Philips:

“marriage-shouldn’t-exist-in-the-first-place angle.”

Legal marriage – no.

“Yes, you can, but marriage offers simplicity in its standardisation.”

So everyone has to get married in order to have legal rights between two people in a relationship?

“And what use would they be to those who are not religious?”

Who says they have to have a use?

“Because the benefits of marriage require it to be a legal arrangement.”

Obviously not or every couple would marry.

“some of those rights should be dependent on being married.”

No rights should be dependent on being married.

Dear phanto,

Here is the telephone number of the Attorney General's
Department in Canberra. They will be more than happy
to answer your questions regarding same-sex marriage:

1800-550-343

Or alternatively you can speak to a social worker
on - 13-1794

Cheers.

Big Nana,

The de-facto/civil-unions argument doesn’t work because the laws for these arrangements differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

<<Unfortunately the gay lobby has rejected the offer of civil contracts, they are holding out for the word marriage, as if somehow that will magically transform their union into the same type of relationship as heterosexual marriage.>>

No, it’s due to issues regarding equality.

<<I fully understand that some gay couples wish to have the same type of legal recognition heterosexual couples can choose to have, however I don't accept that it has to be called marriage.>>

Why not? I have never heard a justification for the insistence on a different word.

<<Marriage has always meant a heterosexual relationship, even with polygamy. A same sex relationship, being different, should have its own name to recognise that difference.>>

This is the Appeal to Tradition fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

Why do you need to know the difference through terminology? Are you that easily confused?

<<This has never been about " marriage equality", because if so, supporters of SSM wouldn't be so horrified by the thought of equality for polygamy, group marriage and adult incest couples.>>

We have already been through the differences there. Your argument, that it cannot be about equality, flopped:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7778#239749

--

phanto,

You’re being obtuse again.

<<So everyone has to get married in order to have legal rights between two people in a relationship?>>

That depends on what rights you're referring to.

<<Who says [marriages] have to have a use?>>

Standards of equality do. Why should the marriages of one group have a practical purpose, while the others' don’t?

<<Obviously [the benefits of marriage do] not [require it to be a legal arrangement] or every couple would marry.>>

Yes, they do require it to be a legal arrange (again, see my link). That some people choose to forgo those benefits is irrelevant.

<<No rights should be dependent on being married.>>

Yes, they should (Once again, see my link).

Foxy:

Don’t be so patronising. I am well aware of where I can gain such information. I am not after information I am after a reasonable argument in favour of same-sex marriage.

Philips:

“That depends on what rights you're referring to.”

Can you give me an example of one such right?

“Why should the marriages of one group have a practical purpose, while the others' don’t?”

Because that is the way the couples want it to be.

“Yes, they do require it to be a legal arrange (again, see my link). That some people choose to forgo those benefits is irrelevant.”

Which benefits are you talking about exactly?

I'm sick of the whole ridiculous subject that in the long run, boils down to anal sex and plastic penis's.

There are groups out there now calling for pedophilia to be recognized as a genuine and normal way to go. Any love is good love apparently.
Why anyone bothers to marry these days is beyond me as %50 don't last and all it does is make rich lawyers and upset kids.

Here is a list of genders these days..who the hell is going to end up marrying who or what defies logic and any morals the world might have left, which are few it seems..along with commonsense.

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.kGk2f6QS.dpbs

Dear oh dear, phanto.

It would save us both a lot of time if you were to refresh your memory whenever I linked you back to a past discussion of ours. I even go to the extent of finding to most relevant post to link to.

<<Can you give me an example of one such right?>>

Sure. Access and decision-making in emergency situations.

<<Because that is the way the couples want it to be.>>

Clearly not. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here discussing this.

<<Which benefits are you talking about exactly?>>

Apart from the one I already mentioned? A nationally- and international-recognised relationship status for brevity, convenience, and simplicity when legal rights are challenged.

I see, too, in your address to Foxy that you are in search of reasonable arguments for marriage equality, but you have not yet successfully countered any of the ones I’ve provided you with. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what you’re looking for at all.

--

moonshine,

Comparing consenting adult relationships with child sex abuse is a false analogy. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

If you think that list you linked to is a list of “genders”, then clearly you don't know the difference between gender and sexuality.

Why does a diversity in gender and sexuality defy common sense or imply a lack of morals?