Josephus,

phanto already tried the ‘de facto’ angle. It was unsuccessful. You see, heterosexual de facto couples still have the option to marry, and therein lies the difference.

<<Are they EQUAL to a married couple?>>

What do you mean by “equal”? I find some like to keep what they mean there vague to leave their options open in case they need to commit the fallacy of equivocation by pointing to any petty, irrelevant difference as an example of why there can never be total equality.

<<Are [de facto couples] fighting for equality. NO!>>

Of course they’re not. They already have it and choose to forgo it. This is a false analogy.

<<Yet they happily exist as equal in our society without marriage certification.>>

Yes, out of choice, not because it is not an option for them.

<<Homosexual relationships are not marriage as such.>>

No, but they could be if people like you got out of the way..

<<What is the real reason to fight for marriage certification?>>

Equality.

<<... because they have registered it with the Government>>

Ah, but it’s not just about having it registered with the government now, is it? It’s about the privileges and benefits that the registration entails (not to mention the symbolic value). The registration itself is merely a necessary formality. phanto’s tried this angle, too. It didn’t work either.

You guys don’t give up, do you? Ten points for persistence!

--

Speak of the devil… where do you think you’ll go next, phanto? So far you’ve tried the Qualitative fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy):

1. There’s no reason to think that same-sex marriage is reasonable (as if it needed to be).
2. There’s no reason to think that same-sex marriage is logical (as if it needed to be).

Then you tried a Ignoratio elenchi fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi):

3. Marriage shouldn’t exist at all (which didn’t address what the arrangement should be while it does).

Now, finally, we’ve come to the ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem):

4. Their motives are (supposedly) suspect.

Where do you think you’ll go next, phanto? The suspense is killing me. It’s what keeps me going.

Philips:

Why should anyone care what keeps you going?

You have gone to a lot of trouble to tell us.

I meant, “in my debates with you”, phanto.

<<Why should anyone care what keeps you going?>>

Because having the patience I do with someone as deliberately obtuse as yourself might seem, to some, like a strange way to spend one’s time.

<<You have gone to a lot of trouble to tell us.>>

Oh, I wouldn’t call five words “a lot of trouble”. But, you're welcome.

What you call patience I'd call addiction.

Hi Paul,

Just going back to your rant earlier today, why do you think you're not a bigot ? I'm not saying that you can't be, you have as much right to be one as anybody else on the 'Left', especially since the term can't actually be defined. Actually, I think you are, and that you should keep it up :)

I've always been a bit hesitant to use terms like nancy-boy, poofter and faggot, but now that they have your imprimatur, I'll feel much more at ease using them. But maybe not just yet, even at your urging :)

On another topic entirely, but one which seems to consume you, Pell - like your Muslim terrorist mates - is entitled to a presumption of innocence until he has been proven guilty of a crime. Much as I think he is a sanctimonious, phony right-winger - and you know how I despise right-wingers - I suggest that we give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, I think he is as guilty as hell of molesting young boys in Ballarat, but like you, I'm constantly trying to keep an open mind.

Cheers,

Joe

phanto,

They don't have the legal right to marry like the
rest of us. Except in - England, Wales, Scotland,
Canada, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Argentina,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium,
Netherlands and South Africa.

So why not in Australia?

What's the big deal?