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.