ABC boss emails staff telling them not to be biased on SSM. Tells them that the ABC "does not have a position on this issue". Also advises that the preferred terminology is 'same sex marriage', NOT 'marriage equality' or 'gay marriage'.

Come on ttbn the ABC was hijacked 50 years ago. they love perversion and hate what is good and normal. Can you imagine the smirking sarcastic Tony Jones being neutral? They are slaves to false and often twisted narratives.

Runner,

I'm merely reporting on advice given to ABC staff by their superior, Mark Haley. It shows that there is, finally, at least one executive who knows right from wrong, and there could be others who might feel able to throw of the extreme Left wing mindset if given encouragement.

What’s wrong with the term ‘marriage equality’? Is the ABC boss concerned that he’ll make intolerant people feel guilty because it draws attention to their preference for inequality, in this instance?

I fail to see what the problem is with that. If there were a group lobbying to ban interracial marriage, I doubt anyone would have a problem with the term ‘marriage equality’, in that instance.

Not sure what the problem is with the term “gay marriage”, though. That seems a little random.

<<It shows that there is, finally, at least one executive who knows right from wrong …>>

What’s so wrong with using the term ‘marriage equality’ or ‘gay marriage’, ttbn?

AJ Philips,

You should direct your questions to the ABC. As I said, I am 'merely reporting' what was said by someone else.

I suppose that this latest action by the ABC
should not come as a surprise. After all the
National Broadcaster has to appear to be
impartial. It issued a stern email to staff
warning employees - especially high profile
radio and television personalities against
voicing their opinions about marriage equality.
This came after Lateline host Emma Alberici called
Australia's handling of same-sex marriage an
"indictment" on both sides of politics on social
media.

ABC's editorial manager Mark Maley made it clear
that -

"It is very important that we are impartial and that
all perspectives are given a fair hearing and treated
with respect by the ABC."

"In this charged environment I would also urge everyone
to be circumspect on social media - advocating for
one side or the other will make it more difficult for
the ABC to be seen as impartial. The more high-profile
you are the more important discretion is."

Maley also reminded employees to use the term -
"same-sex marriage" instead of "marriage equality."

There Emma Alberici - you've now been told!

As I stated earlier - I guess this was to be expected
from a National Broadcaster - who depends on its funding
from the Government and the taxpayer. You cannot afford
to take sides - especially when approx 40% of Australians
oppose changing the country's Marriage Laws.
The National Broadcaster is therefore not supposed to
have a position on the issue - and has to instruct its
staff (especially the high profile ones) accordingly.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/abc-staff-gagged-over-marriage-equality-20170810-gxt71j.html

In a different time, a 'gay' marriage would have been understood to be a happy, harmonious one. But then that word - gay' - was suborned into helping to make homosexuality seem more palatable. Torture the language to achieve a political end. Take a word which applies to something pleasant, apply and the enforce its use elsewhere and elevate alter the understanding of that other thing. (Read Orwell for a fuller understanding of the process.)

When Fred Astaire made 'The Gay Divorcee' he meant something quite different to what it would mean today. Its only a matter of time before that movie is banned as homophobic with cultural appropriation :) .

The rainbow has suffered a similar fate.

And now 'equality' is similarly suborned into the work of achieving political ends. 'Equal' doesn't mean 'identical'. But now we are told that it must because of human rights. People who are clearly different in a substantive way from those who are married demand that we ignore the difference because of equality.
Equality is good, right? So everyone should be equal, right? Who could argue with that?

Well equal isn't identical. If it were then equal rights for women or aboriginals would rule out affirmative action because their rights would be identical to non-native men.

I'll go along with 'marriage equality'. But my meaning is that we all have the equal right to marry any one person of the opposite sex who'll have us.

But this whole 'equality' malarkey is just a means to an end. I'll continue to call it what it is - same-sex marriage. Or at least I'll continue to recognise the difference and that the two aren't equal, until the time when such recognition becomes illegal - and that won't be too longer after the marriage act is changed.

That it will change is a certainty. And then the boosters will spend the next 50years trying to prove that the adverse affects on society didn't really happen, just as they've done with easy divorce and single parenthood.

Philips:

“What’s wrong with the term ‘marriage equality’?”

Everyone can marry if they want to so no one is being denied marriage equality. Everyone who marries has exactly the same rights as everyone else that marries. You cannot marry someone of the same gender so what you are being denied is not marriage but a certain type of marriage – a same gender marriage.

A bit of a laugh that note to ABC employees.
My son started working at the ABC ages ago and on his first day was
told if he wants a career at the ABC do not let on if he votes Liberal.
The only people in the closet are the Liberal voters.
The leftie attitude has been there at least since the 1940s.

Only the author of the instruction need worry about his employment.
The staff runs the show and brooks no interference.

Dear Bazz,

And your son believed them?

I guess the joke was on him.

How long did he last?

Foxy, it was no joke, it is real. He was there for more than twenty
years and had a fairly significant technical supervision position at
Gore Hill and was involved with the planning for the shift to Ultimo.
The leftie culture is not as strong with the technical staff.

The term "gay" dates way back. From 12th Century
England. In the 17th Century it was associated
with immorality. Noel Coward was using gay in song
lyrics from as early as 1929. In 1940 the term
came into its own. By 1948 Gore Vidal was writing
that the words fairy and pansy were considered bad
taste and that it was fashionable to say a person was gay.

Each society views its own pattern of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and
usually God-given as well. Much of the current concern
about the fate of the modern family and marriage stems
from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume
that there is only one "right" marriage form, then
naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding
the doom of the whole institution.

Still according to the research 70 per cent of Australians
support same-sex marriage. I guess only time will tell
what the country decides on this issue.
Interesting times ahead.

Dear Bazz,

The "lefty culture," is so yesterday.

It always was and did not get much traction.

Your son should have mixed more.

mhaze,

How is the changing of the definition of the word ‘gay’, and what the rainbow can now symbolise, a bad thing?

<<And now 'equality' is similarly suborned into the work of achieving political ends.>>

Did you have similar complaints during the civil rights movement of the ‘60s? If not, why the double standard?

<<'Equal' doesn't mean 'identical'.>>

Correct. This is a red herring.

<<But now we are told that it must because of human rights.>>

When, and by whom?

<<People who are clearly different in a substantive way … demand that we ignore the difference because of equality.>>

No, they don’t. All this claim of yours reveals is that you see a substantive difference that would make same-sex marriage impossible or not preferable. So, please, by all means, tell us how this is the case.

<<Equality is good, right?>>

Right.

<<So everyone should be equal, right?>>

That depends on what you mean by “equal”. Treated identically? No, that would be absurd. Equal in status, rights, or opportunities? Yes.

<<Well equal isn't identical.>>

No, it’s not. But this IS a straw man.

You lot are the only ones engaging in equivocation by confusing the meaning of 'equal' with 'identical' in order to formulate bogus arguments like this one.

<<But my meaning [of marriage equality] is that we all have the equal right to marry any one person of the opposite sex who'll have us.>>

That’s not equality for all.

<<And then the boosters will spend the next 50years trying to prove that the adverse affects on society didn't really happen …>>

What are these adverse effects you anticipate? Did you make the same prediction with regards to the civil rights movement of the '60s?

<<… just as they've done with easy divorce and single parenthood.>>

What are these adverse effects to which you refer, and how did you determine that the above were factors?

--

Phanto,

We’ve already been through all that. It didn’t turn out too well for you. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798&page=0#241165

I suggest you revise some of our previous discussions before repeating arguments that I’ve already discredited.

Philips:

"I suggest you revise some of our previous discussions before repeating arguments that I’ve already discredited."

That you think you have discredited.

What's wrong with 'marriage equality" ?

Nothing much except that marriage between a man and a woman, cannot be considered to be equal in any way to a union between two hairy big blokes.

The proposition is to bring in marriage inequality.

There you go, mhaze.

Is Mise has been kind enough to provide us with an example of precisely the kind of equivocation I was talking about. Now, if you could provide me with an example of someone from the Pro camp confusing the two concepts, then that would be greatly appreciated.

--

Phanto,

Oh, please, by all means, tell me which of my arguments failed.

Philips:

“Did you have similar complaints during the civil rights movement of the ‘60s? If not, why the double standard?”

Then there were black people and white people. Two groups. We do not have two groups in this debate about marriage. You pre-suppose two groups.

Foxy, the lefty culture was my phrase.
At that time there were no greens but it was labour to its bootstraps.

It really developed after TV came along but did not become recognised
till much later about when my son started.
I did not work for the ABC so it was only some odd remarks by friends
who did work there.

Somehow I didn’t think you’d take up my challenge there, phanto. Why am I not surprised?

<<Then there were black people and white people. Two groups. We do not have two groups in this debate about marriage. You pre-suppose two groups.>>

Oh. The ‘There’s no such thing as homosexuality’ line again, eh? I already addressed that at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240412

You are yet to counter my response. Perhaps you could start by explaining how scientists understand as much as they do about the evolution of a trait that supposedly doesn’t exist?

The burden of proof still lies with you on that one, phanto; despite the fact that I challenged your assertion anyway.

Time to fulfil it.

The government is already preparing to water down the very expensive "vote" by dropping the word plebiscite and replacing it with the more innocuous term survey. I thought a survey was some kind of market research, like determining what brand of washing powder people used. At $122,000,000 this survey to be conducted by the ABS is extremely expensive, did Turnballs, get a quote from Roy Morgan Market Research?

Abbott was quick to set the tone of the coming debate! From the SMH;

"I say to you if you don't like same-sex marriage, vote no," said Abbott. "If you're worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote no, and if you don't like political correctness, vote no because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks."

Abbott was backed up by the nasty religious fundo Lyle Shelton, who wrote that "the marriage plebiscite is a referendum on freedom of speech and 'safe schools'". He has lamented the "stolen generation" that are the children of Australian gays.

The haters from the anti gay marriage lobby are already sharpening the knives. no amount of anti hate speak legislation is going to stop it.

To show their fairness the governments man responsible for the survey is Minister Michael McCormack who in 1993 wrote; “A week never goes by any more that homosexuals and their sordid behaviour don’t become further entrenched in society,” Will McCormack's view be reflected in the survey?

Actually, it's all about saving the Government money.

Two hairy big blokes boarding together but not telling the pension mob that they share the same bed, both qualify for a full pension but if they are married then they go on the married rate, with a consequent reduction.

Hell of a lot of dollars, over the coming years, to pay for a meaningless scrap of paper.

The 'Progressives' sorted same sex 'relationships' on that and ruling that sex isn't necessary either. Julia ('Misogyny is a man looking at a watch') Gillard, Attorney General Nicola Roxon and the Grls, said so. It is 'being there' and 'not being there', or something, but definitely not sex, no way.

Of course, the ABC's panel of experts ('their' ABC has its special, favoured, experts) including the Dan ('imported to outrage') Savage, would need to be consulted on that.

Nowhere near as gay as it was before Labor's Julia G put them on couples benefits. The Centrelink phones must run hot with public-spirited denunciations, er, make that suggested 'confirmation and recognition of relationship status'. So helpful.

With State recognition come responsibilities and public service clerks checking and deciding things that were once private and sorted so easily and without lawyers too.

Still, it WAS all worth it for the well-heeled 'Progressive' types who won extra entitlements. What joy.

Good to see the gunnie pair Issy and Leo, who on another thread are vigorously arguing the rights of the minuscule minority to have their gun fun, at the expense of the majority. While on this thread the gun happy guys bemoan the rights of another minority they don't happen to agree with.

Paul,

I'm in favour of full pension rights for all, I don't see why being in a sexual relationship and married should affect the rate of pension.

This thread was intended to be more about ABC bias than SSM but, as it seems to be ending up more as an SSM discussion, I thought you might be interested in an article from the Quadrant I have just finished reading. The article was mainly to do with what is happening to Christianity, but there was a section about SSM.

The writer, an Anglican priest, doesn't believe that a case for SSM has yet been made. The current claim for such a thing is about “rights” but “marriage isn't about rights, it's about monogamy, and monogamy isn't a male response to sex in general, heterosexual or homosexual”, he writes. In fact, for most men, particularly gay men, sex is a “recreational” activity.

He goes on to say that: “Promiscuity is why heterosexual couples are finding their relationships increasingly difficult and filled with double standards ...(and) that's not a reason to introduce homosexual double standards into the marriage debate.”

What the writer does not go into is the fact that these people, for years, rubbished and sneered at the idea of marriage and family; now it suits them to demand 'equality in marriage'.

As probably one of a very few on the forum who has actually attended a legal gay marriage, (two close friends got married legally in New Zealand), We have stayed overnight several times over the past few years in the homes of gay couples, they have their room, we have ours, no problems, no more than staying with heterosexual people. As for our married friends I can say they are no different today than they were before their marriage, In fact have a better relationship than some of our heterosexual friends. Our lovely Maori niece and her pakeha partner have taken in four children from the extended Maori family, and given them love and care they never got from their biological parents. last time we stayed with our niece and her partner we discussed the possibility of marriage, and how the family would take it, both Aunties and I advised "go for it if that's what you want." Because of gay marriage the world as we know it wont end, life will go on, despite Malcolm Turnball's $122,000,000 survey. Much of the bigoted opposition to gay marriage, and gay people in general is based on ignorance.

ttbn,

The priest you cite is wrong. Firstly, the case has been made. Equal treatment is the only reason needed. I have never seen this successfully rebutted.

<<The current claim for such a thing is about “rights” but “marriage isn't about rights, it's about monogamy …>>

This would have to be the worst argument I've ever seen. It is one big non sequitur. Even a fallacious appeal to nature is better than this.

That marriage isn't about rights (forgetting for the moments that (legal) rights ARE a part of what marriage is about) is utterly relevant as to whether or not same-sex couples should have access to it. Driving a car has even less to do with rights than marriage, but women still have the right to do so.

As for this priest’s point regarding promiscuity, forgetting for the moment that it is an unfair generalisation, the argument is self-defeating. If gay men are generally promiscuous, then surely marriage could only be a good thing, as it would encourage monogamy.

<<What the writer does not go into is the fact that these people, for years, rubbished and sneered at the idea of marriage and family; now it suits them to demand 'equality in marriage'.>>

Not all of them. This is beside the point anyway. People are allowed to change their minds. Views change over time. A recent study, involving the same 17,000 people over the last 12 years, is a testament to that. As has been the polling on the topic of marriage equality.

Homosexuality is no longer a crime, nor is it
classified as a psychiatric disorder. Same-sex
couples are allowed to adopt children in most
jurisdictions. The Australian Medical Association
(AMA) is an organisation with conservative views.
And if the AMA can come out and support marriage
equality after having quite a long-term conversation
about it internally then surely the Coalition
Government should be able to do the same.

Speaking of homosexuality being taken off the DSM, I remember when I first learned of that. As a homophobic Christian at the time, I was enraged. I wrote the move off as ‘political correctness gone mad’ (Who do we hear that tired old line from over, and over, and over again?)

It wasn’t until I lost my faith and got myself an education that I learned, in one of my psychology units at university, that there was never any evidence for homosexuality being listed as a mental illness, and that it had only ever been placed on the DSM for purely religious reasons.

Ah, religion: is there anything that it doesn’t poison?

AJ Philips,

No. It is you who is wrong. As always, you confuse your personal opinions with holy writ.

Foxy,

What special qualifications does a medical practitioners' union have that makes gives it an advantage over the rest of us when it comes to SSM? How about Qantas and other businesses who support SSM? I don't think their opinions are hold any more sway than other organisations or individuals. And, yes, we know homesexuality is legal, and that same sex 'couples' can adopt children; but that has nothing to do with the Marriage Act.

Dear AJ,

I'm reminded of the following concerning religion:

"However many Holy words you read or speak,
What good will they do you if you
don't act upon them?"
(Buddha).

Dear ttbn,

The Australian Medical Association were speaking from their
professional knowledge and experiences in dealing with
Gay people and they gave their medical expertise on the
subject. Their opinions hold a great deal of clout
because they can back their views up with proven facts.
Hence their opinions do matter.

cont'd ...

Dear ttbn,

The following link explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics-political-news/ama-throws-its-weight-behind-same-sex-marriage-declares-it-a-health-issue-20170518-gw7qi8.html

ttbn,

At no point did I rely on personal opinion. I never do. I provided reasoning as to why the priest was wrong. You, on the other hand, appear to have relied entirely on personal opinion.

Care to explain why I'm wrong?

The biased opinions of some Friar Tuck from the Anglican Church have no more validity than the opinion of anyone else.
ttbn why is his opinion of such significance?

Paul1405,

In fairness to ttbn, I’m not sure that he was appealing to the priest as an authority on the subject. The impression I got was that he simply found the arguments compelling and wanted to share them.

Of course, they weren’t compelling, and for the reasons I mentioned. There are plenty of things that we have the right to do which have nothing at all to do with rights intrinsically, but we still have the right to do them.

It takes a special sort of irrationality to formulate such a confused argument. I still can’t get over how bad it was. At least a fallacious appeal to nature, prima facie, sounds like it makes sense.

Then again, if there was no suggestion that the priest's position gave him an authority on the topic, then why mention that he was was a priest at all? Why not just mention the arguments?

Hmmm...

Philips:

“Perhaps you could start by explaining how scientists understand as much as they do about the evolution of a trait that supposedly doesn’t exist?”

Why would they suppose it was a trait rather than a behaviour? What makes it a trait?

Foxy,

You say, “The Australian Medical Association were speaking from their professional knowledge and experiences in dealing with Gay people and they gave their medical expertise on the subject”.

So, homosexuality is a medical issue after all?

AJ Philips,

Perhaps you would “care to explain” why the priest is wrong? You made a peremptory declaration that the priest was wrong based purely on your personal opinion - “ Firstly, the case has been made”. No, you think the a case has been made; many people think that it has not been made. “Equal treatment is the only reason needed.” Again no. Same sex couples and heterosexual couples are not equal: that is clearly and physically obvious. “I have never seen this successfully rebutted” - entirely your opinion again; many people disagree with you.

We are all entitled to opinions and the freedom to express them, but your opinions are no more “reasoned” than anyone else’s.

I've had enough of the SSM issue: it is quite insignificant – a lot of fuss for 2% of the population, many of whom have no desire to “marry” - when compared with the truly urgent matters this country is facing. Homosexual politician, Tim Wilson, has refused to discuss the subject any longer, and perhaps that's the way to go. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the Left, who stupidly rejected a plebiscite, which would have solved the problem.

In the meantime, homosexuals can do what they damn well please, but their tiny minority should not have a say on the Marriage Act

This bullying is only proving that dead cartoonist, Bill Leak, was right,

http://tenplay.com.au/news/national/2017/8/12/nasty-ambush

It is a time when leaders of all parties, the media commentariat too, should be eschewing the inflammatory, self-serving rhetoric that seems to give licence to violent protesters.

I object to the use of the word 'marriage' to unions of homosexuals.

My reasons are that lumping my marriage in with homosexual unions will adversely effect the status of my marriage. Marriage has always been seen as an honorable and respected position and nothing should be done to lessen that respect.

Homosexuality does not have this respect because of the sexual practices reported that are engaged in. I have nothing against homosexuals having a word to denote their union, but the word marriage already has a meaning and homosexuals can think up another word.

To use the word marriage relative to homosexual unions is simply an immoral and underhand way of obtaining some acceptance of their sexual practices.

I already did, ttbn.

<<Perhaps you would “care to explain” why the priest is wrong?>>

It was in the part of my post that you didn't address.

<<You made a peremptory declaration that the priest was wrong based purely on your personal opinion …>>

That was just my first point. You are quite welcome the challenge me on that. In fact, I was inviting you to.

<<… many people think that [the case] has not been made.>>

Yes, and I invite them to present their reasoning for that belief. The priest you cited failed miserably, and I explained why.

<<Same sex couples and heterosexual couples are not equal: that is clearly and physically obvious.>>

This is not an argument against marriage equality. This is the fallacious equivocation I mentioned earlier. Again, this is not what is meant by ‘equality’.

<<… your opinions are no more “reasoned” than anyone else’s.>>

At no point have I claimed that they are. However, you don’t get to claim that I have relied on personal opinion, when I have clearly shown reasoning for my arguments.

Is it any wonder you never addressed the rest of my post? You know, the vast majority of it that was not just an invitation based on something that I had clearly presented as observation?

<<[The issue] is quite insignificant – a lot of fuss for 2% of the population, many of whom have no desire to “marry” - when compared with the truly urgent matters this country is facing.>>

This is the fallacy of relative privation.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/155/Relative-Privation

<<The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the Left, who stupidly rejected a plebiscite ...>>

Given the importance of equality, and the ease with which this issue could be resolved, I fail to see how it can be blown out of proportion. The reasons for rejecting the plebiscite were reasonable. Foxy, Bazz, and I recently discussed why.

<<… [Homosexuals in] their tiny minority should not have a say on the Marriage Act>>

Why not? And what does their minority status have to do with whether they should?

Dear ttbn,

Kindly read the link I cited about the AMA.
It explains their reasons for supporting
same-sex marriage.

