Sorry, Big Nana. It seems our posts crossed over.

<<I sometimes wonder if your misinterpretation of my comments is accidental or on purpose.>>

Yes, because it happens so-o-o-o often, doesn’t it?

<<Nowhere did I refer to nature in regard SSM. My words were " normalise" which has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with common or majority custom or guidelines, as per the definition.>>

I figured you'd go here. Which is why I read what you said very carefully before posting my presumptuous-sounding criticism. Let’s take a look at what you said again:

“No, what you want is to destroy a thousands year old tradition for the benefit of a handful of people who have decided that adopting a heterosexual custom will somehow normalise their relationship” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7778#239586)

So, as you can see, you had to have been referring to ‘normal’ in the sense of ‘natural’, since no one in their right mind could possibly conclude that marriage equality would make homosexuality more common.

Or do you think there are people out there who are actually that stupid?

<<I suggest you look up the definition of " normal">>

Oh, don't worry. I did. I'm very thorough like that. I suggest you do too.

For your benefit, Big Nana:

Normal:
(of a person) free from physical or mental disorders. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/normal)

While the definintion doesn't mention nature specifically, I've debated enough homophobic people to know that mental disorder is the go-to explanation for homosexuality for those who fallaciously appeal to nature.

Or perhaps I'm presuming too much and you haven't even thought about it that far?

Either way, at the end of the day, your argument involving polygamy, incest, or any other bizarre and unhealthy relationship you can think for to fallaciously appeal to emotion, is irrelevant to the issue of equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

AJ you still haven't addressed the issue..
Firstly, where is your proof that any of these other relationships are harmful? Polygamy is practised all over the world by millions of people and seems to promote a healthy birth rate and fewer divorces than our western style marriage.
Adult incest has never been suggested anywhere to be harmful unless you are referring to to chance of genetic problems in children. However, seeing as our laws don't prevent people with known genetic disorders like Harmophilia or Cystic Fibrosis from marrying, you can't use that as an excuse.
And who are you to decide what is harmful. Many people think homosexual relationships are harmful but that doesn't stop the push for marriage.
In relation to the normal comment, yes I was referring to it as being the common, accepted version, not " natural" as you try and twist it to be. . You can put whatever interpretation on it you wish but you cannot change what I meant.
So in the end, you do not support marriage equality. At least have the honesty to admit that.

I've already provided reasoning for my claims there, Big Nana.

<<... where is your proof that any of these other relationships are harmful?>>

That link again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336500

But let’s say those other forms of marriage are not harmful. So what? All that means is that my call for equality extends to them as well.

<<Polygamy is practised all over the world by millions of people and seems to promote a healthy birth rate and fewer divorces than our western style marriage.>>

Great! Then bring it on. Equality for polygamists! If there is no harm, then there is no problem.

<<Adult incest has never been suggested anywhere to be harmful unless you are referring to to chance of genetic problems in children.>>

Great! Then bring it on. Equality for incestuous couples! If there is no harm, then there is no problem.

<<And who are you to decide what is harmful.>>

“At no point have I assumed the position of arbiter in this debate. All I have done is provide rational arguments as to why your unhealthy forms of marriage are not analogous to same-sex marriage.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336500)

<<Many people think homosexual relationships are harmful but that doesn't stop the push for marriage.>>

That’s because they haven’t yet provided sound reasoning for that claim. Feel free to give it a go, if you think otherwise.

<<So in the end, you do not support marriage equality.>>

Yes, I do. And simply ignoring what I have said in the past does not change that.

You can't resist can you. Still calling those relationships unhealthy.
But you keep missing the point. Of course they they have to be included in marriage equality for gays, because equality means for all, it just the people you deem to be suitable.
Giving equality means giving it to people you don't approve of, as well as those you support.
Your constant use of the word unhealthy shows you do not believe all consenting adults should be allowed to marry. No one has to prove any relationship is healthy in order to marry. Plenty of heterosexual marriages are emotionally and physically unhealthy, as are many gay unions. It's not up to you to say people have to prove their relationship healthy or harmless.
If you preach equality then it's for all, regardless of whether or not you approve.
BTW, not supporting gay marriage does not mean people are homophobic . You need a more open mind.

stop playing god AJ, you are pathetically poor at it. I suspect one day you will read your own rants and be very embarassed.