Then again, if there was no suggestion that the priest's position gave him an authority on the topic, then why mention that he was was a priest at all? Why not just mention the arguments?

Hmmm...

Philips:

“Perhaps you could start by explaining how scientists understand as much as they do about the evolution of a trait that supposedly doesn’t exist?”

Why would they suppose it was a trait rather than a behaviour? What makes it a trait?

Foxy,

You say, “The Australian Medical Association were speaking from their professional knowledge and experiences in dealing with Gay people and they gave their medical expertise on the subject”.

So, homosexuality is a medical issue after all?

AJ Philips,

Perhaps you would “care to explain” why the priest is wrong? You made a peremptory declaration that the priest was wrong based purely on your personal opinion - “ Firstly, the case has been made”. No, you think the a case has been made; many people think that it has not been made. “Equal treatment is the only reason needed.” Again no. Same sex couples and heterosexual couples are not equal: that is clearly and physically obvious. “I have never seen this successfully rebutted” - entirely your opinion again; many people disagree with you.

We are all entitled to opinions and the freedom to express them, but your opinions are no more “reasoned” than anyone else’s.

I've had enough of the SSM issue: it is quite insignificant – a lot of fuss for 2% of the population, many of whom have no desire to “marry” - when compared with the truly urgent matters this country is facing. Homosexual politician, Tim Wilson, has refused to discuss the subject any longer, and perhaps that's the way to go. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the Left, who stupidly rejected a plebiscite, which would have solved the problem.

In the meantime, homosexuals can do what they damn well please, but their tiny minority should not have a say on the Marriage Act

This bullying is only proving that dead cartoonist, Bill Leak, was right,

http://tenplay.com.au/news/national/2017/8/12/nasty-ambush

It is a time when leaders of all parties, the media commentariat too, should be eschewing the inflammatory, self-serving rhetoric that seems to give licence to violent protesters.

I object to the use of the word 'marriage' to unions of homosexuals.

My reasons are that lumping my marriage in with homosexual unions will adversely effect the status of my marriage. Marriage has always been seen as an honorable and respected position and nothing should be done to lessen that respect.

Homosexuality does not have this respect because of the sexual practices reported that are engaged in. I have nothing against homosexuals having a word to denote their union, but the word marriage already has a meaning and homosexuals can think up another word.

To use the word marriage relative to homosexual unions is simply an immoral and underhand way of obtaining some acceptance of their sexual practices.

I already did, ttbn.

<<Perhaps you would “care to explain” why the priest is wrong?>>

It was in the part of my post that you didn't address.

<<You made a peremptory declaration that the priest was wrong based purely on your personal opinion …>>

That was just my first point. You are quite welcome the challenge me on that. In fact, I was inviting you to.

<<… many people think that [the case] has not been made.>>

Yes, and I invite them to present their reasoning for that belief. The priest you cited failed miserably, and I explained why.

<<Same sex couples and heterosexual couples are not equal: that is clearly and physically obvious.>>

This is not an argument against marriage equality. This is the fallacious equivocation I mentioned earlier. Again, this is not what is meant by ‘equality’.

<<… your opinions are no more “reasoned” than anyone else’s.>>

At no point have I claimed that they are. However, you don’t get to claim that I have relied on personal opinion, when I have clearly shown reasoning for my arguments.

Is it any wonder you never addressed the rest of my post? You know, the vast majority of it that was not just an invitation based on something that I had clearly presented as observation?

<<[The issue] is quite insignificant – a lot of fuss for 2% of the population, many of whom have no desire to “marry” - when compared with the truly urgent matters this country is facing.>>

This is the fallacy of relative privation.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/155/Relative-Privation

<<The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the Left, who stupidly rejected a plebiscite ...>>

Given the importance of equality, and the ease with which this issue could be resolved, I fail to see how it can be blown out of proportion. The reasons for rejecting the plebiscite were reasonable. Foxy, Bazz, and I recently discussed why.

<<… [Homosexuals in] their tiny minority should not have a say on the Marriage Act>>

Why not? And what does their minority status have to do with whether they should?