Foxy,

Why do you insist on referring people like me to Left wing publications that we disagree with? I am not interested what the highly politicised and Left leaning AMA has to say, particularly as reported by the extreme Left SMH. I asked why YOU would think that the this dubious organisation has any credibility; why homosexuals would be any different from anyone else (medically), particularly as we are continually told that homosexuals are 'just like everybody else'.

I have no problem with YOU expressing YOUR personal views, but the organisations you cite – in this case the AMA and the SMH – have no particular expertise in the matter and they are merely demonstrating their political bias.

Now, we all have political biases, but please stop thinking my bias and beliefs are so weak that I will be swayed by the biases of an organisation that should be apolitical, and by a Left wing rag. If you can't speak for yourself without dragging up people and things that are so remote from the rest of us as to be totally irrelevant, there is not much point in trying to have a conversation with you.

AJ Philips,

Whatever. I don't have to put up with your crap.

Banjo,

I agree with you. I've been married for almost 50 years, and I take umbrage at a small bunch of freaks trying to denigrate marriage purely for political reasons. I'm sick and tired of hearing their whining, and I will be voting NO. Queers never used to bother me, but they have managed to earn my utter contempt for all time with their current behaviour.

Foxy,

"Kindly read the link I cited about the AMA."

I did. I read it a while back.

Did you read this? You might have missed it. While the MSM are quick, even anxious, to push any politically correct 'analysis', they seem less anxious to even advise of alternative positions.

Anyway for what its worth and not that'll change minds that have already decided what they want the facts to be:

http://critiqueama.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/medical-critique-of-the-ama-position-statement-on-marriage-equality.pdf

phanto,

What makes you think there's any meaningful difference, in this context?

<<Why would they suppose it was a trait rather than a behaviour?>>

Considering both have genetic and environmental influences, that is.

<<What makes it a trait?>>

As opposed to behaviour? Good question. Perhaps you should've answered that one for yourself before insisting that the difference matters?

--

Banjo,

It’s funny you should claim that the use of the word ‘marriage’ for same-sex couples will adversely affect your marriage, because asking opponents of marriage equality how it will affect their marriage is often done to convey to the individual how silly their objection to it is. It seems to do the trick, too, given that this question is often met with either silence or a change in the individual’s angle of approach.

Yet, here you are, actually claiming in all seriousness, with no apparent embarrassment at all, that your marriage will be adversely affected!

<<Homosexuality does not have this respect because of the sexual practices ....>>

I take it you’re referring to anal sex. If that’s the case, then I assume you won’t have a problem with the term being applied to the relationships of lesbian couples, or gay male couples who don’t engage in anal sex. What about heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex?

<<... the word marriage already has a meaning and homosexuals can think up another word.>>

The meanings of words evolve all the time, and what constitutes a marriage has changed, too. This isn’t an argument.

<<To use the word marriage relative to homosexual unions is simply an immoral and underhand way of obtaining some acceptance of their sexual practices.>>

Given they do much the same as we heterosexuals do, I seriously doubt it.

--

ttbn,

So, instead of retracting your accusation, you’re just going to say, “Whatever”, and then suggest that I’m somehow giving you “crap”? I take it, then, that you have no rational justification for your position?

How does discriminating against people, for what they cannot help, sit with you?

Interesting paper there, mhaze.

Assuming the claims of the papers to which it refers are accurate (and I seriously doubt it, given that the vast amount of research contradicts such findings http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=same+sex+parenting), this is not an argument against same-sex marriage, because same-sex couples are already having children.

So, if the concern really was for the children, one would think that people like yourself would be advocating FOR marriage equality in order to encourage commitment and reduce stigmatisation, thus reducing the harm to children.

Of course, the concern has nothing to do with children, they’re just the excuse.

Unfortunately, all you’ve offered up is another red herring, I’m afraid.

Yes, there is a small handful of papers that find that same-sex parenting has deleterious effects, but, from my observations, they all suffer from fatal methodological flaws which seriously compromise their findings. A classic example was the problematic paper you once linked me to:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229181

The paper you have linked Foxy to cites this problematic paper, too. It cites another paper, ‘High School Graduation Rates Among Children of Same-Sex Households’, which also suffers from methodological problems (http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/10/14/no-children-of-same-sex-parents-do-not-have-lower-graduation-rates).

I don’t have the time at the moment to check the other papers the article you linked to cites, but I have no confidence that they’re going to be any better. Unfortunately we get this sort of pseudoscience from religious and conservative groups from time to time.

AJ,

"How is the changing of the definition of the word ‘gay’, and what the rainbow can now symbolise, a bad thing?"

I didn't say it was a bad thing...just a thing. A process used to achieve a political end. A thing that should be noticed and noted so that we can see what's really going on. Those who've read AND understood Orwell and 1984 (or Alinsky for that matter) will see why 'gay' became a thing. The rest will just accept it and fail to see the creeping deception. Personally I avoid using 'gay' (except in its traditional sense), preferring accuracy over political expediency.

(as an aside, I've noticed that you quite often misunderstand my - and other's - points, then demand that they justify this misunderstood position. Dishonest as it is, it does seem to work for you, so now incentive to change I guess).

"Did you have similar complaints during the civil rights movement of the ‘60s?"

Struth, how old do you think I am?. As I recall, I had no position on the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. My biggest concern was why those bloody moronic bureaucrats keep forgetting to replenish Bobby's power pack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Planet), which probably explains my life-long understanding that government should never be allowed to be responsible for anything of importance.

/tbc

/cont

Still, had I been politically conscious at the time I'd probably have supported, in the main, King's positions. And if homosexuals were currently required to ride at the back of the bus, I'd support changing that as well. But you're seeking to draw comparisons between two very different things.

And in the same vein as you're silly question, what was your attitude to the Robespierre National Convention? :)

Marriage is a traditional institution which evolved as society's mechanism to better raise its next generation. Now as someone who can fall for the trope that it (the traditional family) only recently came to the fore, you will neither accept nor understand that. But anything that weakens the traditional family, that interferes with the aims of having children raised by a natural mother and natural father, is to be lamented and, where possible, opposed. Children do better in such families and as society has allowed easy divorce and single parenthood, the affects on the next generation become increasingly apparent.

Homosexuals have received enormous changes in status over the past decade or three. They can now have civil unions fully accepted by the state. They can have ceremonies to celebrate their union. They can openly raise children and indoctrinate them however they see fit. A bloke can can his male partner 'husband' and increasingly have that accepted as valid. They one and only thing they cannot have is to force society to declare their union to be identical to a traditional marriage. Ad until they can enforce that view, they continue to whine, continue to demand identical rights and continue to demand that we ignore that their 'marriage' isn't about the best way to raise the next generation.

A J,
Yep I think that once homosexuals are involved with marriage people generally will not have the same respect for the institution. In other words it will become tainted, just like homosexuals are because of their sexual practices.

I am referring to the dirty anal practices that homos reportedly practice.

The meanings of words do not simply evolve. A fire is still a fire and a wheel is still a wheel, a train is still a train and a person is still aa person.

Those that want to change the meaning of the word 'marriage' desire to do so to try and gain some respectability for their sexual practices which deserve no respect. They have already hyjacked the word 'gay' which we should refuse to use.

Why not use 'queers, poofters or sodomists'

Dear MHaze,

If you would do a Google search on "Critique AMA"
you would learn that they are not very reputable.
Their aims appear to be to
demonize the gay community. They bully people
because of their sexual orientation.

I also did Google searches on the authors
of the given studies concerning
children of same-sex parents in
the link that you cited. They were quite revealing:

Paul Sullins - Catholic University.
Whose study was predictable to say the least.

Douglas Allen - Whose study of Canadian children
was described as worthless.

The same went for Mark Regnerus - whose study lacked
total credibility.

I shall leave it there.

Dear ttbn,

You asked me a question on page 7 about homosexuality
being a medical issue. I referred you to the link
cited earlier because it would have answered your
question. There wasn't any ulterior motive.
You hadn't specified to me that only certain types
of material were acceptable to you.
You then called the Sydney Morning Herald a "Left-Wing"
publication. That was news to me because they endorsed
the conservative Coalition at the last election.

You then question the credibility of the AMA - despite
the fact that they are the most powerful doctor's
group in this country and speak from experience.
Anyway, be that as it may. You are correct - to continue
having this conversation with you would be a total waste
of time. Both yours and mine.

I shall leave with with one final thought though -

Why should Gay Australians - doctor's, police officers,
teachers, mothers, fathers, and many others - who
contribute to society not enjoy the same rights?

Cheers.

Gee ,Foxy. If you are surprised to hear the SMH called a Left wing paper that would make you the only person in Australia who is surprised. Even its dwindling readership knows that – it's why they read the thing.

I don't know who they endorsed at the last election, but they sure as hell did not “endorse the conservative Coalition”. There was no such thing at the last election. Turnbull was and is a Leftist. The Leftist Liberals kicked out the conservative Abbott; and while there might be a few conservatives left in the Nationals, the nincompoop Joyce has certainly joined Turnbull on the Left. The Coalition nearly lost the election because it is no longer conservative, and real conservatives (like me) deserted the idiots.

The Left of the Liberal party has taken to calling itself 'moderate' because they think that makes them look more acceptable to Liberal voters but, make no mistake, they are just as Left as most Labor party politicians – see the likes of Squeaky Pyne and others of his ilk.

Of course I question the credibility of of the doctors' union. Powerful? For doctors, maybe, but they have no influence on the rest of us; and, like other unions, they are losing members hand over fist. Doctors, like bank managers, are no longer the high poobahs of society that the used to be.

Yes, I'm sick of the homosexual conversation, but there are many other things to talk about – if you wish.

“Why should Gay Australians - doctor's, police officers,
teachers, mothers, fathers, and many others - who
contribute to society not enjoy the same rights?”

All I can say is that they do have all the rights the rest of us have, and marriage is not a right for people of the same sex. Now, this might change – but I will do nothing to help facilitate the change, and I remain disgusted by the whole thing.

The word ‘suborned’ has negative connotations, mhaze.

<<I didn't say it was a bad thing...>>

But I’ll accept that you were being derisive instead of some alleged sinister conspiracy.

<<Personally I avoid using 'gay' … preferring accuracy ...>>

That's less accurate now. The definition has changed. Words don’t have intrinsic meaning, they have usages and we apply meaning to them.

<<… I've noticed that you quite often misunderstand my - and other's - points, then demand that they justify this misunderstood position …>>

Oh, please, do give an example, won’t you? It sounds like it shouldn’t be hard to find one.

<<And if homosexuals were currently required to ride at the back of the bus ...>>

Interracial marriage was also illegal in some US states. Presumably you support interracial marriages. So, why the double-standard?

<<… what was your attitude to the Robespierre National Convention?>>

I’ll consider it more if you could tell me how it’s analogous.

<<Marriage is a traditional institution which evolved as society's mechanism to better raise its next generation.>>

Correct. So, going back to my last post, why are you against it for same-sex couples?

<<Now as someone who can fall for the trope that [the traditional family] only recently came to the fore …>>

At no point has anyone ever claimed that. This is the third time you’ve repeated this lie.

<<Children do better in such families …>>

The research suggests that children do best in families with two parents. The sex of the parents appears to make no difference.

<<... and as society has allowed easy divorce and single parenthood …>>

Again, what exactly are these effects you speak of, and how did you rule out other causal factors? Did you, at any point, consider the impact on children of parents stuck in unhappy marriages?

<<They can now have civil unions ...>>

That’s not equality. For starters, civil unions vary from state to state.

<<They one and only thing they cannot have is to force society to declare their union to be identical to a traditional marriage.>>

Lucky they don't have to then.

Dear ttbn,

The gays do not want more than what the straights
have. At present they do not have the legal right to
marry. It's about what the options are and who can access
them. Refusing to amend the Marriage Act is tantamount
to saying that gays are not worthy of the institution.
That's like saying that women should not have the right
to vote or blacks can't use the white toilets.
That's going back in time - like an embarrassing echo.
Marriage is a secular contract presided over by government.
It should be open to all consenting adults. Not just a
select few based on sexual orientation

cont'd ...

The advantage for same sex marriage advocacy is that
we are able to take a neutral position on the moral
worth of voluntary intimate relationships and, by
extension, same-sex marriage, even if we have a
problem with same-sex marriage, we couldn't stand in
the way of someone's right to have one.
Live and let live.

I find it incongruous of some here, who without any experience or real examples choose to malign same sex couples for their courage in adopting children, whom in many instances were neglected by their biological heterosexual parent. Without exception these children now find themselves in a caring and loving family environment. and being given a real chance in life.
The comments of Christian fundo leader Lyle Shelton in trying to link gay parenthood to the 'safe schools' debate, and calling the children of same sex couples "the stolen generation" demonstrates how much this bible bashers thinking is perverted,.and how out of touch Shelton and those who agree with him really are.

Be very aware the SSM is not the end of this issue, it is ultimately about the denial of gender. Children will not have a mother and father, they will only have parents, who might not be the mother or the father. Beside the girl who is now a boy marrying a man now a woman changing parenting roles is also not to be discriminated against in any area of society. The safe schools programme gives voice to this supposed move to equality. It will become law and gender distinctions will be outlawed. Children could be denied any knowledge of their biological and gender heritage.

The 'safe' schools program was designed by deviants.

runner,
You wont be able to say this once all relationships become equal, you will be charged with discrimination. Freedom of expression will be curtailed.

thanks for the tip Josephus. Although in Canada one of the designers of ' safe' schools is in prison for paedophile.

Banjo,

Given that a minority share your bigoted and unjustified beliefs, I wouldn't be too worried about that.

<<Yep I think that once homosexuals are involved with marriage people generally will not have the same respect for the institution.>>

Not everyone is obsessed with what people do behind closed doors as you. It sounds like you have some unresolved issues there.

<<[Marriage] will become tainted, just like homosexuals are because of their sexual practices.>>

The biggest difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is the biological sexes involved. Other than that, it's very much the same, with oral sex, mutual masterbation, anal sex, and yes, even strapon dildos (Google ‘pegging’). Do you fear that heterosexuals, who engage in these sorts of activities devalue your marriage, too?

Of course not, you just don't like gay people. You're probably not even sure why you don't, you just don't, and that's good enough for you.

<<I am referring to the dirty anal practices that homos reportedly practice.>>

Only some gay men (and presumably lesbians). The same goes for heterosexual couples.

<<The meanings of words do not simply evolve.>>

Actually, they do. They're always evolving. ‘Nice’ used to mean ‘stupid’, for example.

<<A fire is still a fire and a wheel is still a wheel, a train is still a train and a person is still aa person.>>

This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

<<Those that want to change the meaning of the word 'marriage' desire to do so to try and gain some respectability for their sexual practices which deserve no respect.>>

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

<<Why not use 'queers, poofters or sodomists>>

Because you're just trying to be as offensive as possible. You have no rational reason for this suggestion.

--

Josephus,

If that's your only concern, then save your energy for that.

<<You wont be able to say this once all relationships become equal, you will be charged with discrimination. Freedom of expression will be curtailed.>>

Because this isn't a justification for treating gay people like second-class citizens.

Foxy,

Sorry, but I totally disagree with you. I do not believe two people of the same sex can or should be married. I believe children need a mother and a father. Anything else is an affront to decency and nature. There can be compromises on most things, but not this. If SSM does get up, it still will not be right in my view. I have nothing else to say.

Hi AJ, and I thought I was the only deviant on the plant, there is a another? ha ha.

Are the religious fundos that out of touch with the reality of what goes on behind closed (bedroom) doors in Australia that they are offended by what they speculate (unless they have a peep hole) same sex couples might be doing in the boudoir. The days of lights off and close your eyes, think of mother England are long gone, if they ever did exist at all. Well fellas when it comes to same sex marriage, its time you got a grip on it, sorry that's for Catholic priests to do, so said the Bishop, and face Reality.
You might find Reality is not a bad sort after all!

ttbn,

As I mentioned to mhaze in my last two posts to him, the ‘Won't somebody please think of the children’ argument doesn't work for several reasons:

Firstly, same-sex couples are already having children. Same-sex marriage won’t change that.

Secondly, if your concerns really are for children then you should actually support same-sex marriage, as it would help to promote stability within these families, and it would reduce stigmatisation.

Finally, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that children of same-sex parents fare any worse than children of opposite-sex parents:

Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents (http://goo.gl/YLfghk)
Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use Among Adolescents With Female Same-Sex Parents (http://goo.gl/8kppjP)
Peer Relations Among Adolescents With Female Same-Sex Parents (http://66.7.216.77/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2008.pdf)
A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents (http://goo.gl/WVwSSM)

There's thousands more where they came from http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=same+sex+parenting.

Now, you can deny what the evidence suggests, as I’m no doubt sure you will, but all this demonstrates is that you are more interested in believing what you want, rather than what the evidence supports.

If you are against same-sex couples and single parents parenting, then rally against that. But it makes no sense to rally against same-sex marriage for this reason. Citing it as a reason is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

--

Paul1405,

I'm adventurous, but not THAT adventurous!

As a liberal that has always opposed the interference by the state in personal interactions, I have always supported SSM. However, I am seriously disappointed by the partisan nature of the debate.

Until 2014/5 (just 2/3yrs ago) both major parties opposed SSM for the reason that there is a significant minority of Australians that oppose it very strongly for religious reasons and are quite prepared to change their vote on that issue alone. During this time members of the opposition including Bill Shorten were proposing a plebiscite along the lines of the Irish Plebiscite to ease the way to SSM.

The plebiscite option was adopted by the liberal party as a way of convincing the recalcitrants of the popularity of the concept and its inevitability. The moment this happened, Labor and the greens did an Olympic level back flip and opposed the Plebiscite leaving the government with a lower level postal plebiscite, even though polls clearly showed that the majority favoured the plebiscite.

To me, the rampant hypocrisy displayed by Labor and the Greens in opposing the plebiscite and delaying SSM by a year is because it keeps alive an issue that it can use to wedge the government.

Paul,

"Good to see the gunnie pair Issy and Leo, who on another thread are vigorously arguing the rights of the minuscule minority to have their gun fun, at the expense of the majority. While on this thread the gun happy guys bemoan the rights of another minority they don't happen to agree with"

I've always stuck up for the rights of homosexuals, except that when as a soldier on active service I never let them share the same fox hole.
One doesn't need unnecessary distractions when alertness is paramount.

I know some homosexual shooters, in fact, the former secretary of one club to which I belong is one; he's no longer with us as he made a bit of a balls up (singular) and is now a guest of the State, still, he was a good secretary and a nice bloke.

I just think that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Foxy,

Re the AMA homosexual marriage apologia and the critique thereof.

I wasn't seeking to change minds here or even offer alternate evidence. I was simply pointing out that the AMA study, which you viewed as of the highest quality, was rather biased and that it had inexplicably left out vital evidence. I was also pointing out that the SMH and other media had sought to hide the critique for reasons that ought to be rather obvious.

Foxy I rather enjoy your passion and compassion on this and other issues in the same way as I'd imagine Clemenceau admired the passion of the youthful socialist ("Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.").

But I wonder if you've stopped to ponder why the SMH was so anxious to highlight the AMA's views but to hide other views and if that might make you a little less trusting of your sources? And I wonder if you've given thought as to why you'd immediately run off to Wikipedia to check on the credentials of those who have views you don't like but not bother to do such 'research' for confirmatory views?

I'm not pushing these other studies. My personal view is that there is currently insufficient data to fully evaluate the total effects of homosexual child-rearing because it hasn't been going on long enough in large enough numbers. But I do think there is more than sufficient evidence gathered over a long period and through many cultures and ages that children do best when raised by their biological father and biological mother.

When society does things to weaken that institution it, society, suffers. Nonetheless we will do it. I just think it ought to be a societal decision not something cooked up in the backroom of political operatives looking for passing electoral advantage.

Dear mhaze,

I have learned from experience to check on so called
"experts" when they cite their views - and I do read
both the pros and the
cons of same sex marriage. However, I found the link you gave
lacking in credibility, including the authors of the so called
surveys regarding children and same sex couples. These
were discredited by their peers.

BTW: I do not set out to purposely
bring any one into disrepute. I don't have to they usually
manage to do that entirely by themselves.

I'll repeat what I've posted previously:

Each society views its own patterns of marriage, family, and
kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and usually as
God-given as well. Much of the current concern about the
fate of the modern family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If we assume that there is only one "right" family form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding
the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns;
that each of these patterns may be, at least in its own
context, perfectly viable; and above all that the family, like
any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society, as in all others.

Dear ttbn,

Thank You for your opinion and sharing your views.
You are not alone in your feelings. Approximately
forty per cent of Australians do not approve of
same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons. We
will all have a chance to have our say via a vote.
We need to make it count.

AJ

"Interracial marriage was also illegal in some US states. Presumably you support interracial marriages. So, why the double-standard?"

I support interracial marriage between a man and a woman. No double standard there. And since you're so one-eyed, how can you see double? :)

"I’ll consider it more if you could tell me how it’s analogous."
I was deriding your reaching back into pre-me history by doing likewise. Too subtle? But if you want some history, ponder that all anti-sodomy laws were repealed by the revolutionary councils while so-called republican marriage was encouraged. And didn't that work out well. (Being slightly facetious here!)

"Correct. So, going back to my last post, why are you against it for same-sex couples?"

