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.