You're not making much sense now, Joe.

<<In that case, whaddawe want ? Plebiscite ! When do we wanit ? NOW !>>

How does the fact that the cons of a plebiscite outweigh the pros mean we should have one? I'm starting to think you're just trolling now.

<<Contradiction ? Do you see the contradiction, AJ, between 'marriage' as defined as the union of a woman and a man, the legal definition of marriage, and the inappropriateness of 'marriage' as involving other forms of union which are currently not recognised by law ?>>

No, I don't. Could you explain it to me? I'm not seeing where the inappropriateness is either. Surely if there were an inappropriateness, you would be able to rationally justify opposition to same-sex marriage.

<<Whatever it is, let it be but it's not marriage.>>

The face of marriage has changed a lot over the millennia. You have no justification to assert that it should stay as it is now.

<<Christ, there are so many more important issues.>>

Correct, but like I said the last time we discussed this issue, that doesn't mean this isn't important. The fact that it could be so easily fixed is also an important factor when prioritising issues. If marriage equality were complex, time-consuming, and expensive to achieve, the fact that there are more important issues might have meant more. And if there are so many more important issues to consider, then why continue to waste time standing in the way when there is no rational reason to do so?

<<My last post on the issue, it's just so boring.>>

That's a strange thing for someone who is still here 120 posts later to say. I don't even look at the discussion threads of topics that bore me.

--

You just going to resort to ad hominems now, phanto? You have nothing left, so you're just going to invent some dubious reasoning to suspect a sinister motive that doesn't exist, which completely ignores equality as a more simple explanation. Is that it?

The State can register persons living together in a sexual relationship if they are on welfare or joint ownership of property and have their welfare reduced to that of a married couple. However the LTBGT are by wanting the term "marriage" is so as to take legal action against anyone who refuses them services, IVF or employment. It is not merely the term marriage they seek it is the normalizing of their relationship in every area of society, This is for them equality, genderless equality.

The responsible Church today as matter of care would not allow homosexual males to care for boys; as exampled by the Catholic Church. However Homosexuals reaction, if the Church denied access to boys would call this discrimination.

The Church marriage alone is not recognised by the State today, so the Church has adopted the term "Divine Covenant before God and man".

Phillips:

Who said they were ad hominem?

There are thousands of examples of homosexuals declaring that they are second class citizens and wanting to get married in the hope that it will turn them into first class citizens.

Thousands march with banners implying that homosexual love is equal to heterosexual love. They want to get married so that homosexual love is given equal attention but why wouldn't it be?

There are many reasons that homosexuals give us themselves which could be assumed as abusing the institution of marriage, having little respect for marriage, or based on selfish and neurotic motives.

But let's not look at their motivation - let's just focus on equality and perhaps no one will notice what contempt for marriage homosexuals really have. Especially should we look away if we have spent years trying to kid ourselves that their motivation is so squeaky clean.

phanto,

I referred to your post as ad hominem because, in the absence of a rational argument against marriage equality, you question motives.

<<There are thousands of examples of homosexuals declaring that they are second class citizens and wanting to get married in the hope that it will turn them into first class citizens.>>

Possibly. That's not a reason not to legislate for same-sex marriage, though.

<<Thousands march with banners implying that homosexual love is equal to heterosexual love. They want to get married so that homosexual love is given equal attention but why wouldn't it be?>>

Why do you assume it's about attention? Sounds to me like you're getting a bit precious there.

<<There are many reasons that homosexuals give us themselves which could be assumed as abusing the institution of marriage, having little respect for marriage, or based on selfish and neurotic motives.>>

Such as?

And when did we suddenly start caring about the institute of marriage? One of your many failed angles, attempting to justify an opposition to marriage equality, relied on the premise that marriage shouldn't exist in the first place. Now we suddenly care about the institution of marriage. See what happens when you're disingenuous?

<<But let's not look at their motivation …>>

You can assess motives all you like, but for so long as your reason for doing so is based on an irrational opposition to same-sex marriage, your conclusions are always going to be dubious at best.

<<... let's just focus on equality and perhaps no one will notice what contempt for marriage homosexuals really have.>>

Really? All of them? What is your evidence for this?

<<Especially should we look away if we have spent years trying to kid ourselves that their motivation is so squeaky clean>>

Yes, it's all a sinister plot to destroy marriage! The phanto who's against marriage altogether should be hoping they're successful.

Philips:

“I referred to your post as ad hominem because, in the absence of a rational argument against marriage equality, you question motives.”

What is wrong with questioning motives if there is nothing wrong with them? You do not have to have an argument in order to question motives. If you had an argument why would you bother questioning motives? We question motives in order to determine what people truly want. Perhaps homosexuals say they want marriage but in actual fact they are looking for something else like affirmation of their identity. It would be very gullible just to take their word about what they want and so we analyse their motives to see if what they want is logical.

“That's not a reason not to legislate for same-sex marriage, though.”

So why do so many people present it as an argument for SSM? Even the esteemed Justice Michael Kirby has presented it as an argument along with many others.

“Why do you assume it's about attention?”

If you are holding a banner which says “Love is love” what is your point other than to draw attention to the fact that you believe homosexual love is equal to heterosexual love? Who ever said it was not? That is not an argument for SSM but a statement of belief which no one is challenging.

“Such as?”

You can look that up yourself if you are genuinely interested in the truth about motivation.

“And when did we suddenly start caring about the institute of marriage?”

Just answer the questions.

“Really? All of them? What is your evidence for this?”

The fact that they are ready to abuse marriage in order to promote their sexuality. It is not necessary to promote your sexuality if you are comfortable with it.

Nothing, phanto.

<<What is wrong with questioning motives ...?>>

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

<<You do not have to have an argument in order to question motives.>>

Your questioning motives wasn't the ad hominem, it was the offensive and baseless conclusions you came to.

<<If you had an argument why would you bother questioning motives?>>

Exactly.

<<We question motives in order to determine what people truly want.>>

Yes, but doing so is a waste of time when there is no reason to suspect an ulterior motive.

<<It would be very gullible just to take their word about what they want ...>>

Yes, but again, when there's no reason to suspect an ulterior motive… Your opposition to marriage equality is not a reason to suspect an ulterior motive.

<<So why do so many people present [being treated as second-class citizens] as an argument for SSM?>>

I never said they didn't. I said the fact that they do isn't a reason to not legislate for same-sex marriage.

<<If you are holding a banner which says “Love is love” what is your point other than to draw attention to the fact that you believe homosexual love is equal to heterosexual love?>>

Probably nothing. But, before, you made it sound like it was about attention seeking.

<<Who ever said it was not?>>

It is implied every time some fool insists that a different word be used, in the lack of justification for such a demand.

<<You can look that up yourself if you are genuinely interested in the truth about motivation.>>

So, in other words, you cannot justify your claim that homosexual people are “abusing the institution of marriage, having little respect for marriage, or [have] selfish and neurotic motives.” I didn't think you could.

I wasn't asking about motivation in general, either.

<<Just answer the questions.>>

What questions?

<<The fact that they are ready to abuse marriage in order to promote their sexuality.>>

You haven't justified this claim either. You can't justify a claim with another unjustified claim.