see one of the ' gays' bombing the Australian Christian Lobby in Canberra. I well I suppose demonising those who agreed with Wong and Shorten (not long back) is more important than reporting on leftist terrorism in this country.

AJ

"You probably wouldn’t find a single sociologist who agreed with that, mhaze."

Well maybe. Equally I wouldn’t find too many faith-healers who'd agree either and that'd be as equally valid.

But I would find a large number of historians.

Anyone with a degree of historic perspective (and people who think that the nuclear family only came to prominence in Australia around 1940 monumentally fail that test) would recognise how unique current times are. Throughout human civilisation, across all civilisations, slavery has been a standard aspect of society. And as far as we can tell, pre-civilisation society (eg stone age peoples like our own aboriginals) also practiced slavery.

The last 200 years are a blip caused by a very specific set of circumstances which revolved around the Enlightened values of (mainly) British Christians. Now we don't need to retain the Christian part of the equation but if those Christian values cease to inform the way the world operates, then it will revert to its default mode.

/cont

/cont
Slavery is part of that default mode.

The values may continue in parts of the world but once they cease to be paramount, once the relative decline of the Anglosphere elevates other value systems to equal prominence, then changes will occur.

We've already seen an attempt to reintroduce slavery into Islam. That was squashed by the power of the west but that won't always be the case. Equally we see constant attacks on human rights in Russia and China which are only tempered by the need to take countenance of world opinion. Would Maduro be less constrained if not for a world still vested in the notion of human rights looking over his shoulder?

CS Lewis called it 'chronological snobbery' - "the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited".

If you don't understand where we've come from, you've got no chance of understanding where we're going. That's why looking back at the past 1000 yrs and even further is vital. Throughout human history, throughout all civilisations, marriage has been understood as being a heterosexual institution. That remained the case up until the current decade. Less than 10 years ago the high priests of the left were still of that view (although it is now probably blasphemous to say that the Obamessiah once held such views).

There are good reasons for that. But now, in the space of a few years and bowing to current hashtag trendiness (and political expediency) we are about to overturn centuries, millennia, of practice and knowledge due to chronological snobbery.

AJ Philips wrote:
I suggest you read up on the burden of proof then.”

Burden of proof (legal):” http://goo.gl/LKHY6e

Nah, your reference leads to the onus of proof as it relates to criminal law . . and in the USA, no less.
Same sex marriage doesn’t fall under criminal law no matter how much you think it does.

What you’re more looking for is law reform, how regulation works and how you might challenge same.
Try this for some ammunition . . and don’t say I never do anything for you. ;-)

http://lawgovpol.com/what-is-law-reform/

The link also outlines how:
“It is sometimes necessary to simplify or ‘tidy up’ the law, to make it easier to access and understand, or to ensure it is more consistent for all Australians.”

This is what John Howard did in ’04 by updating the definition in the marriage act to specify “between a man and a woman”.
By including those words, he made the implicit definition an explicit one.

I realise you don’t like specificity because it limits wiggle room, but you’ll have to come to terms with that.

Codifying law is a complex legal task and one important objective is to eliminate that wiggle room so there is no confusion.
Your elastic equivocatory version of ‘equality’ would never make the cut . . and they could support their wording by using your own Oxford Dictionary reference, too.

I was simply covering my bases, Dustin.

<<… your reference leads to the onus of proof as it relates to criminal law …>>

Which is why I provided you with a link to the more relevant philosophical burden of proof as well.

Another sidestep.

<<Same sex marriage doesn’t fall under criminal law no matter how much you think it does.>>

At no point did I suggest that it did.

<<What you’re more looking for is law reform, how regulation works and how you might challenge same.>>

No, I was only talking about the burden of proof because you fallaciously tried to shift it.

<<Try this for some ammunition . . and don’t say I never do anything for you.>>

I know what law reform is. I have a Batchelor of laws.

<<By including those words, he made the implicit definition an explicit one.>>

Yes, so what?

<<… you’ll have to come to terms with that.>>

So that’s your argument, is it? Because that’s what the law says? Laws can change, you know. And often they need to, too.

<<Your elastic equivocatory version of ‘equality’…>>

At no point have I even close to committing equivocation:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation

<<… and they could support their wording by using your own Oxford Dictionary reference, too.>>

How so? What does codifying the common law in this instance have to do with the definition of equality? You’re getting yourself tangled into a right mess here, aren’t you?

Still waiting to hear why same-sex couples should not be eligible to marry, too, by the way. I won't be forgetting that, no matter how much you stall and distract.

I take it you have evidence against this, mhaze. I’m keen to see it.

<<… people who think that the nuclear family only came to prominence in Australia around 1940 monumentally fail that test>>

Or are you just looking at the last 1000 years again and assuming?

I have now quadruple-checked my source, and before the 1940s, extended families were a small majority. In earlier colonial days, it becomes messier since there there was a disproportionate number of men.

Here is one of the references they cite (the rest are books that I obviously can't link to):

http://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/DiversityAndChange.pdf

I’m sure that you, as a libertarian, are VERY keen to ignore what sociologists say, though. Especially given what we know about how detrimental the effects of income inequality are.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

Apart from your conclusion and highly problematic methodology of simply pointing to the last 1000 years, I don’t have much of a problem with the rest of what you say. However, I would attribute the “blip” to a rise in secular values, not Christian values specifically. For the most part, secularism has had to drag Christianity kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity.

Just as it is on marriage equality.