Dear Bazz,

The "lefty culture," is so yesterday.

It always was and did not get much traction.

Your son should have mixed more.

mhaze,

How is the changing of the definition of the word ‘gay’, and what the rainbow can now symbolise, a bad thing?

<<And now 'equality' is similarly suborned into the work of achieving political ends.>>

Did you have similar complaints during the civil rights movement of the ‘60s? If not, why the double standard?

<<'Equal' doesn't mean 'identical'.>>

Correct. This is a red herring.

<<But now we are told that it must because of human rights.>>

When, and by whom?

<<People who are clearly different in a substantive way … demand that we ignore the difference because of equality.>>

No, they don’t. All this claim of yours reveals is that you see a substantive difference that would make same-sex marriage impossible or not preferable. So, please, by all means, tell us how this is the case.

<<Equality is good, right?>>

Right.

<<So everyone should be equal, right?>>

That depends on what you mean by “equal”. Treated identically? No, that would be absurd. Equal in status, rights, or opportunities? Yes.

<<Well equal isn't identical.>>

No, it’s not. But this IS a straw man.

You lot are the only ones engaging in equivocation by confusing the meaning of 'equal' with 'identical' in order to formulate bogus arguments like this one.

<<But my meaning [of marriage equality] is that we all have the equal right to marry any one person of the opposite sex who'll have us.>>

That’s not equality for all.

<<And then the boosters will spend the next 50years trying to prove that the adverse affects on society didn't really happen …>>

What are these adverse effects you anticipate? Did you make the same prediction with regards to the civil rights movement of the '60s?

<<… just as they've done with easy divorce and single parenthood.>>

What are these adverse effects to which you refer, and how did you determine that the above were factors?

--

Phanto,

We’ve already been through all that. It didn’t turn out too well for you. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798&page=0#241165

I suggest you revise some of our previous discussions before repeating arguments that I’ve already discredited.

Philips:

"I suggest you revise some of our previous discussions before repeating arguments that I’ve already discredited."

That you think you have discredited.

What's wrong with 'marriage equality" ?

Nothing much except that marriage between a man and a woman, cannot be considered to be equal in any way to a union between two hairy big blokes.

The proposition is to bring in marriage inequality.

There you go, mhaze.

Is Mise has been kind enough to provide us with an example of precisely the kind of equivocation I was talking about. Now, if you could provide me with an example of someone from the Pro camp confusing the two concepts, then that would be greatly appreciated.

--

Phanto,

Oh, please, by all means, tell me which of my arguments failed.

Philips:

“Did you have similar complaints during the civil rights movement of the ‘60s? If not, why the double standard?”

Then there were black people and white people. Two groups. We do not have two groups in this debate about marriage. You pre-suppose two groups.