can have equality and reduce discrimination without government involvement.>>

That is true. But so long as the government is in the marriage business, they are the only ones who can make the change regarding their involvement.

<<No you would want the government to cease forthwith because proceeding to change means that time will be wasted.>>

Like I said, a vote could be done, readings and all, in as little as half an hour. Withholding equality over such small amounts of time is hardly an argument. Granted there may be a few hours or even a couple of days of processing involved, but it’s still hardly a good case against something as beneficial as equality.

<<If you agree that priorities need to exist then you need to show why this issue is more important than many other issues. You have not presented such an argument.>>

Actually, I did. A reason to prioritise this issue is because it could be so easily and quickly done compared to other issues of equality.

By the way, you don’t seem too upset about the Howard government wasting time with their change to the Marriage Act.

mhaze,

That's not much of an argument.

<<…that a move to legitimising and normalising homosexual marriage is a (further) assault on the family.>>

The typical family is continuously changing. The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s. Regardless, homosexual couples are already having families, so "legitimising" such marriages can only be a good thing for the children of those families.

AJ Philips..." The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s."

Well that is utter rubbish. I refer you to the work of people like Peter Laslett (among many others) that shows the nuclear family of a father, mother and kids living in a discreet separate house goes back to at least the 13th century, at least as regards North-East Europe. It probably goes back much further than that but records aren't good enough to know for certain.

It was/is the very bedrock of the western civilisation and is one of the reasons why it has been so successful as a society over the past 500 years.

I find it fascinating and not a little frightening that so few people understand the fire we are playing with here. Not knowing where we've come from leads to daft notions like spending 30 minutes and changing a few words to change and potentially fatally wound an institution that has been so important for so long.

As much as the activists try to hide the truth, there is more than sufficient evidence that children raised by their married natural (male) father and natural (female) mother do better than any other familial grouping.

I'm not sure if allowing homosexuals to call their partnerships marriage and giving that the imperateur of the law will deal significant harm to the institution of the family to the detriment of the offspring. I do know that other off-handed 'reforms' such as easy divorce and making single parenthood an economically viable life-style choice, have been a disaster for a generation of children.

And I do know that we should spend more than 30 minutes of ahistorical pontification on the proposed changes. I do know that we need to lay out the full potential ramifications of the changes and let the entire society decide whether its worth the risk.

A J Philips:

“I believe that bigotry must be fought at all opportunities”

So do most people but they do not bother trying to reason with a bigot since the definition of a bigot is someone who is not concerned about reason.

There are many in this thread who do not agree with same-sex marriage and by your own definition they are all bigots and cannot be reasoned with so why do you try? What special powers do you have that no one else has got in dealing with bigotry?

“It could be that I am wrong about something. Which is another reason to engage with others.”

You might read what they say but you would not bother replying since as soon as you see they disagree with you then it becomes clear that they are bigots and yet you continue to reply. It makes no sense. You say one thing and then do something completely contrary to what you believe. Either you do not believe they are bigots or you are trying to meet some personal need like the need to impress.

“It is for so long as they are in the “marriage business” for reasons I have already outlined.”

“so long as the government is in the marriage business, they are the only ones who can make the change regarding their involvement.”

Yes they are in the marriage business but do you think they should be? If you do not think they should be then what is the point of arguing for a change in legislation. If you think they should be then you must have good reasons why. You have not given those reasons. You cannot sit on the fence – it is either yes or no.

“Actually, I did. A reason to prioritise this issue is because it could be so easily and quickly done compared to other issues of equality.”

Issues should be prioritised on their level of importance not on how long it takes to get them through legislation

mhaze,

The nuclear family may have been around for hundreds of years, but it was only the most common form of family between the '40s and '70s.

Either way, the fact remains that homosexual couples are having families regardless, and denying the parents of these children the same legitimacy as the parents of heterosexual couples is a form of marginalisation and arguably more damaging than any of the hysterical concerns you raise.

phanto,

What makes you think bigots can't be reasoned with?

<<There are many in this thread who do not agree with same-sex marriage and by your own definition they are all bigots and cannot be reasoned with so why do you try?>>

I was once a bigot on this topic in my Christian days and I changed my mind.

<<What special powers do you have that no one else has got in dealing with bigotry?>>

None necessarily. But it's not always just about the actual person you're dealing with. There may be fence-sitting onlookers who could be persuaded.

<<You might read what they say but you would not bother replying since as soon as you see they disagree with you then it becomes clear that they are bigots and yet you continue to reply.>>

Well clearly I do reply. I'm open to reasoned arguments too, evidently I just haven't come across any yet.

<<You say one thing and then do something completely contrary to what you believe.>>

No, I do something contrary to what you think my belief dictates I should do.

<<Yes they are in the marriage business but do you think they should be?>>

I don't have a very strong opinion either way on that.

<<If you do not think they should be then what is the point of arguing for a change in legislation.>>

Equality while they are.

<<You cannot sit on the fence...>

Why can't someone be undecided? This is a throwaway line.

<<Issues should be prioritised on their level of importance not on how long it takes to get them through legislation>>

They should be prioritised based on both.

Fighting bigotry! There we go, that's what we mean by virtue signalling, for AJ this isn't about homosexuality or equality it's about distinguishing himself as one of the virtuous gütmenschen, as opposed to these bigots, who are the bad people.
There is clearly no demand for same sex marriage among the extreme minority of people who are same sex attracted, the drive to implement the changes comes from the bourgeoisie, led the companies which sell them their aspirational "lifestyle" products and backed by politicians who need their votes.
Apple, Facebook and Google are to same sex marriage what Benetton was to anti-racism, the whole debate is a capitalist marketing strategy targeted at mid-range consumers.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for your earlier comments.

I think that you're right about the Coalition
government regarding same-sex marriage:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-24/election-2016-coalition-mps-can-vote-against-gay-marriage/

It seems like such a waste of money ($160 million) when the plebisite
is not even legally binding and not matter what the outcome, can
be ignored anyway. It is particularly maddening to go through this
expensive farce. And all for pretense?