I don't know why this is so hard for you to get. Marriage is a mechanism to facilitate the best arrangements for the raising of the next generation ie a natural father and natural mother. Homosexual marriage isn't.

AJ yesterday: "At no point has anyone ever claimed that."
AJ 1/7/16: "The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s."

'Flexible' thinking?

Still, a degree of flexible thinking is required from those of a certain leaning in this regard. Its required so that you can think that only religious fanatics oppose homosexual marriage while (judiciously) forgetting that less than a decade ago the likes of the Obamessiah, Rudd, Gillard, Wong, the female Clinton also thought that marriage was something between a man and a woman. But then again, what's principle when political advantage is available.

"The research suggests that children do best in families with two parents." and then in virtually the next breathe AJ wonders why I think single parenthood has been detrimental to society. More flexible thinking? Earlier I suggested that an understanding of 1984 would help the appropriation of the word 'gay' make sense. Perhaps it (1984) would also help with an understanding of double-think

The sting in the tail of this issue is the rights of those that disagree with SSM to disassociate themselves from the issue need to be protected so that the ridiculous case of a religious baker being prosecuted for refusing to bake a wedding cake for an SSM does not occur here. I personally think this is silly business practice as turning away business is a sure fire recipe for financial failure.

With regards adoption, for lesbian couples, this is normally a non-issue as they can produce their own children, but for gay men, this puts them at a disadvantage. The number of children available for adoption is so low that all forms of discrimination are already applied, such as age, income, community service etc, so a non-traditional family stands little chance.

It will be interesting to see if Get Up organises teams to follow
the post men around the day the poll letters are delivered.
They always organise for political events.
This one would be very tempting.

But not members of the same sex, mhaze.

<<I support interracial marriage between a man and a woman.>>

So again, why the double-standard?

<<I was deriding your reaching back into pre-me history by doing likewise.>>

Yes, I know. I was doing the same by highlighting the fact that at least my question was analogous.

<<… ponder that all anti-sodomy laws were repealed by the revolutionary councils while so-called republican marriage was encouraged.>>

Please, do go on.

<<Marriage is a mechanism to facilitate the best arrangements for the raising of the next generation ...>>

That’s one of its intended functions, yes. This doesn’t address my point that you’re responding to, though. Same-sex couples are already having children.

<<Homosexual marriage isn't.>>

Correct. Neither is heterosexual. They are forms of sexuality. But if you don’t think it is possible for a homosexual couple to be married, regardless of what society allows, then please state why? I’ll be fascinated to see what authority it is that you cite.

<<'Flexible' thinking?>>

You didn't include part where I corrected myself. I wonder why that is?

You carry on as if I should be embarrassed by my memory’s failure there. And this from someone who tries to claim that he leaves debates to allow his opponents to retain a modicum of respect too, mind you. You don’t. All you know is slander.

Again, your repeating of this incident is dishonest. I’d also note that it seems to be the only factual error from me that you can cite. It’s getting older and older, mhaze.

<<[Flexible thinking is] required so that you can think that only religious fanatics oppose homosexual marriage …>>

Really now? Since when have I ever implied that opposition to same-sex marriage is confined to the religious?

<<… while (judiciously) forgetting that less than a decade ago the likes of …>>

Judiciously now? And how did I forget this?

It is simply breathtaking how dishonest you are.

<<… AJ wonders why I think single parenthood has been detrimental to society.>>

No, I wondered HOW you thought it was detrimental. I was getting to a point.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It may interest you to know that for quite a few decades
now social welfare agencies in New York and other large cities
have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage youngsters - who
are unwelcome in hetererosexual foster homes in the custody of
gay couples.

Sorry, mhaze. I misread this part:

<<Marriage is a mechanism to facilitate the best arrangements for the raising of the next generation ie a natural father and natural mother. Homosexual marriage isn't.>>

(No doubt I'll be hearing about that for the next few years. You know, given that you're such a great guy and all with how you like to leave people with a modicum of self-respect.)

So I would alter my response by asking what your evidence is for the requirement for both genders. You continue to assert that there is a need there, but never get specific when asked to expand on why.

You also completely evaded my points regarding the fact that same-sex couples are already having kids.

So, we know that it's not really about the children with you.

Foxy, "..social welfare agencies in New York and other large cities have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage youngsters - who are unwelcome in hetererosexual foster homes in the custody of gay couples"

Quite a dump on those 'nasty heterosexual' foster parents there, huh?

The 'unwelcome in heterosexual homes' bit is highly unlikely. Something is missing in the storytelling there.

But surely the maligning of many thousands of foster parents and the divisive wedge are quite unnecessary (and untrue).

Foxy,

I am aware of the programs and I think that they are doing a lot of good. However, there is a world of difference between placing in foster care a teenager who has identified as gay with a gay couple that can make him/her feel at home, and placing a baby with a non-traditional family.

It's not that I have anything against non-traditional families and know a couple of two mum families and single parent families generally not through choice, who do the very best they can. However, I also know a few couples that have tried to adopt, and that the competition is so fierce that for one couple, even after going through years of scrutiny proving they were ideal parents (signed in triplicate by God), eventually they were refused on the basis of their age.

Foxy,

"It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns;
that each of these patterns may be, at least in its own
context, perfectly viable; and above all that the family, like
any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society, as in all others."

Very true and it's also very true that in the vast, vast majority of these systems marriage is between opposite sexes; same sex marriage is the abnormality for as the basis for a family it fails.

lovely to see how biology means nothing to those trying to justify all kinds of perversion. And AJ claims to be rational. You are a joke.

AJ,
As I said before, I do not care what homosexuals do to or with each other. However I do care about any adverse effects on my own marriage and I think that the use of the word marriage for homosexuals will result in a lack of respect, by the community, in the institution of marriage. If granted it soon will become viewed by most people as a tainted position.

Whether you agree or not and whether you like it or not, most people see the sexual practices of homosexuals as being dirty and it is this belief that will lead to the lack of respect.

Most people are aware that the only reason for homosexuals to want the word marriage is to try and impose a false sense of acceptance of their sexual practices. Wordsmiths could soon come up with another word meaning a homosexual union.

Foy,

"I have learned from experience to check on so called "experts" when they cite their views"..."

Well that's a good practice. Did you also check on the so-called experts when you first saw the AMA report? If so, did you notice that some of their data was attacked?

I guess what I was trying to do here Foxy was to nudge you to an understanding that both sides only present you with the data that suits their pre-judged biases. Fact checking one but not the other leads you down the garden path.

The SMH only showed you one side of the story.

The AMA openly asserted that no contrary data existed whilst knowing that it did exist.

Those who wrote the critique have over-stated the value of the data they cite.

But when you actively fact-check one side and not the t'other, you are no longer searching for the truth but simply looking for confirmation of prejudices.

I think you're better than that.

AJ
Its not a double standard, its a different standard.

I'm not opposed to homosexual marriage because of any ill-feelings toward that group. I'm opposed to anything that weakens the natural nuclear family. Its also why I oppose things like 'safe' schools, favour school voucher systems, income splitting among married couples. I favour those things that enhance the viability and prestige of the nuclear family and the nuclear parents, and I oppose those things that do the opposite.

"You carry on as if I should be embarrassed by my memory’s failure there. "

No. What was embarrassing was that, having realised (or being led to) your error, you then studiously refused to take the next logical step - reexamine your views. As I pointed out earlier, when the 'facts' are merely there to support a pre-judged opinion, opinions don't change when the facts change.

When you were preening yourself last year about having examined all the reasons for opposing SSM and finding none of them of value, I decided to test that by presenting you with a view that, clearly, you hadn't examined. When you then sought to reject that view based on faulty data, I'd hoped that you'd at least accept that the 'no' case had some validity. But I guess we'll never get there.

"Really now? Since when have I ever implied that opposition to same-sex marriage is confined to the religious?"

I wasn't referring to you personally there. I was referring to " those of a certain leaning". It was a collective 'you'. I acknowledge the ambiguity.

"You also completely evaded my points regarding the fact that same-sex couples are already having kids."

Not evaded, just discounted. Yes homosexuals are having kids. So are poly-amorous 'families'. So are incestuous 'couples'. So are teenage girls in forced marriage arrangements. The fact that they are having kids doesn't legitimise the arrangement. And the fact that they are having kids doesn't mean that we fail to recognise that those kids are at a disadvantage and seek to discourage the arrangement that causes that disadvantage.

Foxy, if you were a public servant who had decided to approve a couple
of homosexual men adopt a young boy would you risk that boy coming back
in 20 years or so to sue you for happened to him ?

Some women have bi-sexual husbands.
Can't imagine any woman being happy with her husband coming back after
a visit to his boyfriend and then getting into bed with her.
Hmm sums it all up I guess.

Dear Bazz,

Are you talking about child abuse?

Did you know that child abuse - involving such
acts as burning children with cigarettes, locking
them up in closets, tying them up for hours or
days, or breaking their bones - is alarmingly
common amongst heterosexual couples and
probably causes many of the million runaways
that happen each year - and the sexual abuse of
children - now recognised as a national epidemic
is rarely a matter of molestation by a stranger.
It is usually perpetrated by one family member on
another.

As for how would a woman feel if her bi-sexual
husband slept with another man and
came home and then slept with her? I imagine it
would be the same
as she would feel if her straight husband had
slept around and then came home to sleep with
her. I know my husband wouldn't do it. He's
probably scared of what I'd do to him if he tried
it. I think that sort of behaviour is risky for
any couple - gay or straight once they're in a
committed relationship. You never know how your
better half will react - and is it worth the risk?
Remember the woman who chopped off her partner's
genitals? I think it was in the US a few years ago.
Something to think about Bazz.

Banjo,

Lucky for you, then, you are in a rapidly shrinking minority there - contrary to your claims.

I don’t think you’ll have much to worry about. In fact, nowadays, greater equality within the institution of marriage will lend it more prestige.

--

runner,

That would be a rather arrogant claim to make.

<<And AJ claims to be rational.>>

I strive to hold rational beliefs, but I have never claimed to be rational. However, I will happily claim to be more rational than you. Damn near everyone here is.

Like Josephus, you confuse social constructs with biology.

mhaze,

It may be a different standard, but for so long as you cannot provide a justification as to why the two instances should be treated differently, it’s also a double-standard.

<<I'm opposed to anything that weakens the natural nuclear family.>>

And how would same-sex marriage do that, exactly? Do you think these people will go off and have traditional families if they’re not allowed to marry?

Incidentally, what's nature got to do with it?

<<… I oppose those things that do the opposite [to enhancing the viability and prestige of the nuclear family].>>

How will same-sex marriage do this?

<<… having realised … your error, you then studiously refused to take the next logical step - reexamine your views.>>

Wrong once again. This is the second time you’ve repeated this specific lie.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734#238220

I re-examined my claim without any coaxing from you beyond a rejection of my claim and, as it turned out, I only got one point wrong. Yet you parade this one incident around like some sort of a trophy because your vacuous opinions force you to rely on slander.

<<… I decided to test that by presenting you with a view that, clearly, you hadn't examined.>>

Actually, I had. My error made little difference to my argument. You then had to slink off after I asked you to expand on your position.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227163

<<… I'd hoped that you'd at least accept that the 'no' case had some validity.>>

My error lent no validity to the 'no’ case.

<<The fact that they are having kids doesn't legitimise the arrangement.>>

That’s beside my point. Which, I might add, you’re evading again.

<<And the fact that they are having kids doesn't mean that we fail to recognise that those kids are at a disadvantage and seek to discourage the arrangement that causes that disadvantage.>>

You are yet demonstrate that they are at a disadvantage.

Once again, though, if the children are at a disadvantage, then it makes no sense to make the situation worse by denying these families something that would promote stability and reduce stigmatisation.

Try again, mhaze.

Foxy, for goodness sake, you should get a job making twisties !
The risk I drew attention to has absolutely nothing to do with what
happens in a hetrosexual marriage,
I am talking about an EXTRA risk which has to be a real risk.
You cannot try and pat down the risk by talking about something else.

If I'm to vote on this issue I'll be voting 'No'.
The reason I'll be voting 'No' is basically out of pure selfishness.
I'm not gay, and I see no benefit to myself whatsoever in voting 'Yes'.

Some people might think this is a bad attitude to have.
But why should I support something that does not benefit me?
That's how the majority of the country acts now, don't they?

Australia's 'Fair Go' policy is finished in my opinion.
The country has been hijacked by liberal progressive mentalcases, and they've set the new rules.
So don't blame me, I don't care.

I might have gone along with SSM but they went too far pushing and normalising the gay agenda to young kids in schools.
And for that, you'll not get one bit of sympathy from me.

Targetting kids with a perverted agenda is wrong, and I'm not going to support anything that does not directly benefit me...

Why the inserted qualifier that it is now only 'heterosexual' couples? And 'many' is now a 'million'. Perhaps that is taking enthusiastic gay advocacy a mite too far.

@Foxy, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 9:47:01 AM,
Each year, too, child abuse - involving such acts
as burning children with cigarettes, locking them up
in closets, tying them up for hours or days, or
breaking their bones - is alarmingly common, and
probably causes many runaways that happen each year.
And the sexual abuse of children is now recognized
as a national epidemic - is rarely a matter of
molestation by a stranger. It's usually perpetrated
by one family member on another."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3394&page=0

cf

@Foxy, Monday, 14 August 2017 8:13:21 PM
"Did you know that child abuse - involving such
acts as burning children with cigarettes, locking
them up in closets, tying them up for hours or
days, or breaking their bones - is alarmingly
common amongst heterosexual couples and
probably causes many of the million runaways
that happen each year - and the sexual abuse of
children - now recognised as a national epidemic
is rarely a matter of molestation by a stranger.
It is usually perpetrated by one family member on
another."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880&page=15

AJ Philips wrote:

“Given the importance of equality, and the ease with which this issue could be resolved, I fail to see how it can be blown out of proportion”

The equality argument is a furphy. Gay folk are already equal.
What they seemingly fail to recognise is that they aren’t eligible.

Hi Foxy, you are correct in saying child abuse is at epidemic proportions. At both the children's hospitals in Sydney, Randwick and Westmead, police spend a lot of time interviewing adults about possible child abuse after mandatory reporting by doctors of suspected instances. Some more serious than others, and in some cases it is due to misadventure, but in others it is certainly child abuse.

I posted earlier about our gay niece and her partner in NZ who have taken in four children from the extended family and given them a warm and loving environment to be brought up in, at no small cost to themselves, even going to the extent of selling up and buying a larger house to accommodate. Our niece tells us the first six months with each pair was hell. They were all well below average at school, disobedient, withdrawn, angry, a whole mixed bag of emotions. But with perseverance and love the kids have made big improvements in their lives, both at home and at school. The girls want to take in two more children from the family, making it a total of six.
The belief that there is something wrong with having same sex parents is totally incorrect. The evidence shows otherwise.

Armchair Critic,

You’re right. That is very selfish.

<<I'm not gay, and I see no benefit to myself whatsoever in voting 'Yes'.>>

An educated selfish person, however, would vote ‘Yes’ as greater equality does indeed benefit everyone, to some degree or another.

<<But why should I support something that does not benefit me?>>

It sounds like you might be one of these people who require the belief in a god to behave morally. Like runner.

That fact that it WOULD benefit you to some degree aside: because you share space with everyone, and our actions have consequences. None of us live in a vacuum.

On second thoughts…

<<That's how the majority of the country acts now, don't they?>>

I think that's an oversimplification. Even if you’re right, though, that’s no reason to be selfish yourself. Why not be the change you want to see? You have a rotten attitude.

<<I might have gone along with SSM but they went too far pushing and normalising the gay agenda to young kids in schools.>>

So, the Safe Schools program is the fault of the gay community, is it? You're going to punish one group for the actions of another, just because there's some overlap?

What is this "gay agenda", by the way? I keep hearing about it, but no one ever seems to expand on what it is. Sounds like the product of paranoid thinking, to me.

Gay Agenda:
1. Have breakfast.
2. Go to work.
3. Come home.
4. Fight for marriage equality.

Sounds sinister!

--

Dustin,

You don’t see the glaring contradiction in your post?

<<The equality argument is a furphy. Gay folk are already equal.>>

If gay people are equal, then they should be treated equally.

<<What they seemingly fail to recognise is that they aren’t eligible.>>

And why is that? Because they’re not a male and a female? Why is that a reason?

You haven’t been following this thread very closely, have you?

Armchair said;
If I'm to vote on this issue I'll be voting 'No'.
The reason I'll be voting 'No' is basically out of pure selfishness.

It is the purpose of an election to determine the opinion of everyone
and it is necessary to vote to express your self interest.
Unless everyone votes in their own interest then the result is distorted.

The agenda of the extreme SSM lobby groups are using the marriage equality term to further push their ultimate goal. They oppose the Christian view of homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, immorality and adultery; as for Christians these are all classed as sin against one's body and God. For them there is no sin against God. There is no god and no ultimate accounting of one's life. Their agenda is to make these all acceptable practises in society. It would look the law of the jungle, whatever feels good do it.

The have picked a target audience to imply they are not equal and create a sympathy for them, so this weakens the view of those that uphold the moral 10 commandment standards.

Dear Josephus,

The moral "ten commandment standards?"

Do all religious leaders uphold those I wonder.

Dear Paul,

Here's a link that examines parenting amongst gays and straights
and what the research shows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html

For those quoting results of studies that show same sex parenting have no different or sometimes even better outcomes than opposite sex couples I suggest you actually look at those studies. You will find that just as the large group of Tasmania doctors opposed to the AMA position have stated, they are based on very flimsy, and subjective data and none of the studies would have passed any scientific requirements for a reputable study.
If you don't believe me, go check out the methodology of the studies. You will find that they are mainly small, not random selected, do not have appropriate control groups and do not have measurable outcomes.
For example, just recently I read an article that stated that children raised in gay households were actually emotionally better off than in opposite sex homes. But when I checked how the study was actually done I couldnt believe it was allowed to be used as evidence for anything.
They took a small group of 7 year olds and asked them about how happy they were, about how many friends they had, about how happy they were with their parents, about how did they like school etc!
And that was supposed to be a scientific study.
I could go to a very remote, very dysfunctional, aboriginal community and ask the same questions and the seven year olds would tell me how happy they were, and they would be laughing and smiling whilst they told me, because they don't know any different to the life they have and have learned to be happy in appalling circumstances.
Most of the studies are based on questionaires given to volunteer lesbian mothers, with no measurable outcomes.
The only very large study done that is random, huge, has control groups and measurable outcomes is the one done by ALLEN, in Canada, on hignschool graduation rates of children from all different family types.
Naturally this study has been dismissed by the gay lobby but it remains, along with the Renegurus study, the only ones that are large, random, and have measurable outcomes.

Foxy,

Why would you be scouring Google, suspect search engine that it is according to some, to find anything, Huffington Post pap, to 'prove' gays are better? What is the point of that? You yourself suffer from researcher error and so do many of your claimed 'sources'.

Lets talk 2017.
What the body of research concludes, coincides unsurprisingly with what one might imagine, which is that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that children generally fared better or worse depending on the sexual orientation of their parents. Or parent, lets not be excluding single fathers here, since fatherhood is often viewed in our society as inferior to motherhood (stereotyping to be found on OLO too).

There are other factors that are implicated in poor outcomes. Think poor family functioning, parental stress, child behavioural problems and so on. Indigenous children in Australia for example are more likely to be exposed to child neglect and so.

Big Nana,

Our posts crossed. I agree with your comments on what I call sloppy science. Which is usually rife with researcher error and other fatal flaws such as self-selecting gay parents being compared with the general population.

The way grants are allocated can encourage sloppy research. So too might setting up special departments such as gender (as in women) studies.

All that is known is that good parents are good. However good may well be even better where role modelling from both genders is reliably and continuously available. Maybe a gold standard can be anywhere form 9k to 24k and that is fine for a good start and support later.

Remembering too that the spectrum of families seen by some as 'evolved' and 'progressive' is relatively new and lacks numbers and history for study. That is why we should all sit up and pay attention where experienced carers and independent professionals with ethics and courage step forward to comment.

Dear Josephus,

What on earth is a Christian view of homosexuality? I have seen almost as much variance of views coming from the Christian community on this issue as in the wider population.

You get to claim your personal view is informed by your faith but you do not speak for all Christians at all.

Big Nana,

Here are some links from independent analysis of
the Mark Regnerus study that you cited:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-faulty-gay-arenting-study

http://thinkprogress.org/mark-regnerus-admits-his-family-structures-study-wasn-t-about-gay-parenting-554420fd83ea/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/?utm_term=.6ccbcc5a7e38

Big Nana,

The methodology used by the articles I linked to directly was sound, as far as I can tell (and I have studied and applied research methods at university).

<<… they are based on very flimsy, and subjective data and none of the studies would have passed any scientific requirements for a reputable study.>>

Do you have an example of this? The article mhaze linked to earlier was terrible, and cited an article that you too have relied on, which was fundamentally flawed.

<<… go check out the methodology of the studies. You will find that they are mainly small, not random selected, do not have appropriate control groups and do not have measurable outcomes.>>

It doesn’t sound like you’re talking about the studies that I linked to. Their samples were small-ish, which they noted. However, that’s not always avoidable, depending on the data that is being collected.

