Toni Lavis writes:
“In the immortal words of Andy from Little Britain:

Yeah, I know.”

Well done “Andy”. You’ve understood the issue.

But here’s the thing, Toni.
I find this curious. You concede not having even considered polygamists who share the same eligibility criteria discrimination. Yet you seem to think gay folk hold a good case and and that they’re presumably uniquely special somehow in that they should be entitled to something you couldn’t give a ratz about when considering others similarly placed.

Now that’s bizarre.
Because really, if you don't care one way or the other about polygamists, why do you think the wider community should care one way or the other about gay folk.

Toni Lavis writes:
“I wonder is it that no-voters so often refuse to be drawn on why they hold that position […]”

Nah, as I said to AJ, no one is obliged to defend an accepted law largely because the way laws are changed is by challenging them. You need to focus on that.

In AJ’s case, I doubt he’d even understand it. Even if he did, he’d slip-slide around with his elastic definitions, cite irrelevant laws in foreign countries and quote fallacies he doesn’t really comprehend which is what brought me to the point of comparing that discussion with playing chess with a pigeon.

Also, don’t presume no one could defend the existing law, because they very well could. However, it would be a large tome and practically impossible on a forum with a 350 word limit.
If a point comes up with respect to the existing law, it can be debated. That’s the intention of a forum.

Moreover, the postal survey isn’t intended to address the supportability, validity or otherwise of existing marriages. That’s not in dispute; it’s a given. The intention of the survey is to address whether the community would be prepared to accept alphabet people as the same thing. But only alphabet people, right.

Dustin,

A fat lot of good that would do.

<<I’d refer you back to discussions with AJ Philips.>>

You never explained why same-sex couples should be ineligible. Instead, you spent the whole time ducking and weaving with red herrings. Then, when it became painfully obvious that such a tactic wasn’t going to work, you resorted to insults.

<<... he’d slip-slide around with his elastic definitions …>>

Nothing elastic about my interpretation of the definition of the word ‘equal’. I demonstrated the definition wasn’t “absolute”, as you claimed it was:

“If it were absolute, then we’d need to release prisoners because they’re not being treated equally.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243937)

“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?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243937)

Funny how you had nothing to say these these points of mine. Just more ducking and weaving.

<<... cite irrelevant laws in foreign countries …>>

No, never did that. Now you’re just lying.

<<... and quote fallacies he doesn’t really comprehend ...>>

Really? Do you have an example of this?

Still waiting for an explanation on why same-sex couples shouldn’t be eligible, by the way. Somehow I don’t think I’m going to get it.

AJ Philips writes:
“No, never did that. Now you’re just lying.”

Here’s your cite again, to remind you:

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

You will note the very first paragraph on your cited page, which reads:

“The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with common law and the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.”

In other words, you cited irrelevant laws in a foreign country.
Ergo, you are the liar, AJ.

Please note, the only reason I’m replying is to acknowledge your post.
Don’t expect any follow up for the reasons previously outlined and now confirmed once more.

Erm, no, Dustin.

<<Here’s your cite again, to remind you: …>>

The purpose of that reference was to point you to a form of the burden of proof, since you apparently had no idea what it was. In no way was my intention to cite “irrelevant laws in foreign countries”. The fact that I was discussing the burden of proof at the time, and not law, demonstrates this.

Again, you lied.

<<You will note the very first paragraph on your cited page, which reads: …>>

Irrelevant.

<<Don’t expect any follow up for the reasons previously outlined and now confirmed once more.>>

Oh, of course not. After all you don’t have any. Nor did you outline any previously either, let alone confirm them.

//Yet you seem to think gay folk hold a good case//

Aye, well kenned.

//if you don't care one way or the other about polygamists//

You're very exercised about this whole polygamy thing, aren't you? And here was me thinking that one wife was more than sufficient. Best of luck with that, champ. Who knows, maybe the people will get behind you.

//Nah, as I said to AJ, no one is obliged to defend an accepted law largely because the way laws are changed is by challenging them.//

Yeah, I'm not an MP. Where I'm from, 'introducing your own private member's bill' is merely a euphemism for 'taking tea with the parson' (you'll have to research that one for yourself, as common decency let alone the heavy-handed forum censor forbid me from describing it).

//However, it would be a large tome and practically impossible on a forum with a 350 word limit.//

Well maybe just summarise it then? I mean come on, do you really need a whole frigging book to present a counter-argument? So much for brevity being the soul of wit...

There's no rule against extending a lengthy argument over more than one post BTW.

//If a point comes up with respect to the existing law, it can be debated. That’s the intention of a forum.//

Oh no, he's changed his mind. Apparently it now can be discussed within the limited confines of the forum. Well that's a relief.

//The intention of the survey is to address whether the community would be prepared to accept alphabet people as the same thing.//

Alphabet people, hey? Well that's a new one...

Where you worried that if you said faggots, people might think you meant Harley Davidson riders?

Toni Lavis wites:
“You're very exercised about this whole polygamy thing, aren't you?”

Nah . .
The reason I bring it up is not so much because I’m some sort of avid supporter, but because it serves as a reasonable comparator to same sex marriage. It’s essentially an exploratory litmus test.

You say you’ve not given polygamy any serious contemplation one way or another. That’s fine as far as it goes, but I had hoped the parallel might prompt some examination of the idea and how the SSM issue is quite similar; some quiet introspection, if you like.

Apparently that didn’t happen. That’s also fine and the next step was to explore the logic as to why you might think alphabet people might be more entitled than polygamists. It’s quite straight forward and there’s no gotcha in there.

Given you haven’t engaged with the analogy after having had at least a little time to think about it, I don’t see there’s any way to advance the discussion.
Oh well.

Toni Lavis wites:
“Alphabet people, hey? Well that's a new one…”

Well, yes . . it’s a little dig, to be sure.
It’s not intended as an insult but also not terribly unreasonable given new letters are added periodically. Plus, there are those that become quite offended if one doesn’t get the order of letters correct.

I guess that’s one thing I’ve learned. I can’t be fagged getting the letters correct and SSM proponents can’t be fagged getting their case together.
As I say . . Oh well.