Joe,

My analogy allowed for this, contrasting only the problems with both scenarios.

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

Ever heard of a hypothetical? You wouldn’t have done very well on an exam that had one, by the looks of it. According to the above rebuttal, your answer would have been, “But this never really happened.”

The analogy is valid.

--

mhaze,

That was an invitation to provide one, and send me packing.

<<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.>>

So far I have not yet seen a rational argument against same-sex marriage. I’m no longer holding out for one either.

<<This from the man who thought the nuclear family was invented in the 1940's!!>>

No, I said that it was the most common form of family only between the ‘40s and ‘70s, and later corrected myself by noting that that was only for Australia, after checking (and citing) my sources for that claim.

As for your evidence that children from same-sex-parenting families fare worse, the first article you linked to is a discredited piece of work that did not bother to check (or at least did not cite) whether or not the children were once raised by opposite-sex partners who divorced (which would explain the results). To his credit, though, the author at least admits that his findings contradict all other findings. The second article is just a single person’s opinion, who happens to be a born-again Christian at that. Reliable stuff there.

--

phanto,

I didn’t say that.

<<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?>>

Contempt for gay people is a major driving force for those against same-sex marriage, and OLO is a testament to that. Particularly those who cannot be swayed by evidence or reasoning.

The greens make it sound as if during the plebiscite, anti gay activists are going to hunt out LGBT people and lynch them. The reality is that for 6 weeks LGBT people will hear pretty much everything they have heard before, and short of the entire continent of Australia being declared a "safe space" they will hear it again.

It would appear that Labor and the greens are more concerned with petty political games than with equal rights.

Aidan asked:
"Indeed many of the people who support gay marriage on the grounds that it's a requirement of gay people being equal, hypocritically oppose polygynous marriage – do they not see polyamorous people as equal?"

They don't actually oppose polyamorous marriage. They just don't want to talk about it now since it would muddy the water and give credence to the slippery slope argument. But if the homosexual marriage campaign gets up, it'll take about 4.3 nanoseconds before these others start to argue that they ought to be next.

AJ:

There is actually no argument, rational or otherwise, that'll send you packing since you've already made up your mind and long since closed it. So by definition, in your mind, any argument that isn't pro is clearly irrational.

Of coarse, sometimes you stumble trying to work out why an argument is irrational even though you KNOW it is. So my views on protecting the family were originally reject by you as (all together now!) irrational based on a faulty historic understanding of the place of the nuclear family in society. To the rational mind, finding out that your reason for rejecting the argument was indeed faulty would cause a re-think. But alas....

BTW, the claim that the nuclear family is a recent invention is one of the hallmarks of the pro-lobby, showing, in my mind, that you've simply accepted their pronouncements holus bolus without giving it too much (rational) thought.

mhaze,

It’s true that I’ve made up my mind (but it took a very long time to get to the point I’m at). But that doesn’t mean I’m not open to arguments that may soften my position.

<<So by definition, in your mind, any argument that isn't pro is clearly irrational.>>

“I’m open to the possibility that I have not yet heard all the arguments, but otherwise, yes. I have even explained why they are [irrational]…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793)

<<Of coarse, sometimes you stumble trying to work out why an argument is irrational even though you KNOW it is.>>

I think I know what you’re talking about. But, no, my position was based on a lot more than that one point.

<<So my views on protecting the family were originally reject by you as … irrational based on a faulty historic understanding of the place of the nuclear family in society.>>

That’s a rather crude way of putting it, but yes. However, contrary to the dogmatic picture you paint of me, I wanted to know more and asked you to elaborate on how the nuclear family functioned as the bedrock of civilisation, but never got a response. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227163)

<<…the claim that the nuclear family is a recent invention is one of the hallmarks of the pro-lobby...>>

Could you show me where they’ve claimed this? I’m not aware of this claim.

<<…showing, in my mind, that you've simply accepted their pronouncements holus bolus without giving it too much (rational) thought.>>

No, as I pointed out to you the last time, I have not gotten the majority of my arguments from the pro-lobby, let alone without too much rational thought. I mentioned to you last time where I get them from but am not really (according to some here) supposed to mention that.

Let’s just say that nothing has been swallowed “hook, line, and sinker”, and leave it at that.

Incidentally, arguing that polygamy would be next is the Slippery Slope fallacy. Unlike same-sex marriage, polygamy has great potential for harm as it has, historically, been inextricably linked to misogyny, rape, and incest.

A J Philips:

You say that a person who disagrees with same-sex marriage even after having been shown to have an irrational argument is a hater. Then you said that people who have disagreements on other subjects are not necessarily haters unless contempt is present. So why is it that the presence of contempt is not necessary for an opponent of SSM to be labeled a 'hater'?

You are saying that a person who disagrees with SSM is automatically a hater if they disagree but for a person who disagrees with someone on any other subject you cannot necessarily label them a hater unless contempt is present. Why is it automatic for those who disagree with SSM but not for those who disagree on other subjects?

"Contempt for gay people is a major driving force for those against same-sex marriage, and OLO is a testament to that. Particularly those who cannot be swayed by evidence or reasoning."

Contempt may be present but you are saying that it is automatically present just because they disagree so if it is disagreement which makes it automatically present why is this not the case with other subjects?

"and OLO is a testament to that"

There is no need to be bitchy about it. If you have a problem with that then deal with it by rational argument. Anything else is just 'bitchiness'.

AJ is a prime example demonstrating clearly that most hate comes from the supporters of those wanting to pervert marriage. He obviously has no mirror.