<<They took a small group of 7 year olds and asked them about how happy they were, about how many friends they had, about how happy they were with their parents, about how did they like school etc!>>

Could you link me to this article please?

<< Most of the studies are based on questionaires given to volunteer lesbian mothers, with no measurable outcomes.>>

With NO measurable outcomes? I’d doubt that.

You make the rest sound so bad and so deliberate. Did the researchers perhaps have feasibility restraints (e.g. ethical, practical, financial)? They’ll usually note this.

<<The only very large study done that is random, huge, has control groups and measurable outcomes is the one done by ALLEN, in Canada, on hignschool graduation rates of children from all different family types. >>

That study was fatally flawed. The researcher included children who were yet to graduate. The problem here was that the children of the families from same-sex-parented households had a lower average age.

But, as I have pointed out a few times here now, none of this is an argument against same-sex marriage. Indeed, if you are right, then it is an argument in favour of same-sex marriage.

Big Nana,

My apologies for the typo in the amy davidson link I
cited earlier. Here it is again:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study

AJ Philips wrote:
“You don’t see the glaring contradiction in your post?”

What I see is a people who conflate equality with eligibility.
Perhaps they don’t have a dictionary.

AJ Philips wrote:
“If gay people are equal, then they should be treated equally.”

They are.

AJ Philips wrote:
“And why is that? Because they’re not a male and a female? Why is that a reason?”

Yes, that’s right. Eligibility.
It’s exactly the same reasoning used to qualify people for mixed doubles tennis. No outrage there, then?
Eligibility is a criteria used far and wide in society.

Eligibility is the reason I, as a male, can’t join Fernwood Fitness.
Eligibility is the reason the Govt. discriminate against me accessing some of their services.
Eligibility is the reason I was called up for National Service.
Eligibility is the reason same sex couples don’t qualify for marriage.
Eligibility is the reason polygamists don’t qualify for marriage.

“Marriage equality” is the red herring argument.

SteeleRedux,
Homosexual = one who engages in sex with a person of the same gender; by males in anal which is socially unclean. This is outlawed in both OT and NT as a practise within the Church community. Some Church communities have abandoned the Biblical teaching, so have abandoned the biological design of Creator God.

In the Biblical text man and woman were designed for each other, and this is borne out in their biological design.

Dear Josephus,

Same-sex marriage is not about religion or
religious beliefs. It's about marriage -
which is a social institution and in this
country its a secular contract presided over
by the government. Like taxes. It was the
government who changed the Marriage Act.
They can quite easily fix it. You are
entitled to your religious beliefs - of
course but you are not entitled to impose
them on anyone else.

Foxy wrote:
“Same-sex marriage is not about religion or
religious beliefs. It's about marriage - which is a social institution […]”

Yep. I’m an atheist so don’t give two hoots about the religious angle.

From what I’ve gathered, religious people don’t see it that way.
For them, the religious component holds primacy and the legal aspect is secondary. Presumably, they see the social contract flowing from the religious and since this flow is of no interest to many, it doesn’t get contested.
Happy to be corrected by the religious.

One other point I’d note, regarding this study that has same-sex marriage opponents wetting themselves with excitement, is that nowhere does it mention the limitations of the research, or the conflict of interest on the author’s behalf - who is an active campaigner against marriage equality. To the author’s credit, however, he acknowledges that the study is not enough to establish a causal link.

Again, though, not that it makes any difference to the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. If anything, it is evidence in favour of marriage equality.

--

Dustin,

Well, there is significant overlap there.

<<What I see is a people who conflate equality with eligibility.>>

And why should same-sex couples be ineligible to marry?

<<They are [treated equally].>>

No, they’re not. They’re not allowed to marry.

<<Yes, that’s right. Eligibility.>>

Eligibility, in itself, is not a reason. You need to explain why they should not be eligible. Otherwise, you’re just engaging in circular reasoning.

<<It’s exactly the same reasoning used to qualify people for mixed doubles tennis.>>

That has to do with balancing competition. This is a false analogy, as are your other analogies.

<<“Marriage equality” is the red herring argument.>>

You have not demonstrated this.

Dear Josephus,

Both the Old and New testaments condone and set rules for slavery;

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Exodus 21:20-21

Eph 6:5-8
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart

1Tim 6:1-2
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor.

Titus 2:9-10
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect

1Pet 2:18
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.

There are far more verses regarding this practice than those addressing homosexuality. During the American Civil War the case for slavery was forcefully put from the pulpit quoting these verses. Which side was being the more true to the Bible and which the more christian?

But in most parts of the world we have moved past this terrible mindset.

Further within the Bible the penalties for adultery are in most circumstances as onerous as those for homosexual acts yet you are not calling for the outlawing of divorce.

Finally God is on record of enabling such activity;

“25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”

Big Nana,

What you say on the quality of the studies is very correct. But, alas, quite beside the point. As we've seen over the last decade or so with the climate debate, the point isn't to seek out the truth but to create talking-points (eg the 97% of climate scientists rubbish).

Here also: take the Allen 2013 paper. Since this has a large sample size and clear statistically significant results, it should be persuasive. So how to ignore something you don't want to be true? Well its a well worn path. First someone somewhere finds some minor disputable issue and declares it to be a major fault. Then its written up as proof that the paper is wrong, calling it, in this case, "worthless". Then multiple sites regurgitate that declaration so that when someone like Foxy goes off trying to find out how she can reject what she's already decided to reject, she finds her 'reasons' offered up on a silver platter. Done.

But how valid is the original criticism? AJ has also been trying to find out how he can reject unwanted data and found the original critique - being that the data uses an age range that might include some kids who are yet to reach graduation age. AJ links to the critique which he accepts unquestioningly - why wouldn't he?

The problem is that Allen, the original author, had anticipated these criticisms and addressed them within the actual paper noting that he'd run regression analysis on many different age ranges and came to the same results. This isn't mentioned in the critiques so the AJ's and Foxy's of this world can carry on ignoring what they want to ignore while maintain a veneer of scholarship.

But none of this matters (except to show the quality of research performed by AJ) since the only aim is to get some sort of vaguely convincing critique into the market-place so that good but 'unhelpful' data can be rejected.

/cont
Unfortunately for scientific research, this is increasingly the process, particularly when the issue is politicised. The data and/or the truth don't matter.

And on such flimsy 'evidence' we are about to send society down a path never before traveled, from which there is no reversing and which will be devastating to future generations.

OTOH, if a paper arrives at the 'correct' answer it is touted as incontrovertible truth without the need to check is validity.

AJ "The methodology used by the articles I linked to directly was sound, as far as I can tell (and I have studied and applied research methods at university)."

Well let's look at one of those papers :
Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use Among Adolescents With Female Same-Sex Parents (http://goo.gl/8kppjP).

Here we have a paper with a sample size of 44(!) and a control of 44. Now with a sample size of 44 I could probably prove that Coke is a health food. What's worse, the sample is effectively self-selected and was put together for another project - never a good practice. Within the paper they find that there a few statistical differences between the groups but with a sample of 44 it would be astounding to find any such differences. But here's the kicker - this 44 is arrived at by rejecting ALL of the kids with male same-sex parents. The reason they say is to simplify matters because apparently doing calculations on a sample of 50 is so much more complex than doing it on 44. I call BS. We can only speculate why they were rejected but I'd bet they wouldn't have been if they enhanced the results in the 'right' direction.

That AJ thinks this paper has a "sound"methodology says it all.

SteeleRedux,
Obviously you have not worked for a boss [master] and given it your best effort, or had a mortgage for which you are bound by contract to fulfil. That is the word given to followers of Christ working in a secular Roman society.

In Jewish society Joseph was taken a slave in Egypt and Daniel taken a slave in Babylon; they gave it their best effort and were rewarded for it; so should followers of Christ.

In Christian society all are equal male or female, slave or free. In ancient society poor persons owing debt to a person worked it off, if after the debt had been paid they were free, unless they chose to remain in the care of the farm or business owner.

What’s wrong with that, mhaze?

<<Here we have a paper with a sample size of 44(!) and a control of 44.>>>>

That’s a reasonable amount (albeit slightly small) for a study of this kind. It sounds to me like you think that all studies need to have sample sizes in the thousands Well, that’s not always possible, or even necessary. Sometimes studies hit what is referred to as a “saturation point”.

<<Now with a sample size of 44 I could probably prove that Coke is a health food.>>

How so?

<<What's worse, the sample is effectively self-selected …>>

You mean the subjects selected themselves? I don’t see where it says that.

<<<… and was put together for another project - never a good practice.>>

Never? No, that’s fine in a lot of cases. It depends on the data and the research question.

<<Within the paper they find that there a few statistical differences between the groups but with a sample of 44 it would be astounding to find any such differences.>>

Why’s that? How did Professor mhaze come to this determination?

<<But here's the kicker …>>

I can’t wait!

<<… this 44 is arrived at by rejecting ALL of the kids with male same-sex parents.>>

Oh, the humanity!

Yes, that’s because the sample size was smallish. To include gay-male parents, you would need to increase the sample size, if comparing same-sex couples with opposite-sex couples. It’s also much easier to find lesbian parents.

<<The reason they say is to simplify matters because apparently doing calculations on a sample of 50 is so much more complex than doing it on 44.>>

Huh? How did you determine that gay-male couples could have been included if they just upped it to 50? As a guesstimate, I'd say that they would need to have at least doubled the sample size to have similar accuracy with gay-male couples included.

<<We can only speculate why they were rejected …>>

Who? Gay-male couples? They told you. Adding gay-male couples would have added additional variables into the mix, which would then require a far greater sample size.

Regarding slavery, I came accross an article that suggested slavery was
a milepost on the way to a developed society.
It seems slaves were a source of energy for tasks where animals could not be used.
The Roman Empire collapsed when the silver mines output declined when
slaves became too expensive. It was not just those two factors that
caused its collapse but it certainly was caused by a decline in net energy.
So slaves were a necessary way station in the climb to our present civilisation.

Dear AJ,

Please read the following link. It explains a great
deal that may be of interest:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-frank-attacking-gay-rights-with-flawed-science-20151204-story.html

Dear Josephus,

Bunkum!

I repeat the quote;

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. 
Exodus 21:20-21

So beating to within an inch of their life was fine?

And this?

“In Christian society all are equal male or female, slave or free.”

Don't be an idiot.

Anyway the US is arguably the most Christianised first world country yet the horrendous treatment of slaves will forever stain its history.

Any version of a faith that forces one to become an apologist for slavery must be deemed highly questionable by any thinking person.

Hi Foxy, you article said;

"Gay parents “tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,” said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. “That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.”

I would apply that to heterosexual parents as well who, chose to be parents.

My partners youngest son and wife, could not have children, her sister had a baby for them (legally adopted). Two more loving parents you could not find. He is now 3 and has two mums and two dads, he is a well adjusted and normal child in every way. His biological parents have 5 children of their own.

As we wrestle with the concept of family in our society, others such as Maori society which has a much greater concept of family through the notion of the extended family have a different understanding of the position of children within the family. It is common place for children to be brought up by sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts, grandparents etc. What constitutes a normal family is certainly debatable.

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for the link to the article. No surprises there. Yes, 73 studies out of the 77 noted all pointed in one direction. I’m not aware of any studies, suggesting that children of same-sex parents fare worse than others, that haven’t been requested by a conservative interest group or carried out by a researcher with a barrow to push.

A detailed examination of the problems with the Regnerus study mentioned can be found at http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201206120002.

Given the difficulty of studying something as complex as society, all social research projects are going to have their strengths and limitations, so there’s hardly any medals for pointing to problems in any given social research project. But when the vast majority of studies all point in the one direction, one tends to more readily smell a rat when an outlier contradicts them.

Dear Paul,

The great majority of gay men and women form
stable, long-lasting relationships with a
person of the same sex at some time in their
lives. Changing attitudes have made these unions
far more socially acceptable than in the past.
I am sure that weddings in this country will take
place one day soon and will have a legal force.
And children of these unions will no longer
have to be made to feel that the union of
their parents is not somehow valid.

Dear AJ,

I'm pleased that you found the link I cited of
some interest. It often pays to read various
accounts to get the full story.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Well, there is significant overlap there.”

There is no overlap. We have two different words with two different meanings.

AJ Philips wrote:
“And why should same-sex couples be ineligible to marry?”

They aren’t ineligible to marry. They’re ineligible to marry their same sex. You well know this.
That’s why the anti-discrimination angle fails, both legally and logically.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Eligibility, in itself, is not a reason. You need to explain why they should not be eligible. Otherwise, you’re just engaging in circular reasoning.”

Au contraire; I don’t need to lift a finger.
You need to explain why marriage should be non-discriminatory to gay folk while excluding the obvious and endless logical extrapolations that society sees as undesirable; the so called slippery slope.

And before we dip into the obvious reply pointing out the ‘apparent’ fallacy, it’ll be insufficient to hand wave away the slippery slope if you can’t both support the fallacy allegation and couch a cogent and persuasive argument in legal terms that doesn’t discriminate against others who you’ve now afforded that same right.
That is, if one person wants to marry another person, free from eligibility criteria, you’ll need to explain how it might be possible legally to quell other applicants who wish to marry their chicken, their car or their sister.

As I say, eligibility is pervasive throughout not only our society, but all societies. Sometimes it’s called common sense but it's certainly nothing new or novel. Eligibility is one of the criteria by which we shape society. I don’t think society is better served by eliminating it wholesale.

continued . . .

. . . continued.

AJ Philips wrote:
“That [mixed doubles tennis] has to do with balancing competition.”

And that balance is achieved by ensuring both teams have a male and a female. The rule is deliberately discriminatory.

AJ Philips wrote:
“This is a false analogy, as are your other analogies.”

Feel free to provide argument that supports doing away with eligibility criteria. You know . . so that I become eligible for the examples you failed to even address.

AJ Philips wrote:
“You have not demonstrated this [Marriage equality as the red herring argument].”

I’ve demonstrated that it’s eligibility and not equality that informs the logic.
If equality were the issue, activists would be supporting and embracing polygamist marriage. I notice they don’t do that.

Waving the equality flag in support of same sex marriage while ignoring polygamist marriage adequately demonstrates the vapidity and intellectually dishonesty of the campaign.

No, there needs to be something else on which to ground your argument.
No one seems able to do that or perhaps they haven’t thought it through.

Dustin,

Just because two words have difference definitions, that doesn’t mean that the concepts to which they refer cannot overlap.

<<They’re ineligible to marry their same sex.>>

Yes, and you still haven’t explained why this should be the case. Saying that they’re eligible to marry the opposite sex is sidestepping the issue.

<<Au contraire; I don’t need to lift a finger.>>

Actually, you do if you want your claim to be taken seriously. All the French in the world isn’t going to change that. You’ve made a claim, the burden rests on you to support it.

<<You need to explain why marriage should be non-discriminatory to gay folk …>>

Sure, because there’s no rational reason to discriminate.

<<… while excluding the obvious and endless logical extrapolations that society sees as undesirable …>>

Au contraire, if you are going to claim that these will happen, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. It shouldn’t be too hard if it’s so obvious.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

<<… it’ll be insufficient to hand wave away the slippery slope if you can’t both support the fallacy allegation …>>

Oh, I can support it alright. By appealing to a slippery slope, you are avoiding the issue at hand while appealing to extremes.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

<<… if one person wants to marry another person, free from eligibility criteria …>>

I haven’t suggested that this should be the case, I have simply asked why same-sex couples should be ineligible.

<<I don’t think society is better served by eliminating [eligibility] wholesale.>>

Neither do I. You’re sidestepping again.

<<Feel free to provide argument that supports doing away with eligibility criteria.>>

At no point have I suggested that we should. Another sidestep.

<<I’ve demonstrated that it’s eligibility and not equality that informs the logic.>>

No, you haven’t. All you've done is spent the whole time ducking and weaving. So, why shouldn’t same sex couples be treated equally by being made eligible to marry?

<<If equality were the issue, activists would be supporting and embracing polygamist marriage.>>

Not if they thought it would be detrimental to society.

SteeleRedux,
You said, "Anyway the US is arguably the most Christianised first world country yet the horrendous treatment of slaves will forever stain its history".
Nonsense: "The land of the free" is the most diverse in wacky religious beliefs on the World, of all belief ideas.

Your quote is from Exodus where Israel themselves were just released from slavery. Instead of cherry picking a supporting idea read the whole text, and understand its context. There was a different culture 4,000 years ago. The slaves were the poor, who were purchased from a family to work for their master for six years, then they were free. However Christ came to bring freedom and release captives Luke 4: 18.
Learn the story of William Wilberforce.

We have a secular society today that sees nothing wrong in sexual slavery. Australia has the largest number of sexual tourists visiting Asian prostitutes in the World. These girls are held by ownership.

"Australia has the largest number of sexual tourists visiting Asian prostitutes in the World."

That is not true. The misunderstanding arises from the fact that Australia is one of the rare countries that has taken the initiative to share intel on identified child sex criminals and of course, extrapolation of guessed numbers by those who should better, but have a secondary agenda in mind. The Turnbull government has taken the initiative to place restrictions on the criminals passports as well.

However if one wants an example of 'soft' slavery that extended into modern times, it would be the young and vulnerable girls from poor backgrounds, from Ireland often, who relieved their burden on parents and family (poor employment prospects) by becoming RC nuns, where they suffered cruel psychological and physical deprivations and brain washing. Stunted lives.

Roman Catholicism still blooms among the poor, downtrodden and vulnerable, giving false hope and spreading superstition for mind control, and isolating anyone who does not go along with its edicts and the directions of priests, even reaching into the minutiae of and privacy of private lives. The RC Church farmed women as breeders to extend its influence, denying the enlightenment and empowerment of women and especially, any hand in the control of their own fertility.

Foxy,

"And children of these unions will no longer
have to be made to feel that the union of
their parents is not somehow valid."

Children of these unions? Big biological, WOW!!

Todays ABC surprise is...
They wrote an honest story... it's baffling.
See for yourself, google these headlines
(sorry I can't cut and paste / add links on the device I'm using)

ABC: Donald Trump: Everything he said at his explosive media conference on Charlesville race row;

Now check the establishments official narrative version (biased) of the same story -

Washington Post: Trump Just Hit a New Low

The ABC gave an honest an unbiased account.... like I said, baffling.

Unless it has something to do with the One Nation / LNP ABC announcement today..

AJ Philips wrote:
“Not if they thought it [supporting and embracing polygamist marriage] would be detrimental to society.”

Well, there ya go then. You’ve just described a conventional societal mores based discrimination.
How unfair.

When people argue for equality and non-discrimination but just want same sex marriage, there’s no response available when folk like Cory Bernardi bring up the reasonable inclusion of polygamy, because if you’re intellectually honest, he’s correct.

As I say, to be taken seriously, the gay lobby will need to get a much firmer grasp on their underlying argument because it can easily be shown to fail the basic test for internal constancy even without considering societal mores. The unkind would simply point out the inherent hypocrisy.

Spot on, Is Mise! Foxy obviously does not yet know how children are conceived. Children will be kept in the dark about their real parents and the facts of life. They many never know their father raised by lesbians or their mother if raised by two men

Dear Is Mise and Josephus,

Just to set the record straight.

I shall repeat for your information.

Gay couples already have children - either from
a previous marriage, by adoption, by surrogacy or
by artificial insemination.
Some families with two gay adults are created when a
divorced lesbian woman forms a relationship with
another woman, as in the case of Dr Kerryn Phelps.

Also, as stated earlier, for several years now, social
agencies in New York and other large cities have been
placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage boys - who are
unwelcome in heterosexual foster homes - in the custody
of gay couples.

Then of course as stated above,
there is the availability and technology
of artificial insemination. Lesbian women are able to
become mothers without having any heterosexual
relationships at all.

There you go.

Josephus,

What part of ‘marriage is a social construct’ do you not understand? Do you think that if you keep appealing to biology, your argument will eventually develop some merit?

--

Dustin,

What’s that got to do with same-sex marriage?

<<Well, there ya go then. You’ve just described a conventional societal mores based discrimination.>>

Big deal.

At no point have I ever suggested that equality needed to extend to cases in which it could be demonstrated that societal harm would result, or where the risks outweighed the benefits.

<<When people argue for equality and non-discrimination but just want same sex marriage, there’s no response available when folk like Cory Bernardi bring up the reasonable inclusion of polygamy, because if you’re intellectually honest, he’s correct.>>

No, he’s not correct, and I’ve explained why twice now.

<<… to be taken seriously, the gay lobby will need to get a much firmer grasp on their underlying argument because it can easily be shown to fail the basic test for internal constancy …>>

There is nothing inconsistent about arguing for the inclusion of same-sex marriage alone, and referring to is as “marriage equality”. To argue that there is no equality unless there is equality for all (particularly without considering the potential repercussions of the other forms of marriage), is a False Dilemma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

<<The unkind would simply point out the inherent hypocrisy.>>

You have not yet pointed to any hypocrisy. Your whole argument is bunk. I note you've ditched the 'eligibility' angle, too. But keep improvising, wont you?

Try again.

Now back to the topic of sex tourism...

