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.