AJ Phillips;
The argument against a plebiscite was that those opposed would abuse
those in favour.
However as we have seen it is just the other way around.
Those in favour are abusing those against.

You said to Josephus;
You’ve lost the plot. What does the physical difference between boys and girls, or the emotional state of children, have to do with anything?

Everything !

Not quite, Bazz.

<<The argument against a plebiscite was that those opposed would abuse those in favour.>>

There needn’t be any intent to cause harm, as is implied in the way you have framed it. What psychologists refer to as ‘minority stress’ would occur no matter how civil the inevitable public debate was kept (as has been the experience of countries that put the issue of same-sex marriage to a public vote), resulting in increased mental health issues in the gay community with measurable increases in drug and alcohol abuse, and suicides.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ilan_Meyer/publication/15461517_Minority_Stress_and_Mental_Health_in_Gay_Men/links/0deec53ad819484a10000000.pdf

Now, I’m not suggesting that we treat everyone like snowflakes. If there were rational arguments against same-sex marriage, then there would be cause to at least weigh up the risks and benefits of a public debate, but with no rational arguments against same-sex marriage, there’s no point in even doing that much. “I don’t like poofs”, “It grosses me out”, “It’s not natural”, “It’s against my religion”, and “The sky will fall in”, are not rational arguments.

<<Those in favour are abusing those against.>>

Yes, I’m sure that happens, and while I don’t condone abuse, we would probably expect abuse hurled at people who, say, wanted to end interracial marriage, too. As certain views are increasingly perceived to be vile by a society, they are met with harsher condemnation. Test it out for yourself. Try walking through the CBD wearing a swastika and watch the reactions you get.

<<Everything !>>

How so? After all, marriage is a social construct, not a biological construct. As for the emotional state of children, research suggests the children of same-sex couples fare better:

http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-635
http://teczowerodziny.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Anderssen-N.-Amlie-C.-i-Ytteroy-E.A.-2002.-Outcomes-for-children-with-lesbian-or-gay-parents.pdf

Which makes sense, given how much harder it is for same-sex couples to have children. No unwanted accidents.

Even if they didn’t, though, same-sex couples are still having children, so what positive effect could telling those children that their parents are not allowed to get married possibly have?

Philips:

“but with no rational arguments against same-sex marriage”

There is no rational argument in favour of it. It is based on the assumption that homosexual behaviour is logical and there is no way that you can possibly prove that. Our laws should be based on logic and where no such logic exists no laws should be made.

If homosexual behaviour is illogical then relationships based on homosexual behaviour should not be legalised by the government.

The assumption is being made ignoring the reason to register cohabiting heterosexual couples. The reason is that they are more likely to produce children and be their natural parents. Children have a right to the care of their natural parents. Homosexual couples cannot naturally between them produce children, so the child is deprived of one parent. Read the stories of teen girls brought up in lesbian homes desire to meet their fathers and have a bonding relationship.

Gauwd AJ Phillips;
What a load of waffle.
All that physcobabble is meaningless.
It is very simple, there is a proposition for a law.
You either vote for or against.

You can vote for it if you think that it is natural and reasonable
or you vote against if you think it is unnatural.

phanto,

We’ve been through this many times before. Are you sure you want to go through it all again? It never does end well for you.

<<There is no rational argument in favour of [same-sex marriage].>>

There’s equality. I’ve presented you with this one many times before in the past and you are yet to counter it. Furthermore, I had mentioned two of the benefits which flow from equality in my last post, so I don’t know where you get off claiming this.

Either way, the onus is on those who are against same-sex marriage to explain why it should not be legislated for. For the fifth or sixth time now, rights are granted until it can be shown why they should be withheld, not the other way around.

<<It is based on the assumption that homosexual behaviour is logical and there is no way that you can possibly prove that.>>

You have a short memory, phanto:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

<<Our laws should be based on logic and where no such logic exists no laws should be made.>>

Equality is a logical reason.

Whether or not homosexual behaviour is logical (which we had established in the above link/discussion that it was) is not the question. The question is whether or not legislating for same-sex marriage is logical, and the answer to this question is not determined by whether or not the behaviour is logical, it is determined by weighing up the risks and benefits of passing legislation to allow for same-sex marriage.

<<If homosexual behaviour is illogical then relationships based on homosexual behaviour should not be legalised by the government.>>

Try again.

--

Josephus,

I already addressed your last post towards the end of my last post. Not allowing for same-sex marriage will not address the issues you raise.

--

Bazz,

Nothing I said was "waffle", as it was all relevant to the issue of a plebiscite, and whether or not a plebiscite is "simple" is irrelevant to the arguments against one.