Research has shown Australian men to be amongst
the largest contributors to sex tourism in
Southeast Asia, with cities such as Pattaya
becoming a "home away from home" for an increasing
number of Australian retirees:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/do-you-think-well-pay-for-bad-things-weve-done-revelations-of-aussie-sex-tourists-in-thailand/news-story/a1490ec57bb51253003aa5a2c1547acd

4 Corners did an expose on "Sex Slavery," with Kerry
O'Brien in 2011 that many found shocking as to what goes
on in our own country.

Foxy,

That was trotted out in other threads where it was duly dispelled every time and Turnbull government policy initiatives thoroughly discussed.

It has been dispelled in this thread too, Page 21.

If you would like to start a new thread devoted to that by all means go ahead. But here it is a distraction from the subject of the thread.

leoj,

I wasn't the one who brought up this subject on this
discussion.

These facts have been proven to be true whether you
like it or not.

Foxy,

You tired that before and were proved misled (to be kind). But it is a bit of a theme with you, bashing those 'old white Australian guys', huh?

See here,

"SteeleRedux & Foxy,

You are both welcome to start your own thread on the subject of sex tourism rather than to deliberately hijack this one.

Foxy in particular, since you are always the very first to object and so stridently!, if a poster appears to stray from what you intend, your leading!, on a thread.

However, just to show the obvious flaws and silliness in SR's speculative projections of thousands of sex molestations by 'old Australian men' that readers are encouraged to imagine are being committed as they read, the reason why Australians feature higher in detections is because of intel sharing agreement and cooperation initiatives by both governments.

Bluntly to the numerically challenged, or to those who deliberately mislead (take your pick), of course the number of Australian offenders would be proportionally higher as a result. Other governments may not (are NOT) doing that"

and

"Also, because the Australian and other governments are sharing intel and Australia is taking action on passports it would be quite wrong, a deliberate lie, to speculate, to pretend, that could be many thousands of offences being committed by Australians. Simply put, they are not getting there to offend. They are at home, doubtlessly benefiting from the 'policies'(sic) of the lunar left that always benefit offenders at the expense of victims and the exasperated public. Idiocy as is being presently witnessed in the ACT where Greens roll logs in the road of action against drug-dealing, violent, outlaw motorcycle gangs.
....
Now, what about the two of you admit and applaud the splendid world-class initiatives of the Turnbull government's actions against loathsome child molesters, such as sharing intel and refusing passports and then go off to start your own thread if you would like to pursue it further?.. "
[Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 1 August 2017 9:54:56 AM]

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7864&page=0#243169

Back to the thread.

AJ Philips wrote:
“What’s that got to do with same-sex marriage?”

If you don’t accept the parallel issues commonly affecting acceptance of both same sex marriage and polygamy while simultaneously supporting one and denying the other, then you’ll need to explain your reasoning without resorting to societal mores.
If you can’t do it, you have no argument.

AJ Philips wrote:
“At no point have I ever suggested that equality needed to extend to cases in which it could be demonstrated that societal harm would result, or where the risks outweighed the benefits.”

And at no point have you explained how or why polygamy would likely be detrimental to society.
You need to do that.

AJ Philips wrote:
To argue that there is no equality unless there is equality for all […].
What you’re describing is not equality, which by definition means equality for all, but qualification applied by an eligibility criteria.

AJ Philips wrote:
[…] “(particularly without considering the potential repercussions of the other forms of marriage), is a False Dilemma:”

Just as soon as you point out these “potential repercussions”, we can move to the next step.
As an aside and while you’re struggling with informal fallacies, try looking up “Equivocation”.

AJ Philips wrote:
“You have not yet pointed to any hypocrisy. Your whole argument is bunk.”
You’d like to think that, I know.

AJ Philips wrote:
“I note you've ditched the 'eligibility' angle, too.”

Well, so far, you’ve failed to come to grips with mixed doubles tennis, so how you intend to rationalise same sex marriage remains a mystery.

Who said I’m denying it, Dustin?

<<If you don’t accept the parallel issues commonly affecting acceptance of both same sex marriage and polygamy while simultaneously supporting one and denying the other …>>

More importantly, where in the marriage equality movement is it stated that the movement is officially against polygamy?

<<And at no point have you explained how or why polygamy would likely be detrimental to society.>>

I haven’t claimed that it would be. I was referring to hypothetical marriage equality proponents that may believe it is detrimental. There are some good arguments against it, though:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/case-against-polygamy/397823

<<What you’re describing is not equality, which by definition means equality for all…>>

Not necessarily. You’re adding the “for all” bit in yourself.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

The is the False Dilemma again. Equality could, say, exist amongst whites alone, to the exclusion of other races, but that wouldn't mean there was no equality at all.

<<… but qualification applied by an eligibility criteria.>>

At no point have I been against the notion of ‘eligibility’. I have merely asked why same-sex couples should not be eligible. You are yet to answer this.

<<Just as soon as you point out these “potential repercussions”, we can move to the next step.>>

Done. Not that I needed to. But, I’m happy to take your word for it that polygamy would not be detrimental to society, at least for now. Yes! Let's agree that polygamy is fine. So what?

Now, how about that reason as to why same-sex couples should not be eligible to marry. We’ll get there one day!

<<… try looking up “Equivocation”.>>

Why, I had just mentioned it several times earlier. Where were you?

Why’s that, by the way?

<<Well, so far, you’ve failed to come to grips with mixed doubles tennis, so how you intend to rationalise same sex marriage remains a mystery.>>

No, I understood your analogy. You’re stalling. You have no rational justification for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, do you Dustin? And now you're desperately trying to shift a burden of proof to me.

Good luck with that.

leoj,

Whether you like it or not - that issue was dealt
with previously. You are now trying to manipulate
and distract from the subject at hand.
You need to stop doing that and stick to the
subject at hand.

As I said earlier, the data doesn't matter because, in an issue this politicised, the various sides will always reject the data they don't like even if it has to be on totally spurious grounds.

Foxy rejects data because someone said it was worthless. Never-mind that that claim was based complete misunderstand of the paper. She also rejects because someone said the data was compiled by partisans. Never mind that a partisan said that. When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

Equally AJ rejects Allen 2013 based on what someone else told him even though their claims hold no water and are in direct conflict with actual data in the paper. At the same time, he swears by a paper that, for entirely suspicious reasons, rejected 15% of its own data.

No amount of good data will change minds here. So I take no comfort or distress from any of the data. Besides we've not had sufficient time or samples to get any really convincing lay-down misere type data anyway.

But the data I do rely on is the last 1000 or so years of experience that shows that the traditional biological family is the best means to rear the next generation.

The stakes are too high to play around with this. Let's not forget that it was only a decade ago that the high priests of the left were in lock-step with the view that marriage was something between a man and a woman. In a mere few years we've gone from that to a determination to overthrow millennia of experience and learning.

It won't end well.

Bazz,

"Regarding slavery, I came accross an article that suggested slavery was a milepost on the way to a developed society."

I don't want to get in the middle of this sub-thread but just two points:

1. While its true that Rome, particular republican and early-empire Rome, relied heavily on the institution of slavery to support its economy, its also true that slavery ultimately held innovation back. There's no incentive to improve processes when labour is so cheap. The Roman world knew of steam power and had a rudimentary piston. They were this close (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBlhrTpi69E) to getting on the first rung of the industrialisation ladder but missed it because of slavery. I'm no China expert but I'm told a similar thing happened in China in the first millennium. Its no coincidence that industrialisation occurred first in those countries which were the first to get rid of slavery.

2. Slavery is bad, mmm'kay. But let's remember that the first society ever to successfully work to rid itself of slavery was run by post-enlightenment Christians.

My guess is that once the world is no longer run by post-enlightenment Christians, slavery will make a rapid come-back.

Good data has not been presented. On the contrary,
what has been presented has been nothing but
false accusations. And the
encouragement to bully people because of their
sexual orientation.

Douglas Allen and Mark
Regnerus have both been described by their peers as
having "fringe viewpoints" and Judge Bernard A. Friedman
threw out Douglas Allen's case out of court as having
no credibility. Douglas Allen by the way stated that
"people who engage in homosexual acts will go to hell."
Sound fair and unbiased? I guess to some.

There's a new campaign amongst lawyers -
aimed at promoting marriage equality called - "Two
People."

This campaign states that -

"Marriage equality is, above all else, a question of law.
Two people want to get married. The law says they cannot.
That law is not ancient. It was made in 2004. Equality
before the law is ancient. It is as old as law itself.
Older than marriage. This law is unequal.
It discriminates. No legal principle explains why it
should. All we seek is to restore equality. That can be
achieved with the simplest change. In the Marriage Act,
delete the words, "a man and a woman" and replace them with
"two people." That's it - the stroke of a pen.
And two people who want to get married can."

Yay!

Mhaze said;
Its no coincidence that industrialisation occurred first in those
countries which were the first to get rid of slavery.

If I might suggest a rewording that is more correct;
Its no coincidence that when industrialisation occurred those countries
were the first to get rid of slavery.

It is all about the cost of energy. The Romans used slaves on
treadmills to pump water out of their mines, the British used steam pumps.

The current marriage act says "man and a woman", to use those terms means they are mature persons. To use the term "Two persons who love each other" does not define maturity. Love alone is not the basis of a marriage, and is a senseless legal term. Those that equate love as sexual attraction are shallow when things change.

Marriage as it was established meant self sacrifice for each other and the care of their offspring for life. Shallow emotions and commitment to the relationship meant the vows of marriage were taken lightly.

Man and Woman were designed to complement each other as partners and fulfil a human genus - male plus female. They were designed to be sexual companions for life. They were designed to reproduce in their likeness.

Dear Josephus,

Marriage equality is, above all else, a question of
law. It is a secular legal contract presided over
by government. I shall repeat for you - if two people
want to get married the law in this country says
they cannot. No legal principle explains why they
should not. That law is not ancient. It was made in
2004 by a government without any consultation. It can
also be fixed by a government. All that needs to be done
is to restore equality.

The data still matters, mhaze.

<<… the data doesn't matter because, in an issue this politicised …>>

There are mechanisms to protect against bias. They’re not perfect, of course. They never will be. But to present the situation as utterly hopeless is clearly wrong.

If you ever doubt findings, then follow the references back to the source. But just pointing to a sample size as an amateur, who clearly has no idea what constitutes a reasonable sample size in what situation, and saying, “Hey, look, it’s small!”, is going to make you come across as foolish.

<<Foxy rejects data because someone said it was worthless.>>

That’s a bit unfair. How do you know she didn’t assess the merit of the arguments of what this “someone” said?

<<Equally AJ rejects Allen 2013 based on what someone else told him ...>>

Someone else, eh? You make it sound like it was ol’ mate down the road.

How are they in direct conflict with the actual data? Here are some more problems with the data:

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079373.pdf (pp. 76-79)

<<… he swears by a paper that, for entirely suspicious reasons, rejected 15% of its own data.>>

“Swears by”? We’re being a little melodramatic now, aren't we?

No, as I explained before, the reasons weren’t suspicious, they were entirely reasonable.

But, hey, why counter my explanation when you can just dig your heels in?

<<No amount of good data will change minds here.>>

Speak for yourself. Given that it makes no difference to that fact that same-sex couples are already having children, if children of same-sex couples don’t fare as well, then I want that information out there so that we can account for that in seeing that their interests are best served, despite their circumstances.

<<But the data I do rely on is the last 1000 or so years of experience that shows that the traditional biological family is the best means to rear the next generation.>>

How scientific. Just point to the last 1000 years and say, “Look, see?” No controls. No measurements. Nothing.

And you mocked a study I cited!

You probably wouldn’t find a single sociologist who agreed with that, mhaze.

<<My guess is that once the world is no longer run by post-enlightenment Christians, slavery will make a rapid come-back.>>

Unless you think Islam will one day rule, this prediction makes no sense whatsoever. By virtually all measures, societal health improves as levels of religiosity drop:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://tyisnotahero.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/kpb5a1.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

The further we move away from religion, the more tolerant we become. So, to predict that slavery will make a return once our levels of ignorance and superstition drop past a certain point is simply absurd.

AJ Philips wrote:
“More importantly, where in the marriage equality movement is it stated that the movement is officially against polygamy?”

Sophistry.
Even more importantly, when has polygamy been an integral part of this so called “equality” campaign.
It hasn’t.
It’s inconvenient.
It would never fly. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

AJ Philips wrote:
“I haven’t claimed that it [polygamy] would be [detrimental to society].”

Then show the courage of your convictions. Stand up, embrace it and support polygamist marriage equality. Scream it from the roof tops.

AJ Philips wrote:
“I was referring to hypothetical marriage equality proponents that may believe it is detrimental. There are some good arguments against it, though:”

Really? Please make up your mind.
Oh, and let me know how that “Slippery Slope fallacy” has suddenly become inapplicable to your own position.

Continue . . .

. . . continued.

<<What you’re describing is not equality, which by definition means equality for all…>>

AJ Philips wrote:
“Not necessarily.”

Alternate definition of equality noted. I guess that’s like alternative facts.
Ever played chess with a pigeon?

AJ Philips wrote:
You’re adding the “for all” bit in yourself.

Nope.
Refer page 22; last post on the page; second sentence in the relevant paragraph.

AJ Philips wrote:
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

Your reference refutes the your own alternative definition.

AJ Philips wrote:
“The is the False Dilemma again. Equality could, say, exist amongst whites alone, to the exclusion of other races, but that wouldn't mean there was no equality at all.”

Nonsensical non sequitur.
Refer back to your own reference - the Oxford Dictionary.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Yes! Let's agree that polygamy is fine. So what?”

The “So what” is that you deemed it appropriate to exclude them based on some hastily manufactured fantasy that there might be some societal harm . . or maybe there isn’t, but who knows. It’s almost as if you give a ratz about society anyway.
Then it turns out that including polygamists somehow constitutes an extended case which betrays the notion that this has anything to do with equality in the first place.

It shows you’ve either not thought this through or are well aware that including others (polygamists) who are similarly positioned is strategically disadvantageous and, thus, exposes your narrowly defined case of equality to be a deliberately deceptive contrivance with scant regard for the principal of equality which apparently you hold dear.

With that established, I’d invite you to abandon your position as it has become untenable.
Put a fork in it. It’s done

I think we’ve covered everything, but good luck with the survey in any case.
Cheers.

Hi Foxy, absolutely correct, what has easily been done, can in this case, just as easily be undone. Had dinner with a couple of gay friends last night. A bit of a surprise, they want to abstain from voting. I hope I have convinced them to vote, as to abstain is tantamount to voting no. My reasoning is, a low voter turnout with a majority yes vote. would be dismissed by the obstructionist as "no one really cares", so no need to change the law. A majority no vote would play into their hands, no question.

Hi Josephus.

Unfortunately you have no understanding of gay people and their relationships what so ever, if you believe they are only concerned with the "physical" and nothing more. Homosexuals are as shallow, and as deep, in their relationships with each other as heterosexuals are. There is no difference.

They (men and women) were designed to be sexual companions for life, there is no evidence of exclusivity to that statement. That is one outcome of heterosexual relationships, but like homosexual relationships it is not the exclusive outcome. On that basis both types of relationships are equal.

They (men and women) were designed to reproduce in their likeness. Those who form lasting relationship that leads to procreation, in the majority form prior and sometimes during permanent relationships, other non lasting relationships which do not, and are never intended to lead to procreation.As are the heterosexual relationships by those who have no desire to procreate. Can you explain all the heterosexual relationships that are not for the purpose of procreation? Such heterosexual relationships equate to similar homosexual relationships, making them equal.

No, it’s not sophistry, Dustin.

<<Sophistry.>>

If the movement doesn’t collectively/officially oppose polygamy, then (assuming polygamy is fine) there is no contradiction as equality can still exist without being across the board.

<<[Polygamy] would never fly.>>

Oh? So, you don’t support polygamy?

Then it was dishonest of you to paint the fact that I haven’t presented evidence for the deleterious effects of something, which we can both safely assume the other knows is not preferable, as a failing of mine.

Anyway, there you go, that’s why they don’t support it. Now, why should same-sex couples not be considered eligible?

<<Stand up ... and support polygamist marriage equality.>>

But I don’t support it. I pointed out the fact that I hadn’t claimed it would be detrimental to society to highlight the fact that I hadn’t yet saddled myself yet with a burden of proof.

<<Oh, and let me know how that “Slippery Slope fallacy” has suddenly become inapplicable to your own position.>>

Oh, I will. Just as soon as you explain how it’s applicable.

<<Your reference refutes the your own alternative definition.>>

No, it doesn't. At no point does it mention your "for all" bit.

This is all beside the point, though. Because we’ve already agreed that polygamists are ineligible to have their marriages recognised.

<<Nonsensical non sequitur.>>

How so? Because you didn’t understand it?

<<The “So what” is that you deemed it appropriate to exclude them based on some hastily manufactured fantasy that there might be some societal harm …>>

Actually, I didn’t mention them until you did. And “fantasy”? So, you’re in favour of polygamy now? Or are you against it with no rational understanding of why?

Just like with same-sex marriage.

<<… you’ve either not thought this through or are well aware that including others (polygamists) ... is strategically disadvantageous …>>

Yeah, or I think polygamy is harmful. Nothing wrong with your second noted possibility, though.

Anyway, I guess I won't be getting that reason as to why same-sex couples shouldn't be eligible to marry then, will I?

Replying against my better judgement, but hey . .

AJ Philips wrote:
[…] as equality can still exist without being across the board.

From your Oxford Dictionary link:
“The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.”

Ya see, this is why this interaction is futile. You think ‘equality’ means something different to what everyone else including the dictionary thinks.
You think equality is achieved even if not everyone is equal. It’s a fundamental comprehension issue.

AJ Philips wrote:
“No, it doesn't. At no point does it mention your "for all" bit.”

You’re confused about the "for all" bit.”
The "for all" bit.” are your very own words from your very own post.
They’re from the reference I provided on Page 22 which precede your dictionary link on Page 23.

In any event, the ”for all" bit.” is redundant because the definition is absolute.
You can’t have partial equality any more than you can have partial pregnancy.

Continued . . .

. . . continued.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Oh? So, you don’t support polygamy?”

Well, the subject has never come up and certainly not from the gay lobby crowd (perish the thought) for the reasons already mentioned.
But if push came to shove, I reckon one could build a reasonably credible case for polygamy because it largely encompasses existing values of marriage as we know it in Oz.

So, hypothetically, if the question were included on this upcoming survey, I could be convinced to say ‘yes’ to polygamy, but still ’no’ to same sex marriage for the same reason; the existing values.
Odd, isn’t it. If I understand your position correctly, we’d vote completely opposite ways.

Maybe the ever expanding range of alphabet people should include a ‘P’ for polygamy and ride in on the coat-tails of that?
As an aside, there was a recent intriguing article, suitably sexed up by our ever neutral ABC, of course:

“It made the point that Australian law allows people who entered into a polygamous marriage overseas to divorce, yet does not give the same right to same-sex couples.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-06/australia-breaching-human-rights-over-same-sex-divorce:-un/8778798

So, perhaps the ABC see some value in the ‘coat-tails’ angle.
Naturally, their ABC also seek to occupy the moral high ground by invoking the UN as their supreme reference; nothing new there. Socialism, eh.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Anyway, I guess I won't be getting that reason as to why same-sex couples shouldn't be eligible to marry then, will I?”

That’s right, you won’t, but it’s not because I’m obtuse. It’s because there is no burden upon me to defend something which is legal and accepted around the world, and has been for eons. It is for you to challenge, if you wish.

The other more practical aspect is that I’m reluctant to write a tome of hopefully coherent prose encompassing the reasoning on a forum with a 350 word (or some such) limit while engaging with someone who doesn’t comprehend the fundamental word that largely underpins their case.

AJ,

I don't know how much you don't know about issues of statistical significance and ratio testing, but it would seem to be quite a lot. Small samples can be of value if the difference between the sample and the control you're expecting to find is large. So, for example, when testing the efficacy of drugs where any RR finding below 2 should be meaningless, small studies can be good as a pointer to larger research. But where you are likely to find only small differences small sample sizes are highly problematic since you only need one or two outliers in the sample or the control to completely skew the result. So statistical significance becomes difficult to achieve.

Therefore, normally you'd want to get as large a sample as possible. To simply discard 15% of your already small potential sample is difficult to understand in an honest study. To claim its done to make the arithmetic easier has an odor that ought to set of alarms in the observer.

BUT, if you WANT to find no difference, if you want to be able to say the sample and the control are essentially the same, then carefully selecting the sample AND the control and then discarding those parts of the sample that skew the results the 'wrong' way makes perfect sense.

That you'd select this as an example of a good study proving your point is rather telling.

Thank you for quoting the definition I linked to, Dustin.

<<You think equality is achieved even if not everyone is equal.>>

To some extent, yes, it can be. In Australia, women were given the right to vote before indigenous people were. But did that mean there was no equality at all, even though (white) women were being treated equally to (white) men?

There you go…

<<The "for all" bit.” are your very own words from your very own post.>>

Yes, and you happily adopted it because it was an implication in your argument that marriage equality wasn’t really about equality.

<<In any event, the ”for all" bit.” is redundant because the definition is absolute.>>

No, that is an assumption which you have again inserted yourself. If it were absolute, then we’d need to release prisoners because they’re not being treated equally.

