Actually, phanto, I did say your questioning motives was an ad hominem, and it was. It's a fallacious ad hominem, too, in the absence of an argument against their reasons for wanting marriage equality. It's a way of playing the man instead of the ball.

"... short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

“it was the offensive and baseless conclusions you came to”

Who did they offend - you? Others may have not found them offensive at all.

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

How do you know there is no reason until you enquire? Can’t we even have suspicions anymore?

“Yes, but again, when there's no reason to suspect an ulterior motive…”

I have several reasons. If someone talks of second class citizens it is reasonable to ask why? Are they talking about sexuality or about marriage since marriage has nothing to do with your class of citizenship. You have dismissed this as not being a reason to stop SSM but it is a reason to question what it is that they truly want. If they wave a banner in the street I would ask them why they are doing it since homosexual love is not under question. They say they want marriage but are asking for acceptance of homosexual love which is not under question. There are many other examples I could provide but if you cannot see the incongruity in these two then no amount of examples would make you question what it is they really want. If there is a whole string of illogical behaviours then it would be reasonable to question what it is that they really want. Such illogical behaviours make me suspect they do not want what they say they want.

If you say you want marriage and then act as if you actually want affirmation of your sexuality then I am not going to vote for you to have marriage. I don’t trust you. I think you are lying.

Not only are you lying but you lack all integrity to try and get something by abusing marriage beyond its purpose. You are showing how little self-respect you have as a human being. You should let your sexuality talk for itself and not try and manipulate acceptance by misleading the public.

Because, phanto, there is no rational reason to suspect it in the first place.

<<How do you know there is no reason until you enquire?>>

You have not yet provided one, either. Nor are you enquiring, for that matter. You are simply throwing around accusations which you cannot substantiate.

<<Can’t we even have suspicions anymore?>>

At no point have I even alluded to that. Don’t get precious.

<<I have several reasons [to suspect an ulterior motive].>>

This’ll be good…

<<If someone talks of second class citizens it is reasonable to ask why?>>

Yes, but when the answer doesn’t extend beyond, ‘Because that’s how they’re treated’, then there is no reason to take it any further, and any attempts to do so make one’s motives look suspect, as do yours.

<<Are they talking about sexuality or about marriage …>>

Why can’t they be talking about both? You have created a false dichotomy here.

<<… marriage has nothing to do with your class of citizenship.>>

Perhaps, but access to it can.

<<You have dismissed this as not being a reason to stop SSM …>>

No, this is the first time you have presented this specific reasoning.

<<… but it is a reason to question what it is that they truly want.>>

Well, as you can hopefully see now, it’s not. Because you haven’t yet presented a reasonable cause for suspicion, and your attempt to do so relied on a false dichotomy.

<<If they wave a banner in the street I would ask them why they are doing it since homosexual love is not under question.>>

Actually, it is. Many homophobic people assume homosexuality is simply the manifestation of mental illness.

<<There are many other examples I could provide but if you cannot see the incongruity in these two ...>>

Well, as you can hopefully see now, your examples weren’t examples of anything at all, other than perhaps the perils of motivated reasoning.

<<Such illogical behaviours make me suspect they do not want what they say they want.>>

Your examples demonstrated no illogical behaviour, only illogical thinking on your part.

Try again.

Philips:

“Yes, but when the answer doesn’t extend beyond, ‘Because that’s how they’re treated’, then there is no reason to take it any further, and any attempts to do so make one’s motives look suspect, as do yours.”

So why mention in the first place? There is no class of citizenship in Australia. It is just a manipulative attempt to get people to feel sorry for them. SSM should be introduced because it is reasonable to do so and not out of sympathy.

“Why can’t they be talking about both? You have created a false dichotomy here.”

There is no logical reason to talk about both. There is only a logical reason to give reasons for SSM. There is no logical reason to talk about non-existent classes of citizenship unless you are trying to manipulate the argument for SSM.

“Perhaps, but access to it can”

How does this happen when we do not have classes of citizenship in this country? Where is the legislation which defines classes of citizenship? Why are they trying to dramatise the situation when their arguments should be good enough?

“Actually, it is. Many homophobic people assume homosexuality is simply the manifestation of mental illness.”

Why would they assume any difference after marriage? Marriage says nothing about your sexuality. Why would you have a banner which states that love is love unless you were trying to gain some kind of sympathy? What opponents of SSM think of homosexual love is irrelevant. Love is not the issue here – it is marriage and they need to present arguments for marriage and not for homosexual love.

“your examples weren’t examples of anything at all,”

They are perfect examples of people who are trying to manipulate the debate. Why would you try and manipulate the debate if you have perfectly good reasons in the first place?

“Your examples demonstrated no illogical behaviour, only illogical thinking on your part.”

It is perfectly illogical behaviour to try and win sympathy when you should be presenting arguments.

<<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.>>

Josephus. the cheek of these "Nancy boys", not only do they want to take away your right to be a bigot, they also want you to stop discriminating against them. What a hide they have! That job add of yours with the line "poofters need not apply" and the sign in your shop "Faggots will not be served" seem quite reasonable to me.

"The responsible Church today as matter of care would not allow homosexual males to care for boys; as exampled by the Catholic Church." What a stupid statement! Is that before or after they told their pedophile clergy to hide their disgusting practices underground, and whatever you do just don't get caught.

When do you think Archie Pell will stop hiding out in the Vatican with the Popes blessing, and return to Australia to face the music over those child sex abuse allegations. You would think if he was innocent he would want to return to Australia and clear his name. Not so! Catholic proests should not be allowed within 100 meters of children, yet without any police check of any kind these types are still eyeing off children in school playgrounds. Disgusting.

Paul1405:

Anyone can refuse to serve faggots if they want. It can’t be proven that they have been refused service because they were faggots so what is the point of having laws against it. Thousands of faggots are refused service every day around the world.

No one can take away your right to be a bigot. You can have all the laws you like but it is not going to change anyone’s attitude to homosexuals. You can maintain you right to bigotry as long as you want.

“Catholic proests should not be allowed within 100 meters of children”

Stop being such a drama queen. There are a lot more priests who are not pedophiles than who are. Parents also molest their children. Should they be kept 100 metres away from their own children?