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.