<<You can’t have partial equality any more than you can have partial pregnancy.>>

No, you can’t. This is a false analogy.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

<<I could be convinced to say ‘yes’ to polygamy, but still ’no’ to same sex marriage for the same reason; the existing values.>>

What are these existing values, and why are they so important?

<<That’s right, you won’t [be getting that reason as to why same-sex couples shouldn't be eligible to marry] … because there is no burden upon me to defend something which is legal and accepted around the world, and has been for eons.>>

I suggest you read up on the burden of proof then.

Burden of proof (legal): http://goo.gl/LKHY6e

Burden of proof (philosophical): http://goo.gl/E94aqN

<<The other more practical aspect is that I’m reluctant to write a tome of hopefully coherent prose encompassing the reasoning on a forum with a 350 word (or some such) limit while engaging with someone who doesn’t comprehend the fundamental word that largely underpins their case.>>

You are yet to demonstrated that. How about you start by explaining how there was still no equality at all, even when (white) women in Australia were given the right to vote.

Another sidestep.

mhaze,

I agree with what you say with regards to ratios and sample sizes. However, given how catastrophic you think allowing same-sex couples to marry would be (despite the fact that they’re already having children), one would think that no statistically significant difference in a small sample should be enough to make you seriously question just how “catastrophic” any negative effect would be.

<<Therefore, normally you'd want to get as large a sample as possible.>>

Well, yes, this is always that case.

<<To claim [that discarding 15% of an already small sample is] done to make the arithmetic easier has an odor …>>

No, it was done to make interpretation easier:

“To simplify interpretation of results, we excluded these 6 families from the final sample.” (p. 1889)

In my experience, that’s reasonable.

To suggest that the six samples of gay-male-parented households (It’s anal sex thing again, isn’t it?) were so shocking that the authors had to remove them to achieve their desired result is a bit much.

How about you request access to that data? These things are usually made publicly available on request and names often aren’t recorded for that reason.

see one of the ' gays' bombing the Australian Christian Lobby in Canberra. I well I suppose demonising those who agreed with Wong and Shorten (not long back) is more important than reporting on leftist terrorism in this country.

AJ

"You probably wouldn’t find a single sociologist who agreed with that, mhaze."

Well maybe. Equally I wouldn’t find too many faith-healers who'd agree either and that'd be as equally valid.

But I would find a large number of historians.

Anyone with a degree of historic perspective (and people who think that the nuclear family only came to prominence in Australia around 1940 monumentally fail that test) would recognise how unique current times are. Throughout human civilisation, across all civilisations, slavery has been a standard aspect of society. And as far as we can tell, pre-civilisation society (eg stone age peoples like our own aboriginals) also practiced slavery.

The last 200 years are a blip caused by a very specific set of circumstances which revolved around the Enlightened values of (mainly) British Christians. Now we don't need to retain the Christian part of the equation but if those Christian values cease to inform the way the world operates, then it will revert to its default mode.

/cont

/cont
Slavery is part of that default mode.

The values may continue in parts of the world but once they cease to be paramount, once the relative decline of the Anglosphere elevates other value systems to equal prominence, then changes will occur.

We've already seen an attempt to reintroduce slavery into Islam. That was squashed by the power of the west but that won't always be the case. Equally we see constant attacks on human rights in Russia and China which are only tempered by the need to take countenance of world opinion. Would Maduro be less constrained if not for a world still vested in the notion of human rights looking over his shoulder?

CS Lewis called it 'chronological snobbery' - "the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited".

If you don't understand where we've come from, you've got no chance of understanding where we're going. That's why looking back at the past 1000 yrs and even further is vital. Throughout human history, throughout all civilisations, marriage has been understood as being a heterosexual institution. That remained the case up until the current decade. Less than 10 years ago the high priests of the left were still of that view (although it is now probably blasphemous to say that the Obamessiah once held such views).

There are good reasons for that. But now, in the space of a few years and bowing to current hashtag trendiness (and political expediency) we are about to overturn centuries, millennia, of practice and knowledge due to chronological snobbery.

AJ Philips wrote:
I suggest you read up on the burden of proof then.”

Burden of proof (legal):” http://goo.gl/LKHY6e

Nah, your reference leads to the onus of proof as it relates to criminal law . . and in the USA, no less.
Same sex marriage doesn’t fall under criminal law no matter how much you think it does.

What you’re more looking for is law reform, how regulation works and how you might challenge same.
Try this for some ammunition . . and don’t say I never do anything for you. ;-)

http://lawgovpol.com/what-is-law-reform/

The link also outlines how:
“It is sometimes necessary to simplify or ‘tidy up’ the law, to make it easier to access and understand, or to ensure it is more consistent for all Australians.”

This is what John Howard did in ’04 by updating the definition in the marriage act to specify “between a man and a woman”.
By including those words, he made the implicit definition an explicit one.

I realise you don’t like specificity because it limits wiggle room, but you’ll have to come to terms with that.

Codifying law is a complex legal task and one important objective is to eliminate that wiggle room so there is no confusion.
Your elastic equivocatory version of ‘equality’ would never make the cut . . and they could support their wording by using your own Oxford Dictionary reference, too.

I was simply covering my bases, Dustin.

<<… your reference leads to the onus of proof as it relates to criminal law …>>

Which is why I provided you with a link to the more relevant philosophical burden of proof as well.

Another sidestep.

<<Same sex marriage doesn’t fall under criminal law no matter how much you think it does.>>

At no point did I suggest that it did.

<<What you’re more looking for is law reform, how regulation works and how you might challenge same.>>

No, I was only talking about the burden of proof because you fallaciously tried to shift it.

<<Try this for some ammunition . . and don’t say I never do anything for you.>>

I know what law reform is. I have a Batchelor of laws.

<<By including those words, he made the implicit definition an explicit one.>>

Yes, so what?

<<… you’ll have to come to terms with that.>>

So that’s your argument, is it? Because that’s what the law says? Laws can change, you know. And often they need to, too.

<<Your elastic equivocatory version of ‘equality’…>>

At no point have I even close to committing equivocation:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation

<<… and they could support their wording by using your own Oxford Dictionary reference, too.>>

How so? What does codifying the common law in this instance have to do with the definition of equality? You’re getting yourself tangled into a right mess here, aren’t you?

Still waiting to hear why same-sex couples should not be eligible to marry, too, by the way. I won't be forgetting that, no matter how much you stall and distract.

I take it you have evidence against this, mhaze. I’m keen to see it.

<<… people who think that the nuclear family only came to prominence in Australia around 1940 monumentally fail that test>>

Or are you just looking at the last 1000 years again and assuming?

I have now quadruple-checked my source, and before the 1940s, extended families were a small majority. In earlier colonial days, it becomes messier since there there was a disproportionate number of men.

Here is one of the references they cite (the rest are books that I obviously can't link to):

http://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/DiversityAndChange.pdf

I’m sure that you, as a libertarian, are VERY keen to ignore what sociologists say, though. Especially given what we know about how detrimental the effects of income inequality are.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

Apart from your conclusion and highly problematic methodology of simply pointing to the last 1000 years, I don’t have much of a problem with the rest of what you say. However, I would attribute the “blip” to a rise in secular values, not Christian values specifically. For the most part, secularism has had to drag Christianity kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity.

Just as it is on marriage equality.

AJ Philips wrote:
“I was simply covering my bases, Dustin.”

Nope You simply made a mistake, AJ.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Which is why I provided you with a link to the more relevant philosophical burden of proof as well.

Another sidestep.”

No side step in evidence. Your mistake was assuming we’re governed by philosophy and not laws.
I’ll confess I didn’t read the philosophy link because it was less relevant than the law reference and your track record with relevance leaves much to be desired . . plus I had the kettle on.

AJ Philips wrote:
“At no point did I suggest that it did [fall under criminal law].”

Then you’ll need to explain why you considered a link to criminal law, in the USA, no less, relevant.
Give it up AJ.

AJ Philips wrote:
“No, I was only talking about the burden of proof because you fallaciously tried to shift it.”

No shift in evidence. I corrected you.

Continued . . .

. . . continued.

AJ Philips wrote:
“I know what law reform is. I have a Batchelor of laws.”

Well, that’s a startling revelation . . . and a quite an unflattering testimony to our university system.
But then, if you knew what law reform was, you wouldn’t be floundering about in the criminal law of another country.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Yes, so what? [re he made the implicit definition an explicit one]”

Well, since you’re the legal eagle, I suggest you read it.
Though having said that, reading doesn’t seem to have made any difference so far.

AJ Philips wrote:
“So that’s your argument, is it? Because that’s what the law says? Laws can change, you know. And often they need to, too.”

As I say, feel free to challenge the law.

AJ Philips wrote:
“At no point have I even close to committing equivocation:”

At no point have you demonstrated comprehension of very simple concepts, either legally, linguistically or logically.

AJ Philips wrote:
“How so? What does codifying the common law in this instance have to do with the definition of equality?”

Well, I could explain it again but to what point. It’s becoming more and more apparent that you’re not participating in good faith and I don’t propose to get bogged down doing your research for you.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Still waiting to hear why same-sex couples should not be eligible to marry, too, by the way. I won't be forgetting that, no matter how much you stall and distract.”

Well, there’s a waiting room just over there =>
I suggest you put the kettle on.
Pull up a chair, put your feet up . .

No, Dustin. Had I made a mistake, then I wouldn’t have included the link to the philosophical burden of proof. The one you ignored.

<<Your mistake was assuming we’re governed by philosophy and not laws.>>

At no point did I suggest either proposition. I was merely pointing you to information on the burden of proof, since you apparently didn't know what it was.

<<… the philosophy link ... was less relevant than the law reference>>

How so? When people talk about the burden of proof, they’re usually referring to the philosophical burden of proof (the legal burden of proof is useful for analogies).

<<… and your track record with relevance leaves much to be desired …>>

Oh, please, do tell.

<<Then you’ll need to explain why you considered a link to criminal law, in the USA, no less, relevant.>>

See above.

<<No shift in evidence. I corrected you.>>

I wasn’t referring to a shift in evidence.

<<… if you knew what law reform was, you wouldn’t be floundering about in the criminal law of another country.>>

I wasn’t. The legal burden of proof isn’t just with regards to criminal law, either.

<<Well, since you’re the legal eagle, I suggest you read it.>>

I will, just as soon as you can tell me what its relevance is.

<<At no point have you demonstrated comprehension of very simple concepts, either legally, linguistically or logically.>>

So, you’re just going to insult me now? How original. No examples, too, I note. Funny that.

<<Well, I could explain it again but to what point. It’s becoming more and more apparent that you’re not participating in good faith and I don’t propose to get bogged down doing your research for you.>>

Another sidestep. This time, with baseless accusations.

So, in other words, you have absolutely nothing. You have no rational reason as to why same-sex couples should be not be eligible to marry, and now that it’s apparent to you that your attempts to divert attention away from this have failed, you’re just going to insult me.

Classy.

AJ Philips wrote:
“So, you’re just going to insult me now?”

No, not at all. I’m simply pointing out some of the inadequacies we all face from time to time.
After all, if we don’t recognise these, it impacts our ability to assemble an effective challenge.

Let’s collaborate on seeing polygamist marriage equality become a reality.
That’s the weakest spot in the current law and therefor more amenable to change.

AJ

Well since you're the one making the astounding assertion (for that's all it is) it is up to you to provide the evidence.

Why astounding? Well we know that the nuclear family was paramount in N-E Europe for 1000 yrs (you've already agreed). We know it was paramount in the US back to at least 1800. So it'd be astonishing if Australia was an outlier.

So far you've offered no evidence other than a link to advertisement for a book which I found at Mitchell and which said nothing of the sort of what you claimed. And now you offer a link which again doesn't have any data that would support your silly assertion. But it does show on page 7 a graph based on ABS data showing that the average family size in 1930 was around 4 people. (Husband, wife two kids perhaps?).The 1933 Census shows that the majority of people over 15 yrs old were married and the vast majority of them had kids.

Let's face it AJ. You shot your mouth off assuming it'd get by, got caught out and haven't the wherewithal to fess up. OK.

"I’m sure that you, as a libertarian, are VERY keen to ignore what sociologists say, though. Especially given what we know about how detrimental the effects of income inequality are."

Apart from a feeble attempt to change the subject I've got no idea what relevance that has.

"I would attribute the “blip” to a rise in secular values, not Christian values"

Well perhaps you could do a little research. Check out Wilberforce to see how Christian he was (hint: very). You might also want to ponder why secularism arose in those self-same N-E Europe nations. Can secularism and Christianity co-exit? Why no secularism in Imperial China, Aztec America, Islam. Something to do with Christianity? Nah says AJ - I want it to be different, therefore it is,

AJ, there's no shame in being historically ignorant. But to imagine the way you'd like the past to have been and then assert that it was indeed like that is just bonkers.

Oh, but I did, mhaze.

<<… since you're the one making the astounding assertion … it is up to you to provide the evidence.>>

I cited my reference, and even linked you to one of theirs. I can’t do much more than that on a forum.

You are counter-claiming that it is nonsense, so you bear a burden of proof, too.

<<Why astounding? Well we know that the nuclear family was paramount in N-E Europe for 1000 yrs (you've already agreed).>>

Paramount, perhaps. I don’t see why extended families wouldn’t have been the most common form of family in North-East Europe for most of the last 1000 years too, though.

Incidentally, when did I agree to this? I might have taken your word for it, but I can’t remember agreeing.

<<We know it was paramount in the US back to at least 1800.>>

Paramount? Perhaps. The most common form of family? Not necessarily.

<<So it'd be astonishing if Australia was an outlier.>>

Not really. Australia is relatively new and had different demographics with convicts and people migrating for the gold rush, and a disproportionate number of males, earlier. ‘Family Formation in Victoria’ (1988) goes into quite a lot of detail here.

<<So far you've offered no evidence other than a link to advertisement for a book which I found at Mitchell and which said nothing of the sort of what you claimed.>>

Now I know you’re lying.

The information to which I refer starts at page 168 of the book. Here, I’ve uploaded a scan for you:

http://i.imgur.com/2Eav0GI.jpg

You didn’t read it at all, did you? No, you thought you’d make this a ‘Your word against mine’ situation.

How pathetic.

<<Let's face it AJ. You shot your mouth off assuming it'd get by, got caught out and haven't the wherewithal to fess up.>>

Apparently not.

Now, let’s see if you have the wherewithal to admit that you didn’t even read the book.

<<You might also want to ponder why secularism arose in those self-same N-E Europe nations.>>

Obviously many factors. But how about you educate me, mhaze. Why is that?

//Well, there’s a waiting room just over there =>//

Well whilst we're waiting, do you mind if we entertain ourselves by taking turns guessing reasons? Cheers.

Is it coz they is bummers?

That seems a bit harsh on the lesbos, yeah? Coz they ain't bummers.

AJ,

No, no. Previously you told me that the book had several pages of information that supported your assertions. In fact it had a couple of assertions unsupported by any data to speak of.

Let me stipulate that we could probably find many texts that made these same assertions. The left have spent many years trying to downgrade the importance of the family as part of their efforts to subjugate it. The family is a power structure that stands in contra-opposition to the state and the left, at least the far left, have long sought to elevate one over t'other. The useful idiots are going along for the ride.

"Paramount? Perhaps. The most common form of family? Not necessarily."

A few months ago you were proudly asserting that you looked at this thing from all sides in your usual impartial way :) and had concluded that the anti-SSM crowd had no valid arguments. Now you're reduced to silly semantic quibbles of paramount/common, or what equal really means. You're also reduced to linking to texts (https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/DiversityAndChange.pdf) that don't even provide tangential evidence for your assertions.

I consider my job done.

Toni Lavis writes:
“ . . do you mind if we entertain ourselves by taking turns guessing reasons?”

Feel free.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Is it coz they is bummers?”

Nah . . I don’t think many people, perhaps apart those with a religious bent, care one way or t’other these days.
Truth be told, I reckon we’d find a goodly proportion of heterosexuals have indulged in a little tail gunnery from time to time.

Is it coz they can't have kids?

That seems a bit harsh on straight people, yeah? My sis can't have no kids 'coz her insides ain't quite right.

Should her marriage be annulled?

Haha. Nice try, mhaze.

<<Previously you told me that the book had several pages of information that supported your assertions.>>

Firstly, no I didn't. That was with regards to something else:

“It does, however, spend four pages debunking the claim that the nuclear family is the bedrock for civilisation and explains where the sociologist, George Murdoch (who first proposed this idea), went wrong.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793)

Would you like me to scan those pages, too?

That being said, page 169 continues discussing the nuclear family and supporting what I cited.

Secondly, since when did, ‘only one page’, mean the same as, “... nothing of the sort of what you claimed”?

Keep digging, mhaze.

<<In fact it had a couple of assertions unsupported by any data to speak of.>>

Oh, really? Do tell.

<<The left have spent many years trying to downgrade the importance of the family as part of their efforts to subjugate it.>>

So, now there's a conspiracy? When you resort to such conspiratorial thinking, you've lost any right to be taken seriously.

<<A few months ago you were proudly asserting that you looked at this thing from all sides in your usual impartial way :) and had concluded that the anti-SSM crowd had no valid arguments.>>

Correct, and I still do. To any extent that is possible, at least.

<<Now you're reduced to silly semantic quibbles of paramount/common, or what equal really means.>>

Nope. Dustin unnecessarily dragged me into the one about ‘equal’ (and, as it turned out, he couldn't support his version of the definition), and there is nothing wrong with distinguishing between ‘common’ and ‘paramount’. Indeed, I think you were deliberately being loose with your language to afford yourself some wiggle room.

<<You're also reduced to linking to texts (https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/DiversityAndChange.pdf) that don't even provide tangential evidence for your assertions.>>

“Reduced”. That's adorable. No, was providing you with the best I thought I could from a book at the time (i.e. its online references)

<<I consider my job done.>>

Of course you do. Wouldn't want to dig yourself in any deeper now, would we?

Actually, mhaze, on second thoughts, this wasn’t quite right:

<<A few months ago you were proudly asserting that you looked at this thing from all sides in your usual impartial way :) and had concluded that the anti-SSM crowd had no valid arguments.>>

It had nothing to do with seeing things impartially (although I was against the idea of marriage equality for the first half of my life, so…). It had more to do with the fact that I simply had not heard a rational argument against marriage equality (and still haven’t, mind you):

“Because I think I’ve heard and engaged in this debate enough now to determine that a valid argument against change is looking exceedingly unlikely.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226757)

“I’m open to the possibility that I have not yet heard all the arguments, but otherwise, yes. I have even explained why they are inadequate …”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793)

You have a real problem with honesty, don’t you mhaze?

Once again, keep digging…

Toni Lavis writes:
“Is it coz they can't have kids?”

Can’t speak for all people, but I’d reckon there’s some who see that as a disqualification. I expect there’s lots of reasons and not everyone is as strongly placed as anyone else on any particular point.

I guess the potential for children is a commonly accepted norm although plenty of people marry and state expressly that they don’t want children. I would be one of those, but hey, here I am with three of them. Life doesn’t always work out as we expect.

//Can’t speak for all people//

That's OK, nobody has asked you to. So you needn't worry about the pressure of being suddenly (self)promoted to spokesman for the entire 'no' campaign. I'd just like to know what you think, not what you imagine other people think.

Is it coz you is worried that if we let the gays get married then people will start marrying their dogs and their playstations and stuff?

mhaze,

I’m usually happy to leave ‘well enough’ alone. But for over a year now, you have you flaunted an innocent failing of memory on my behalf, on a minor point, every time the going got rough for you.

Isn’t it funny how you never let me know earlier that you had read the book? Why, just a few of posts ago, when sociologists were mentioned, you questioned the knowledge of such people because of my citation.

No evidence for your assertion that the textbook was wrong, of course.

You wanted to make it look like I made the fact up myself and then just Googled any old sociology book to cover my tracks. This time, however, you falsely assumed that even if I had the textbook, and it said what I claimed, that I’d have no way of proving it anyway.

Well, didn’t that backfire spectacularly!

Sounds like you reached a point where you were willing to do anything to bop that little nugget of mine on the head once and for all - even if it meant lying.

You just couldn’t let it go, could you? That little inconvenient fact so offended your worldview that you had to turn it against me in multiple, deceitful attempts to shame me every time your arguments flopped. Now, you'd decided that we were going to settle the ‘nuclear family’ issue once and for all - again, even if it meant lying.

This isn’t the first time you’ve told porkies either, is it? There was your claim that I often misunderstand others and then expect them to provide evidence for that misunderstanding. How about the fallacies that I supposedly misuse? Or your claim that I commit the Fallacy fallacy? In not one of these cases could you substantiate your claim when asked to do so. Instead, you simply dropped your accusation and moved on.

You have no credibility left, mhaze. You are the only one here who is dishonest, and, as a means of returning the favour, I will make sure that you are always reminded of that.

Until next time...

Toni, I married a tub of ice cream, but alas my love melted.

That is from some the silly argument. If we allow gay marriage it would be the thin edge of the wedge, and next thing you know, people would want to marry their dogs, cats, electric toasters etc. Every him there is a demand for social change, the Doomsdayer's launch that argument. There is no evidence to support the silly argument, but people keep on using it.

