Toni Lavis writes:
“Is it coz they can't have kids?”

Can’t speak for all people, but I’d reckon there’s some who see that as a disqualification. I expect there’s lots of reasons and not everyone is as strongly placed as anyone else on any particular point.

I guess the potential for children is a commonly accepted norm although plenty of people marry and state expressly that they don’t want children. I would be one of those, but hey, here I am with three of them. Life doesn’t always work out as we expect.

//Can’t speak for all people//

That's OK, nobody has asked you to. So you needn't worry about the pressure of being suddenly (self)promoted to spokesman for the entire 'no' campaign. I'd just like to know what you think, not what you imagine other people think.

Is it coz you is worried that if we let the gays get married then people will start marrying their dogs and their playstations and stuff?

mhaze,

I’m usually happy to leave ‘well enough’ alone. But for over a year now, you have you flaunted an innocent failing of memory on my behalf, on a minor point, every time the going got rough for you.

Isn’t it funny how you never let me know earlier that you had read the book? Why, just a few of posts ago, when sociologists were mentioned, you questioned the knowledge of such people because of my citation.

No evidence for your assertion that the textbook was wrong, of course.

You wanted to make it look like I made the fact up myself and then just Googled any old sociology book to cover my tracks. This time, however, you falsely assumed that even if I had the textbook, and it said what I claimed, that I’d have no way of proving it anyway.

Well, didn’t that backfire spectacularly!

Sounds like you reached a point where you were willing to do anything to bop that little nugget of mine on the head once and for all - even if it meant lying.

You just couldn’t let it go, could you? That little inconvenient fact so offended your worldview that you had to turn it against me in multiple, deceitful attempts to shame me every time your arguments flopped. Now, you'd decided that we were going to settle the ‘nuclear family’ issue once and for all - again, even if it meant lying.

This isn’t the first time you’ve told porkies either, is it? There was your claim that I often misunderstand others and then expect them to provide evidence for that misunderstanding. How about the fallacies that I supposedly misuse? Or your claim that I commit the Fallacy fallacy? In not one of these cases could you substantiate your claim when asked to do so. Instead, you simply dropped your accusation and moved on.

You have no credibility left, mhaze. You are the only one here who is dishonest, and, as a means of returning the favour, I will make sure that you are always reminded of that.

Until next time...

Toni, I married a tub of ice cream, but alas my love melted.

That is from some the silly argument. If we allow gay marriage it would be the thin edge of the wedge, and next thing you know, people would want to marry their dogs, cats, electric toasters etc. Every him there is a demand for social change, the Doomsdayer's launch that argument. There is no evidence to support the silly argument, but people keep on using it.

Toni Lavis writes:
“ . . marrying their dogs and their playstations and stuff?”

I’d refer you back to discussions with AJ Philips. I don’t see any point regurgitation that.

The real issue is eligibility.
Would you support polygamist marriage equality?
If not, why not?

//I don’t see any point *regurgitation* that.//

Do you even English, bro?

//The real issue is eligibility.//

In the immortal words of Andy from Little Britain:

Yeah, I know.

//Would you support polygamist marriage equality?//

42. Because 6 x 9 really is equal to 42 in base 13.

I haven't mentioned PME until now because we aren't facing an imminent postal survey on PME so it's really neither here nor there. I've never given it any serious contemplation one way or another, never done any research on the subject, and the only opinions I could offer in immediate response to your post would be too hastily formed and insufficiently considered to be of much worth.

You're welcome to start a new thread on the subject if you have strong views about it. I'll meander over and have a look what you're up to but I probably won't stick my oar in.

I wonder is it that no-voters so often refuse to be drawn on why they hold that position, preferring the old 'Look over there, a three-headed monkey!' routine to any discussion of the reasoning behind their arguments. It's almost like they're ashamed of their own opinions or something... bizarre. Oh well, I guess I'll never know :(