Joe,

I’ve already explained to you why the legal statuses of the two, past and present, are irrelevant to my analogy. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327994

I’ll keep kicking this horse until you can show me why I shouldn’t. The two scenarios are suitably analogous. Homophobia is as bad as racism. Have fun on the wrong side of history.

--

phanto,

That’s a good question.

<<So it is safe to say that anyone who disagrees with someone vocally even after they have been shown they do not have a rational argument is a hater.>>

I would restrict it to any topic in which contempt is predominantly the driving force amongst those who maintain their position in the absence of any rational argument. So, for example, the term wouldn’t apply to creationists, because their main motivation for maintaining their position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a desire to defend a literal interpretation of scripture, not because they may feel contempt for scientists.

A.J.Phillips: "Homophobia is as bad as racism. "
Indeed, it is worse than racism, because the racially abused kid can return to a home that supports and nurtures him, whereas so many gay kids are rejected by their own families as well as teachers, and their peers...which is why half youth suicides are by gays. Rejecting marriage equality is just another kick in the guts

AJ,

You claim "I’ve already explained to you why the legal statuses of the two, past and present, are irrelevant to my analogy. Remember?"

No, the legal status of the two IS relevant: one is, and always has been, legal; the other has never been legal.

Suck it up.

Meanwhile, back to topic: Shorten raises the same false analogy today, claiming equality before the law. What does the law say ? Marriage between a man and a woman is legal; an association between homosexuals is not legal.

So equality before the law applies to men and women in such relationships; there is no such right in law for homosexuals to enter into such legal relationships. They can relate all they like but it won't be recognised as a 'marriage' under current legislation. The notion of 'equality' between the two forms of association is not applicable.

You may say that it should be, but that's another matter.

Joe

You've got to admire AJ's chutzpah. According to him, he's looked at the issue rationally, found no rational arguments from the t'other side and assumes there aren't any. QED. This from the man who thought the nuclear family was invented in the 1940's!!

That children from non-traditional families do worse than those from families with a biological father and a biological mother is really beyond dispute. That children with gay parents do worse is less clear. But that is only because of a paucity of data given that there are next to no studies available as yet with anything but small numbers since the number of such children is not great. So we can throw studies back and forth but it'll resolve little.

But for the heck of it:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537
and on a personal level:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/21/the-kids-are-not-alright-a-lesbians-daughter-speaks-out/

The point I made in a previous thread was that the nuclear family has been the backbone of western civilisation for close on a millennium (at least) and we shouldn't be playing around with it willy-nilly. In the past 50 years, what with easy divorce and the state making single parenthood a viable economic lifestyle choice, the family has been placed under severe pressure. The breakdown of the family structure has been a disaster for many kids and a disaster for society.

And now some want to double-down on that assault. That's their prerogative and they'll probably get their way. But such a massive potential change ought to be openned to the consideration of the entire society, not relegated to a 30 minute vote in parliament.

A J Philips:

"Anyone who is against same-sex marriage, is vocal about it, and continues to be vocal about it after it is shown to them that they don’t have a rational argument against same-sex marriage."

This defines a hater when it comes to same-sex marriage but when it comes to any other disagreement contempt must be present for it to be true.

Why does contempt have to be present for every other subject of disagreement to be able to label someone a hater but not have to be present for same-sex marriage disagreements? A definition of a hater has to apply to all disagreements or none. That is what a definition is, is it not?

Paul,

"Is Mise. do you favor plebiscites for all controversial issues, like gun ownership for example...."

Bring it on!!