Toni Lavis writes:
“ . . marrying their dogs and their playstations and stuff?”

I’d refer you back to discussions with AJ Philips. I don’t see any point regurgitation that.

The real issue is eligibility.
Would you support polygamist marriage equality?
If not, why not?

//I don’t see any point *regurgitation* that.//

Do you even English, bro?

//The real issue is eligibility.//

In the immortal words of Andy from Little Britain:

Yeah, I know.

//Would you support polygamist marriage equality?//

42. Because 6 x 9 really is equal to 42 in base 13.

I haven't mentioned PME until now because we aren't facing an imminent postal survey on PME so it's really neither here nor there. I've never given it any serious contemplation one way or another, never done any research on the subject, and the only opinions I could offer in immediate response to your post would be too hastily formed and insufficiently considered to be of much worth.

You're welcome to start a new thread on the subject if you have strong views about it. I'll meander over and have a look what you're up to but I probably won't stick my oar in.

I wonder is it that no-voters so often refuse to be drawn on why they hold that position, preferring the old 'Look over there, a three-headed monkey!' routine to any discussion of the reasoning behind their arguments. It's almost like they're ashamed of their own opinions or something... bizarre. Oh well, I guess I'll never know :(

Toni Lavis writes:
“In the immortal words of Andy from Little Britain:

Yeah, I know.”

Well done “Andy”. You’ve understood the issue.

But here’s the thing, Toni.
I find this curious. You concede not having even considered polygamists who share the same eligibility criteria discrimination. Yet you seem to think gay folk hold a good case and and that they’re presumably uniquely special somehow in that they should be entitled to something you couldn’t give a ratz about when considering others similarly placed.

Now that’s bizarre.
Because really, if you don't care one way or the other about polygamists, why do you think the wider community should care one way or the other about gay folk.

Toni Lavis writes:
“I wonder is it that no-voters so often refuse to be drawn on why they hold that position […]”

Nah, as I said to AJ, no one is obliged to defend an accepted law largely because the way laws are changed is by challenging them. You need to focus on that.

In AJ’s case, I doubt he’d even understand it. Even if he did, he’d slip-slide around with his elastic definitions, cite irrelevant laws in foreign countries and quote fallacies he doesn’t really comprehend which is what brought me to the point of comparing that discussion with playing chess with a pigeon.

Also, don’t presume no one could defend the existing law, because they very well could. However, it would be a large tome and practically impossible on a forum with a 350 word limit.
If a point comes up with respect to the existing law, it can be debated. That’s the intention of a forum.

Moreover, the postal survey isn’t intended to address the supportability, validity or otherwise of existing marriages. That’s not in dispute; it’s a given. The intention of the survey is to address whether the community would be prepared to accept alphabet people as the same thing. But only alphabet people, right.

Dustin,

A fat lot of good that would do.

<<I’d refer you back to discussions with AJ Philips.>>

You never explained why same-sex couples should be ineligible. Instead, you spent the whole time ducking and weaving with red herrings. Then, when it became painfully obvious that such a tactic wasn’t going to work, you resorted to insults.

<<... he’d slip-slide around with his elastic definitions …>>

Nothing elastic about my interpretation of the definition of the word ‘equal’. I demonstrated the definition wasn’t “absolute”, as you claimed it was:

“If it were absolute, then we’d need to release prisoners because they’re not being treated equally.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243937)

“In Australia, women were given the right to vote before indigenous people were. But did that mean there was no equality at all, even though (white) women were being treated equally to (white) men?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243937)

Funny how you had nothing to say these these points of mine. Just more ducking and weaving.

<<... cite irrelevant laws in foreign countries …>>

No, never did that. Now you’re just lying.

<<... and quote fallacies he doesn’t really comprehend ...>>

Really? Do you have an example of this?

Still waiting for an explanation on why same-sex couples shouldn’t be eligible, by the way. Somehow I don’t think I’m going to get it.

AJ Philips writes:
“No, never did that. Now you’re just lying.”

Here’s your cite again, to remind you:

Burden of proof (law)
http://goo.gl/LKHY6e

You will note the very first paragraph on your cited page, which reads:

“The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with common law and the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.”

In other words, you cited irrelevant laws in a foreign country.
Ergo, you are the liar, AJ.

Please note, the only reason I’m replying is to acknowledge your post.
Don’t expect any follow up for the reasons previously outlined and now confirmed once more.

Erm, no, Dustin.

<<Here’s your cite again, to remind you: …>>

The purpose of that reference was to point you to a form of the burden of proof, since you apparently had no idea what it was. In no way was my intention to cite “irrelevant laws in foreign countries”. The fact that I was discussing the burden of proof at the time, and not law, demonstrates this.

Again, you lied.

<<You will note the very first paragraph on your cited page, which reads: …>>

Irrelevant.

<<Don’t expect any follow up for the reasons previously outlined and now confirmed once more.>>

Oh, of course not. After all you don’t have any. Nor did you outline any previously either, let alone confirm them.

//Yet you seem to think gay folk hold a good case//

Aye, well kenned.

//if you don't care one way or the other about polygamists//

You're very exercised about this whole polygamy thing, aren't you? And here was me thinking that one wife was more than sufficient. Best of luck with that, champ. Who knows, maybe the people will get behind you.

//Nah, as I said to AJ, no one is obliged to defend an accepted law largely because the way laws are changed is by challenging them.//

Yeah, I'm not an MP. Where I'm from, 'introducing your own private member's bill' is merely a euphemism for 'taking tea with the parson' (you'll have to research that one for yourself, as common decency let alone the heavy-handed forum censor forbid me from describing it).

//However, it would be a large tome and practically impossible on a forum with a 350 word limit.//

Well maybe just summarise it then? I mean come on, do you really need a whole frigging book to present a counter-argument? So much for brevity being the soul of wit...

There's no rule against extending a lengthy argument over more than one post BTW.

//If a point comes up with respect to the existing law, it can be debated. That’s the intention of a forum.//

Oh no, he's changed his mind. Apparently it now can be discussed within the limited confines of the forum. Well that's a relief.

//The intention of the survey is to address whether the community would be prepared to accept alphabet people as the same thing.//

Alphabet people, hey? Well that's a new one...

Where you worried that if you said faggots, people might think you meant Harley Davidson riders?

Toni Lavis wites:
“You're very exercised about this whole polygamy thing, aren't you?”

Nah . .
The reason I bring it up is not so much because I’m some sort of avid supporter, but because it serves as a reasonable comparator to same sex marriage. It’s essentially an exploratory litmus test.

You say you’ve not given polygamy any serious contemplation one way or another. That’s fine as far as it goes, but I had hoped the parallel might prompt some examination of the idea and how the SSM issue is quite similar; some quiet introspection, if you like.

Apparently that didn’t happen. That’s also fine and the next step was to explore the logic as to why you might think alphabet people might be more entitled than polygamists. It’s quite straight forward and there’s no gotcha in there.

Given you haven’t engaged with the analogy after having had at least a little time to think about it, I don’t see there’s any way to advance the discussion.
Oh well.

Toni Lavis wites:
“Alphabet people, hey? Well that's a new one…”

Well, yes . . it’s a little dig, to be sure.
It’s not intended as an insult but also not terribly unreasonable given new letters are added periodically. Plus, there are those that become quite offended if one doesn’t get the order of letters correct.

I guess that’s one thing I’ve learned. I can’t be fagged getting the letters correct and SSM proponents can’t be fagged getting their case together.
As I say . . Oh well.

So I take it then, Dustin, that you have no evidence for your claims that I don't understand the common fallacies, nor do you have any evidence that I have "elastic" definitions, nor that I "quote" fallacies that I do not understand, for that matter.

Like mhaze, you're just a liar. A filthy scoundrel of a liar.

//Toni Lavis wites:
“You're very exercised about this whole polygamy thing, aren't you?”

Nah . .//

Gosh what a surprise. With you added to the tally, let's see, I make that 23 conservatives pushing for polygamy because mistakenly they think irrelevant arguments about unrelated topics constitute sound arguments against SSM, and 0 genuine polygamists that have come out in support.

Should Australia really introduce polygamy just to placate some tories who don't really want it? I dunno, sounds a bit mental to me.

With a background in the sciences, I think it is always important to examine the empirical data. SSM has now been legalised in numerous developed Western democracies which provide a good basis of comparison with Australia. Thus far:
a) None of them have legalised polygamy.
b) None of them have had a campaign to legalise polygamy.
c) Civilisation has failed to grind to a shuddering halt in all of them.
d) Life for straight people has gone just the same as before, with no alteration or disruption.
e) Life for gay people has had one minor change, which doesn't even effect the entirety of the already small minority they constitute.

With replication of results like that, I'm really not sure what you're so anxious about.

Still, it's a very cute three-headed monkey.

Toni Lavis wites:
[…] which provide a good basis of comparison with Australia. […]

So, it’s a good basis if we compare unrelated and irrelevant countries, but it’s a bad basis if we compare similar situations. Got it.

I’d have thought with a background in the sciences, critical thinking would be to the fore.
Apparently not. Who knew.
Offering up a scientific background while displaying zero academic interest; priceless.

I make that 23 activists (pick a number) pushing for SSM who, when confronted with that most basic logical argument, invariably fall at the first hurdle. They won’t engage.

For some obscure reason they avoid even considering the many nations that have practiced polygamy for centuries alongside all manner of religions as well as the more usual man/woman marriage. The only conclusion one can draw is that of wilful blindness presumably because it conflicts with their world view. Otherwise, they’d need to vigorously skirt accusations of bigotry.

Continued . . .

. . . continued.

Evidently they think sophistic and often incoherent rhetoric like:

No one else is affected anyway, so you shouldn’t worry about it / shouldn’t get a say.
What will happen if SSM is legalised? - Zero.
It’s a basic human right; the UN etc.
It’s equality.
Gay couples can have children too.
Gay parents have no detrimental effect on the children’s welfare.
Survey shows 74% of Australians are in support.
The anti-gay marriage crowd is a dying breed. (pretty ironic when you think about it)
Every advanced civilisation on the planet has adopted SSM.
It’s the same as the 60's civil rights movement.
It’s the same as interracial marriage.
If you don’t like same sex marriage, don’t have one.
It’s none of your business.
Childless heterosexual marriages debunk all your arguments.
John Howard changed the Marriage Act with no consultation, so we can just change it back.
Parliament should pass the bill (even though they haven’t passed the last half dozen since the last one was rejected only a few years ago)
A plebiscite is a good idea.
A plebiscite is a bad idea.
A survey is a bad idea.
Alphabet people will face horrific hate, vilification and increased suicide and self harm instances from bigots if the public is allowed to discuss a plebiscite.
etc.
etc.

. . all pass for reasoned argument.
And yet, they want me to type reams of virtual paper defending traditional marriage while simultaneously failing to even remotely prosecute their case.

Dear Dustin,

And what exactly are your arguments against same-sex marriage?

Have you succeeded in proving your case?

Or do you simply feel that your version of marriage is
self-evidently right and proper (and God-given as well).
That your version is the only "right" form and that any
change will herald the doom of the whole institution?

Please explain.

//if we compare unrelated and irrelevant countries//

If Britain is unrelated and irrelevant, why do we have their flag in the top right corner of our flag and their Queen's head on the back of our coins? I think it's drawing a pretty long bow to suggest that mother Britain is unrelated or irrelevant.

//while simultaneously failing to even remotely prosecute their case.//

Yeah, I was expecting it to be my turn after you had engaged with the argument at hand, since I was the last in the queue. Apparently nobody understands proper queuing etiquette these days. Sigh...

But instead you've just kept flogging a dead three-headed monkey. So it looks like I'll have to gird my loins and jump the queue (shudder).

It's about the moolah, mate. I don't like the money itself, but I like the books it can buy me. I have a background in science, but I work in hospitality these days. Gay weddings = gay wedding receptions = increased bookings = more money = increased books. Not many books, of course, because there aren't that many gays. But hey, any benefit, no matter how small, is better than no benefit at all.

Yep, that's pretty much it. Presumably you'll be shocked and appalled at my mercenary and cavalier attitude - trading off the future of Western civilisation for my own greed. Egads, what a cad. Please, won't somebody think of the children.

But the things is that none of the naysayers have ever been able to convince of gay marriage, usually because they don't make an effort to - you give them a free shot, and they usually either duck for cover or proffer three-headed monkeys. And honestly, it wouldn't take a huge downside, given that the potential benefit has already been established as minute. Just one little downside...

Should I resume my seat in the waiting room?

//they want me to type reams of virtual paper//

Post Script:

Nope, the only person who has the made that demand of you is yourself. Which makes it a little bit too convenient when you then turn and protest that you can't possibly do that as it's far too much work.

Surely a man of your towering intellectual capacity is capable of summarising the main thrust of their argument in a brief post?

Foxy writes:
“And what exactly are your arguments against same-sex marriage?”

One basic argument is one of eligibility; same sex folk aren’t eligible.
I reckon traditional marriage, for all it’s faults, is a fundamental cornerstone of our society and it’s worth preserving.

Foxy writes:
“Have you succeeded in proving your case?”

Foxy, I have no case to prove.
Also, proof is a rather odd concept when we’re talking about social issues, so it’s unclear to me what you think I might have to prove.

More specifically, on what basis do you think gay folk should be entitled to marriage?

Toni Lavis writes:
“I think it's drawing a pretty long bow to suggest that mother Britain is unrelated or irrelevant.“

And that’s a perfectly reasonable response. It’s also a straw man.
The point I was making was not to compare who has a flag in the corner of someone else’s flag, but hopefully to stimulate some intellectual engagement regarding the similarity of gay marriage and polygamy.
We both agree that polygamy is going nowhere fast in western countries as you well point out. No argument from me.
It raises the question as to why, if equality is a foundational plank of SSM, that polygamy wouldn’t also be deemed supportable within the same framework.
Thoughts?

Toni Lavis writes:
“But instead you've just kept flogging a dead three-headed monkey.”

I’m perfectly happy to see you clear that naughty monkey away.
Don’t whine about it; Give it a whirl.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Presumably you'll be shocked and appalled at my mercenary and cavalier attitude […]”

Nah . . I’ve spent practically my whole life in corporate sales so I have no issue with capitalism.

Sorry, I found it difficult to figure out what you were conveying in your last paragraph on Page 32.

Toni Lavis writes:
[…] capable of summarising the main thrust of their argument in a brief post?”

Very briefly then, I see marriage as a cornerstone of our society having stood the test of time and which, though not without faults, has served us well. It’s a social construct that encapsulates and formulates how we handle raising the generations that follow. It seems to be fit for service despite the fact that I might not be very good at it personally.

But I have the same question for you as for Foxy.
On what basis do you think gay folk should be entitled to marriage?
What specifically do you see gay folk getting out of this?

Hey Dustin,
'Gay couples can have children too'.
I'm kind of curious to know how that works;
Either I'm not keeping up with medical advances or I've been misinformed..
I always thought u needed a plug and a socket to accomplish the miracle of reproduction but who knows, things these days are changing so fast..
One last question I can't help but ask...
If two blokes rub their plugs together.. oh forget it how stupid I am.. I know, the one that carries the child through pregnancy is inseminated anally, right?
Surely...

Hey Toni,
Just wanted to point out that if I saw a three headed monkey I'd probably flog it to death, and keep flooging it a little bit after it had passed, just in case you know, just to be sure it wasn't ever coming back.
It would be a bit like that whack-a-mole game at timezone I suppose...
A three headed monkey is just too damn creepy not too, imho.

//It raises the question as to why, if equality is a foundational plank of SSM, that polygamy wouldn’t also be deemed supportable within the same framework.
Thoughts?//

Maybe because bigamy is still a crime? So to support polygamy you'd have to be condoning a criminal offence. I'm not sure how legal that is, and even if it's legal, it's not a good look for a politician to be seen to be condoning crime. So they probably won't, as they tend to be fairly conscious of their public image.

//Sorry, I found it difficult to figure out what you were conveying in your last paragraph on Page 32.//

Yeah, fair enough. I'd have trouble understanding that sort of gibberish as well. Mea culpa. Should have read:

But the thing is that none of the naysayers have ever been able to convince me of the downsides gay marriage, usually because they don't make an effort to - you give them a free shot, and they usually either duck for cover or proffer three-headed monkeys. And honestly, it wouldn't take a huge downside, given that the potential benefit has already been established as minute. Just one little downside...

Basically my point was that having the established the potential benefits to myself of SSM as being fairly insignificant, if a somebody could convince me of a significant negative impact on myself from SSM, that might constitute a persuasive argument. But you'll never know unless you give it a go.

//Very briefly then, I see marriage as a cornerstone of our society having stood the test of time and which, though not without faults, has served us well. It’s a social construct that encapsulates and formulates how we handle raising the generations that follow. It seems to be fit for service//

And do you see any of that changing if we let the gays have a go as well? Which bits, and in which ways will they change?

//What specifically do you see gay folk getting out of this?//

Expensive wedding receptions :)

Armchair Critic,
In the NEW WORLD ORDER surrogacy is now the problem of lawyers, deciding on who's is the child? Is it the child of the homosexual male or the mother who bore it? Do we allow a new industry of rent a womb? Where does the Ovum come from? Do we allow money to be exchanged for children? So we set up a new trade in children. Children are now a commodity to be purchased. Do we allow children to know their biological roots? This is what is happening in those supposed advanced nations with SSM and LGBTQQ marriage as legal.

Tony,
Persons can at any time set up an elaborate party to celebrate a relationship, and they do they do not call it a wedding. You see they want the term marriage, as they assume it will challenge the institution initially set up by the Church; later adopted by the State to record marriages, births and deaths.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Maybe because bigamy is still a crime?”

Yep, as “Australia's former Attorney General Robert McClelland remarked that "There is absolutely no way that the government will be recognising polygamist relationships. They are unlawful and they will remain as such. Under Australian law, marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Polygamous marriage necessarily offends this definition.”

Same as SSM really.

Also:
“A convenor of the ACT Greens party has said when same-sex marriage is limited to, "two consenting adults [this] discriminates against others in the gay community, including polyamorists". He accused the Australian Greens of being "hypocrites" because the logic they use to argue for marriage equality should extend to people who have multiple partners.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Australia

I don’t often agree with The Greens, but there ya go.

Continued . . .

. . . continued.

Toni Lavis writes:
“But the thing is that none of the naysayers have ever been able to convince me of the downsides gay marriage.”

In many ways, I reckon that’s a distraction, presumably to manoeuvre the status quo to justify it’s existence. Don’t be surprised if the naysayers don’t fall for it and don’t also assume they have no reasons for their position. No one has to defend what is universally accepted around the planet.

I’ve banged on endlessly that if SSM supporters want the law changed, they have to come up with a convincing argument for it.
I’ve never seen one justification, let alone an up-side.

There’s going to be a survey. There won’t be any questions about the existing marriage law or whether it’s any good or anything remotely like that.
There will (presumably) be one question about whether you support including SSM into the existing marriage act . . or some such wording.

Why people faff about playing gotcha games with naysayers instead of presenting their case I don’t know, but given that laundry list of sloganeering from a couple of posts back, I suspect they haven’t got one.

The very fact that the SSM lobby are prepared to use such dishonest and deceptive tactics to achieve their ends causes people to wonder if their motives are genuine and pure; and perhaps more importantly, what will be the next stage politically. I think the facade is slipping and we’re gradually realising the Emperor has no clothes.

What’s going to be interesting is the voter turn out. Some pundits are saying that for a voluntary vote, this will be low; maybe somewhere around 50%.

The question arises that if a no vote is returned, will the SSM lobby then finally shut up or will they wait two years and try again. My bet is on the latter.
It could also be argued that a yes vote from a low turnout might provide ammunition to political naysayers.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Expensive wedding receptions :)”

Haha . . touché.
I really should have seen that coming.

In the latest move, the protagonists for the no vote on SSM are resorting to a deceitful lie that this plebiscite is in some way a vote on religious freedom, when it is clearly not the case.
Marriage is a State sanctioned institution, and it is the State, and not religious bodies, that decree who are legally married.
Many marriages in Australia have no religious component at all, being conducted by a State approved and authorized secular celebrant.

The status quo whereby both clergy and secular persons are licensed by the State to perform marriage will continue after the law is changed to include same sex couples. No doubt some religious will try and continue with a bigoted attitude of denying same sex couples their legal right to marry, and there could be legal ramifications if that is the case.

The latest servery is indicating a two to one majority yes vote.

//Same as SSM really.//

No, for that comparison to be valid we'd still have to have buggery laws. We haven't had buggery laws for about 20-40 years, depending on which State you're in. So take heart: once states start repealing their bigamy laws, you'll only have to wait a few more decades for this polygamist marriage you seem so keen on.

Not sure when they intend to start repealing bigamy laws, my TARDIS is on the fritz.

//In many ways, I reckon that’s a distraction, presumably to manoeuvre the status quo to justify it’s existence.//

No, it really isn't. Of course I'm not going to vote against gay marriage if I can only see upsides and no downsides.

Although I'd like Status Quo to justify their existence too.

