AJ Philips wrote:
“I was simply covering my bases, Dustin.”

Nope You simply made a mistake, AJ.

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

Another sidestep.”

No side step in evidence. Your mistake was assuming we’re governed by philosophy and not laws.
I’ll confess I didn’t read the philosophy link because it was less relevant than the law reference and your track record with relevance leaves much to be desired . . plus I had the kettle on.

AJ Philips wrote:
“At no point did I suggest that it did [fall under criminal law].”

Then you’ll need to explain why you considered a link to criminal law, in the USA, no less, relevant.
Give it up AJ.

AJ Philips wrote:
“No, I was only talking about the burden of proof because you fallaciously tried to shift it.”

No shift in evidence. I corrected you.

Continued . . .

. . . continued.

AJ Philips wrote:
“I know what law reform is. I have a Batchelor of laws.”

Well, that’s a startling revelation . . . and a quite an unflattering testimony to our university system.
But then, if you knew what law reform was, you wouldn’t be floundering about in the criminal law of another country.

AJ Philips wrote:
“Yes, so what? [re he made the implicit definition an explicit one]”

Well, since you’re the legal eagle, I suggest you read it.
Though having said that, reading doesn’t seem to have made any difference so far.

AJ Philips wrote:
“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.”

As I say, feel free to challenge the law.

AJ Philips wrote:
“At no point have I even close to committing equivocation:”

At no point have you demonstrated comprehension of very simple concepts, either legally, linguistically or logically.

AJ Philips wrote:
“How so? What does codifying the common law in this instance have to do with the definition of equality?”

Well, I could explain it again but to what point. It’s becoming more and more apparent that you’re not participating in good faith and I don’t propose to get bogged down doing your research for you.

AJ Philips wrote:
“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.”

Well, there’s a waiting room just over there =>
I suggest you put the kettle on.
Pull up a chair, put your feet up . .

No, Dustin. Had I made a mistake, then I wouldn’t have included the link to the philosophical burden of proof. The one you ignored.

<<Your mistake was assuming we’re governed by philosophy and not laws.>>

At no point did I suggest either proposition. I was merely pointing you to information on the burden of proof, since you apparently didn't know what it was.

<<… the philosophy link ... was less relevant than the law reference>>

How so? When people talk about the burden of proof, they’re usually referring to the philosophical burden of proof (the legal burden of proof is useful for analogies).

<<… and your track record with relevance leaves much to be desired …>>

Oh, please, do tell.

<<Then you’ll need to explain why you considered a link to criminal law, in the USA, no less, relevant.>>

See above.

<<No shift in evidence. I corrected you.>>

I wasn’t referring to a shift in evidence.

<<… if you knew what law reform was, you wouldn’t be floundering about in the criminal law of another country.>>

I wasn’t. The legal burden of proof isn’t just with regards to criminal law, either.

<<Well, since you’re the legal eagle, I suggest you read it.>>

I will, just as soon as you can tell me what its relevance is.

<<At no point have you demonstrated comprehension of very simple concepts, either legally, linguistically or logically.>>

So, you’re just going to insult me now? How original. No examples, too, I note. Funny that.

<<Well, I could explain it again but to what point. It’s becoming more and more apparent that you’re not participating in good faith and I don’t propose to get bogged down doing your research for you.>>

Another sidestep. This time, with baseless accusations.

So, in other words, you have absolutely nothing. You have no rational reason as to why same-sex couples should be not be eligible to marry, and now that it’s apparent to you that your attempts to divert attention away from this have failed, you’re just going to insult me.

Classy.

AJ Philips wrote:
“So, you’re just going to insult me now?”

No, not at all. I’m simply pointing out some of the inadequacies we all face from time to time.
After all, if we don’t recognise these, it impacts our ability to assemble an effective challenge.

Let’s collaborate on seeing polygamist marriage equality become a reality.
That’s the weakest spot in the current law and therefor more amenable to change.

AJ

Well since you're the one making the astounding assertion (for that's all it is) it is up to you to provide the evidence.

Why astounding? Well we know that the nuclear family was paramount in N-E Europe for 1000 yrs (you've already agreed). We know it was paramount in the US back to at least 1800. So it'd be astonishing if Australia was an outlier.

So far you've offered no evidence other than a link to advertisement for a book which I found at Mitchell and which said nothing of the sort of what you claimed. And now you offer a link which again doesn't have any data that would support your silly assertion. But it does show on page 7 a graph based on ABS data showing that the average family size in 1930 was around 4 people. (Husband, wife two kids perhaps?).The 1933 Census shows that the majority of people over 15 yrs old were married and the vast majority of them had kids.

Let's face it AJ. You shot your mouth off assuming it'd get by, got caught out and haven't the wherewithal to fess up. OK.

"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."

Apart from a feeble attempt to change the subject I've got no idea what relevance that has.

"I would attribute the “blip” to a rise in secular values, not Christian values"

Well perhaps you could do a little research. Check out Wilberforce to see how Christian he was (hint: very). You might also want to ponder why secularism arose in those self-same N-E Europe nations. Can secularism and Christianity co-exit? Why no secularism in Imperial China, Aztec America, Islam. Something to do with Christianity? Nah says AJ - I want it to be different, therefore it is,

AJ, there's no shame in being historically ignorant. But to imagine the way you'd like the past to have been and then assert that it was indeed like that is just bonkers.

Oh, but I did, mhaze.

<<… since you're the one making the astounding assertion … it is up to you to provide the evidence.>>

I cited my reference, and even linked you to one of theirs. I can’t do much more than that on a forum.

You are counter-claiming that it is nonsense, so you bear a burden of proof, too.

<<Why astounding? Well we know that the nuclear family was paramount in N-E Europe for 1000 yrs (you've already agreed).>>

Paramount, perhaps. I don’t see why extended families wouldn’t have been the most common form of family in North-East Europe for most of the last 1000 years too, though.

Incidentally, when did I agree to this? I might have taken your word for it, but I can’t remember agreeing.

<<We know it was paramount in the US back to at least 1800.>>

Paramount? Perhaps. The most common form of family? Not necessarily.

<<So it'd be astonishing if Australia was an outlier.>>

Not really. Australia is relatively new and had different demographics with convicts and people migrating for the gold rush, and a disproportionate number of males, earlier. ‘Family Formation in Victoria’ (1988) goes into quite a lot of detail here.

<<So far you've offered no evidence other than a link to advertisement for a book which I found at Mitchell and which said nothing of the sort of what you claimed.>>

Now I know you’re lying.

The information to which I refer starts at page 168 of the book. Here, I’ve uploaded a scan for you:

http://i.imgur.com/2Eav0GI.jpg

You didn’t read it at all, did you? No, you thought you’d make this a ‘Your word against mine’ situation.

How pathetic.

<<Let's face it AJ. You shot your mouth off assuming it'd get by, got caught out and haven't the wherewithal to fess up.>>

Apparently not.

Now, let’s see if you have the wherewithal to admit that you didn’t even read the book.

<<You might also want to ponder why secularism arose in those self-same N-E Europe nations.>>

Obviously many factors. But how about you educate me, mhaze. Why is that?