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.