//don’t also assume they have no reasons for their position//

I don't. I'm just curious as to why they're so reluctant to share them with the rest of us.

//No one has to defend what is universally accepted around the planet.//

But it's not though, is it? Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay all recognise (nationwide or in part) that marriage can be between two people of the same sex. It's interesting to look at on a globe; with Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the States, Canada and Greenland all in favour, you've got most of the landmass in the Western hemisphere coloured in.

...

...continued

//I’ve never seen one justification, let alone an up-side.//

Books. I refer you to my previous posts.

//What’s going to be interesting is the voter turn out. Some pundits are saying that for a voluntary vote, this will be low; maybe somewhere around 50%.//

Wouldn't surprise me. And in a country where compulsory voting has always been the rule and is widely accepted as being good for democracy, the voluntary nature of this survey will lead to questions about its validity regardless of who wins.

It seems a bit fishy to me - why not just make it compulsory, in line with every other time we have to vote? Looks like a fix to me.

//The question arises that if a no vote is returned, will the SSM lobby then finally shut up or will they wait two years and try again. My bet is on the latter.//

Yeah, I'd say that's where the smart money is.

//I really should have seen that coming.//

You might have if you'd been paying attention.

Toni, when we had voluntary local council voting the turnout was as low as 25%. There is a danger that many yes voters will think it is a forgone conclusion, and not both voting at all.

Toni Lavis writes:
“No, for that comparison to be valid we'd still have to have buggery laws.”

Yes, and it’s a better world where the state doesn’t seek to legislate with respect to what gay folk do in their bedroom. Generally, I don’t think the majority of the public care about that. I don’t.
Same thing for polygamists.

And for sure we’d have to code some legal provision to include, say, religions where polygamy were allowed on the basis of religious freedom.

This would show that much heralded equality and given that polygamists conform to the current notion of marriage in all other respects, there should be no rational objections.

But I agree, we’re not going to see the repeal of bigamy laws any time soon.

Toni Lavis writes:
“But it's not though, is it? Argentina, Belgium, Brazil […]”

So, 22 out of, what, 196 countries?
The EU comprises 28 nations and permits hoards of illegal aliens unchecked passage across their borders, too. There’s plenty of examples of different countries having different laws and in some places they throw gays off roofs or chop their heads off with a sword and still practice forced child marriage.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Books. I refer you to my previous posts.”

Any chance of a link or just a page number would do?

Toni Lavis writes:
“It seems a bit fishy to me - why not just make it compulsory […]”

The last thing the gay lobby want is a compulsory vote. That is abundantly clear.
But I understand this has to do with the ABS running it and they can’t invoke the compulsory voting provision as would be the norm with the AEC.

Dear Dustin,

You asked me on what basis do I think same-sex couples
are entitled to marriage?

On the basis that marriage in our society is a legal
contract presided over by the government. Like taxes.
Therefore same-sex couples should not be excluded.
The Marriage Act was changed by government in 2004.
It can be changed again.

The "eligibility" clause was only introduced in 2004.
Without any public consultation. The government has
the power to fix this.

You know when I think about it I think this whole postal vote thing is pretty dumb, and certainly open to manipulation.
Hosestly I think it's going to turn a lot more ugly yet, because neither side is likely accept the validity of the verdict.
I thought about Turnbull last night and the slimy way he went about things in that Trump phone call, and I can't help thinking this is gonna be a stitch-up with SSM getting across the line.

Postal vote seems stoneage, like Cobb and Co type stuff in an era of modern computing.
They spent $120m on this, why couldn't we all just login and vote online?
It feels like if they really supported democracy thats what they would do.
Something smells a little 'off' about this whole thing I think.

The Commonwealth Games Village on the Gold Coast
has financial difficulties. Grocon Constructions
who are building the Village don't have enough
funding to pay the sub-contractors. Grocon
Constructions promises that they will finish the
project no matter what. The $122 million being
wasted on the SSM postal vote could be better spent
paying off the contractors working on an important
Australian event. Just one example of how the government
could put the money to better use.

Foxy writes:
“The Marriage Act was changed by government in 2004.”
. . and . .
“The "eligibility" clause was only introduced in 2004.”

Nope. The Marriage Act was not changed as such. The wording was, however, updated (codified) to make the implicit definition explicit. The changes merely reflected what was already understood and recognised.

Otherwise, where are all the gay folk that married prior to 2004?
That’s right; there aren’t any.

Foxy writes:
“Without any public consultation.”

Correct. Updates to laws happen all the time in the exact same manner.
Both sides of parliament approved the changes.

De facto relationships are also recognised under the Family Law Act going back to the 70’s, if memory serves. I recall it was Kevin Rudd who introduced changes to eliminate discrimination against same sex folk. There may be a few niggles currently unaddressed, though.

Armchair Critic writes:
“[…] this whole postal vote thing is pretty dumb, and certainly open to manipulation.”

I’ve seen that said, but with no plausible logic as to how manipulation might happen.

Armchair Critic writes:
“[…] why couldn't we all just login and vote online?”

Same as always; not everyone has a computer or is literate in same. The reasoning will be just like the census.

//Yes, and it’s a better world where the state doesn’t seek to legislate with respect to what gay folk do in their bedroom.//

Yeah, I know. But you try telling that to the religious right...

//Generally, I don’t think the majority of the public care about that.//

No, probably not. But from my observations a majority of no voters do. For example:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19225#341636

And that's just the tip of the proverbial. What a charming bunch these no voters are. Not someone I'd want to be associating myself with if I was nice polite chap like yourself.

//Same thing for polygamists.//

No, the bigamy laws don't address what people do in their bedroom. Bigamy laws prohibit marrying more than one person at a time (max. penalty 5 years imprisonment); they are entirely mute on the subject of shagging more than one person. Adultery laws are a thing of the past, and I don't believe there's ever been laws against sleeping around outside of wedlock.

Holding a postal survey on polygamy whilst bigamy is still punishable with jail time is such a remarkably stupid idea that I'm sure one of our more unhinged crossbench Senators will adopt it as policy in due course.

....

....

//So, 22 out of, what, 196 countries?//

Yeah, mathematically speaking 22 > 0, which is the number implied by your suggestion that an exclusively heterosexual definition is 'universally accepted around the planet'. One country would have been sufficient to disprove your claim, the other 21 were a bonus.

//Any chance of a link or just a page number would do?//

Sorry.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#244147

//But I understand this has to do with the ABS running it and they can’t invoke the compulsory voting provision as would be the norm with the AEC.//

The Government had to draft specific legislation for the survey because it falls outside of any normal electoral processes. There was nothing stopping them from drafting it so that voting was compulsory (just like it's compulsory to complete the ABS-run census).

//You know when I think about it I think this whole postal vote thing is pretty dumb, and certainly open to manipulation.
Hosestly I think it's going to turn a lot more ugly yet, because neither side is likely accept the validity of the verdict.//

It sure is. And for the bargain price of $120,000,000 tax dollars. Thanks, Liberal Party. How are those polls looking, guys?

//Postal vote seems stoneage, like Cobb and Co type stuff in an era of modern computing.
They spent $120m on this, why couldn't we all just login and vote online?//

An online vote? Conducted by the ABS, the people who brought you - or failed to bring you, to be more exact - the online census? Have you really thought this through, Armchair? I think when it comes to the ABS, it's best just to stick to snail mail. They don't seem to understand anything else, bless them.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Sorry”

OK, but here’s what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“Books. I refer you to my previous posts.”

I presumed you were referring to a book of some sort?

Toni Lavis writes:
“No, probably not. But from my observations a majority of no voters do. For example: [...]”

Fair enough.
I reckon it’s always difficult to deduce what might represent the whole from a sub set on a forum. Invariably the hot heads will make their presence felt and skew the numbers. Hey, you and I may be skewing the numbers even though not so hot headed about it.

It’s a bit like reading about the quality of a certain branded toaster on-line.
People set out their complaint, but those happy with the toaster don’t post.

And, no, I don’t want to be associated with those charmers, but it still happens all too often.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Bigamy laws prohibit marrying more than one person at a time […]”

Yep, I understand the legal position re bigamy but I’m pointing out that, objectively, polygamy would likely have little effect on existing marriage laws because it still shares the common philosophical and social tenets of family etc.

Intellectually, it’s a valid comparison if we’re considering equality.
It’s that logic which informs people’s views and it's validity is quite independent of the likelihood of it coming to pass.
Of course, corralling the objectivity is likely to be much more . . erm . . challenging.

Dear Dustin,

Mr Howard did change the Marriage Act to include
a definition of Marriage. The laws previously did
not define Marriage. Mr Howard did that to prevent
the courts from interpreting marriage more broadly
and also to make sure that same-sex marriage
conducted overseas would not be recognised as
marriage in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461875956.html

Hey Dustin,
"No plausible logic to how manipulation might happen".

Alright...
I probably shouldn't share this as it will give people ideas, but also I think we should expose potential ways to manipulate the outcome.
So lets say I wanted to manipulate the results of this vote, how would I do it?

What I would do to begin with is go to the TOR browser and look to purchase data online from the dark web.
(not that I've ever been there or know anything about it)
Specifically what I would want is names and addresses of Australian citizens.

Google this:
'Medicare details on the dark web is just the tip of the data breach' -SMH
So now with data in hand I just need to make copies of the ballots with the correct details of existing Australians on it.
-Maybe these forms need to have individual codes to prevent this and validate them, I don't know if they will or not.
So now I could just print up forms and post them in, sure we might get some double up's, and they will see that fraud has taken place but will the government admit to taxpayers it held the ballot and it was left open to fraud?
And that they wasted 120 million dollars?
Would they admit their imcompetence?

And so how many hundreds of thousands of votes do you want for or against?
Look at our normal systems for voting, even now I could go in and vote multiple times by just saying I was someone else that I knew wasn't going to vote.
Not that I ever have or would.

Hi Foxy,

I don’t propose to argue with you or anyone about John Howard’s actions or the definition of “change”.
If you’d like some acknowledgement of those points from me, then consider it done.

The semantics don’t materially impact the facts or anything I said, though.
And remember too, that while Howard has become the whipping boy over the changes, the opposition happily agreed otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.

At the time, Julia Gillard said it was nothing to worry about, or words to that effect.
Now that she’s changed her mind, the ABC reckon we should listen to her. Surprise!
It’s almost as if . . you know . . “there will be no same sex marriage under a government I lead” and that she gives a ratz about marriage anyway. ;-)

I got a 404 on your link but, no matter. I agree that Howard’s move was a defensive one prompted by events in Canada, if I recall.

Remember too, that the Canada situation was a complicated schism, both regional and constitutional in nature.
Some regions of Canada had successfully challenged the law as being unconstitutional. That set the legal precedent and effectively forced their federal government to comply.

So, if we want to be pedantic over words like “changed” then it’s also appropriate to point out the lie that is perpetrated when people say that Canada has adopted SSM because . . well, I dunno . . because they are progressive and have obviously seen the light of day . . and we should do the same. Such is not the case.

There was never a Canadian plebiscite. What the public support looked like we’ll probably never know.
The Canadian government was caught legally with their metaphorical pants down. Howard saw that and our parliament agreed to remedy the loophole.

Dear Dustin,

You may be interested in the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia

Scroll down to "Marriage Equality (same sex) Act 2013".
And I quote:

"The High Court determined that the word "marriage" in
Constitution s51(xxi) includes same-sex marriage thus
clarifying that there are no constitutional impediment
to the Commonwealth legislating for same-sex marriage in the
future. It can do so by amending the definition of "marriage"
in the Marriage Act."

Well, I'm still curious as to why same-sex couples aren't eligible to marry, but it appears Dustin has successfully side-tracked everyone.

//Some regions of Canada had successfully challenged the law as being unconstitutional.//

Unlike Australia, Canada have a bill of rights written into their constitution, lucky devils. Section 15 of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights, which were the basis for the legal challenges.

//That set the legal precedent and effectively forced their federal government to comply.//

Yep, because otherwise they'd have had to fiddle with the bill of rights. Generally not seen as popular move with voters in countries that have a bill of rights.

//it’s also appropriate to point out the lie that is perpetrated when people say that Canada has adopted SSM because . . well, I dunno . . because they are progressive and have obviously seen the light of day//

They adopted it because Canadians have an explicit and constitutional right equality under the law: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Australia doesn't have that spelled out in a bill of rights, but quite a few of us agree wholeheartedly with that principle and will be voting accordingly.

The 'NO CAMPAIGN' has published disgusting untrue hate material against gay's. Claiming "92% of children of gay parents suffer abuse", imploring voters to "stop the fags" and labeling homosexuality a "curse of death".
The government was warned that this type of hate material would surface, during the "survey" period, something they chose to ignore. There is a possibility that extreme elements within the 'NO CAMPAIGN' may resort to increased violence towards gay people, to show their dissatisfaction, and to reinforce their message. Turnbull has been called upon to strongly condemn this material. It is not clear who is responsible for this rubbish.

Josephus, and others of the same ilk, where do you stand on this kind of attitude?

Lets hold a gun to peoples heads;

"Australia's Catholic church is threatening to fire teachers, nurses and other employees who marry their same-sex partner if gay marriage is legalised."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/married-sunday-fired-monday-churches-threaten-to-dismiss-staff-who-wed-samesex-partners-20170817-gxy4ds.html

What a lovely bunch that church is.

Here's my 2 cents,
You lefties stick up for the Muslims and I don't see you having a problems with Mosques overflowing into the streets and the country looking like the beginnings of the UK, France or Germany.
So quite honestly, I think you should also show your Christian members of the community the same courtesy.

Pretty sure it says 'if a man layeth with another man he should be put to death'.
Since your all so tolerant of Islam I really don't see why you should have a problem with 'God Hate's Fags'.

Do you think the Muslims embrace gay culture?
You support them but do you not think they are supportive of homosexuality?

I mean we're living in a progressive world and obviously these people are just expressing their beliefs, these people should not be triggered by gays or exposed the anxiety and depression of being forced to do things against THEIR beliefs.
Tell me if this passes how long till some gay sues a church leader for not marrying them in a church?

Armchair Critic,

You make it sound like there’s some sort of a double-standard there.

<<… I think you should also show your Christian members of the community the same courtesy.>>

When a politically powerful Christian majority requires sticking up for, then I will stick up for them. When their churches start “overflowing into the streets”, I will be sure to say something.

For the moment, however, the Churches are simply crying persecution because they are losing their ability to control everyone and everything, and churches are being converted into child care centres and yoga halls faster than they are being built.

<<Since [you're] all so tolerant of Islam I really don't see why you should have a problem with 'God Hate's Fags'.>>

Stereotyping can be hazardous. Our racist friend, LEGO, for example thinks that conspiracy theories are purely the domain of the Left. I know, right?

Personally, I am not tolerant of any divisive doctrine (which includes the Christianity that you ARE tolerant of). But there’s a difference between being intolerant of bad ideas, and being tolerant of those who naïvely/foolishly/blindly/apologetically subscribe to them yet are otherwise good people.

<<I mean we're living in a progressive world and obviously these people are just expressing their beliefs, these people should not be triggered by gays or exposed the anxiety and depression of being forced to do things against THEIR beliefs.>>

That’s not progressive. That’s just stupid.

<<Tell me if this passes how long till some gay sues a church leader for not marrying them in a church?>>

That’s a separate issue. This, ‘Vote ‘no’ in the name of religious freedom’, line that Abbot is pushing is as dumb as it is disingenuous.

If that’s your only concern, then save your energy for that. But that’s not a reason to discriminate.

So, how is the ABC going with its new edict to be 'fair' and 'independent'?

What about the media generally? Are they reporting both cases, with equal weight to both sides and dispassionately or are they whipping up stories for dumbed-down audiences?

I am wishing there was similar attention being paid to the chronically unemployed and to sole mothers, where poverty blooms and the future is very bleak indeed. Hard stuff, best avoided it seems.

"You make it sound like theres a double standard there"
- What planet have you been living on?
- Do you speak out about Muslims in the street now?

"Churches crying persecution because they're losing their ability to control everyone and everything"
- What is it exactly that they control now?

"Personally I am not tolerant of any divisive doctrine"
- Do you support safe schools?

"Thats not progressive. That's just stupid."
- No 'progressive' is stupid, and it is the exact same double standards.
If I can claim that certain speech should be outlawed on the basis it 'triggers' me, and that it causes anxiety and depression (mental illness) then they should not be exposed to it and it is exactly the same 'stupid' you mentioned.

"That's a seperate issue"
- No, it's precisely the issue.
If you want this freedom in order to victimise other members of the community and force them to go against their beliefs in their own churches, then it's the same as forcing Muslims to all eat a big plate of bacon everytime they visit their Mosque.

I've made it clear before.
If you want this freedom to victimise Chritian bakeries over dick cakes that say 'I support gay marriage' and force kids to be indoctrinated with gay and trans agenda in primary schools, then you've crossed the line and I support gay suicide, not SSM.
I'll be voting 'No'.

Start acting more respectful of others and I might reconsider.

ABC News (Opinion) today,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

Not usually, Armchair Critic.

<<Do you speak out about Muslims in the street now?>>

Why’s that?

<<What is it exactly that they control now?>>

Not as much as they used to. But the Australian Christian Lobby seems to have a disproportionate amount of sway. Church groups actively oppose and attempt to get in the way of stem cell research, access to abortion, access to euthanasia, and the teaching of sciences that they don’t agree with.

<<Do you support safe schools?>>

I’m not sure. I’m finding it difficult to attain any neutral information on the program. I do hear a lot of rumours about it that turn out to be bogus, though. Like the dragging in of a prostitute off the street to present to a class of six-year-olds so that she can masturbate in front of them.

Tell me, though, how is it divisive?

<<No 'progressive' is stupid, and it is the exact same double standards.>>

You don’t seem to know what progressive is. You mix what has been dubbed (by Lefties, mind you) the “Regressive Left” in with progressivism.

<<No, it's precisely the issue.>>

No, it’s not. Just saying it is (after I had explained why it wasn’t) isn’t an argument, either.

<<If you want this freedom in order to victimise other members of the community and force them to go against their beliefs in their own churches ...>>

Yeah, assuming that’s what I or anyone else wants. But that’s a pretty big assumption.

Well I won't support the Christian lobby on stupid issues where they act unreasonable either, but some of the issues you mentioned are moral issues, and I'm not even really a Christian for that matter.
I'm more of an agnostic, a fence-sitter.
I don't oppose abortion, but I most certainly oppose it being used as a lazy excuse for birth control.
I don't think anyone should be proud of or celebrate killing the unborn, which is almost how the left acts at times..

"How is safe schools divisive?"
- Not everyone agrees with it and it's more or less mandated.

-And it's not an argument, (or a cheap retort) it's a fact.
I'll give it one week from when it passes to when the first Christian Pastor is up on charges of discrimination for not allowing a gay marriage in his (or her) church.
1 week.

- And for that, it's no wonder they're out screaming "God Hate's Fags"
Whether he actually does or not I wouldn't know.

Why don't you discuss protections for them and maybe they will stop carrying on?
You won't do that because the real intention is to attack and vilify them, isn't that?
- That which you're trying to play down, and tell everyone "move along, nothing to see here"

Charter boat? What Charter boat? Lol

What do you mean by “but”, Armchair Critic?

<<Well I won't support the Christian lobby on stupid issues where they act unreasonable either, but some of the issues you mentioned are moral issues …>>

Does that make what they do okay? Do you think marriage equality not a moral issue? Religious groups certainly think it is.

<<I don't oppose abortion, but I most certainly oppose it being used as a lazy excuse for birth control.>>

Heh, tell me about it. I really get annoyed when these lazy women pop down to their local abortion clinic every month or so to terminate a pregnancy for $800 just because they couldn’t be bothered arranging a 20-dollar box of pills. I mean, how much time and money do these women have?!

<<Not everyone agrees with [Safe Schools] and it's more or less mandated.>>

There are a lot of things that are mandated which others don’t agree with, but that doesn’t make them inherently divisive. If the Safe Schools program taught that those who disagree with it were going to hell or should be killed, THEN your attempt at spotting a double-standard might have had more meaning.

<<I'll give it one week from when it passes to when the first Christian Pastor is up on charges of discrimination for not allowing a gay marriage in his (or her) church.>>

I don’t care if you give it a day and turn out to be right. It’s a secondary issue.

<<Why don't you discuss protections for them and maybe they will stop carrying on?>>

I didn’t realise I had that much authority. I have no strong objection to protecting bigoted churches from being bigots. In the end, it will be their own demise.

<<You won't do that because the real intention is to attack and vilify them, isn't that?>>

No, it’s not.

I will admit, though, that I would have a lot of difficulty feeling sorry for religious groups in such situations, given the amount of bullying they've been guilty of over the centuries. Your claim reminds me of this classic meme:

http://i.imgur.com/CHvSVJH.jpg

Hey AJ Philips,
Your entitled to your opinion as am I, and you've got your vote just as I've got mine.
I'm willing to compromise if the other side is too.

Get rid of the indoctrination of kids, and provide protection for those who have different beliefs to refuse service (in a church or in a Christian bakery for example) and I'll be much more willing to consider accepting gays wish for marriage equality.

Otherwise the people on your side of the argument have already decided for me.
Simple.