Dustin,

So, you agree that my question needs to be answered first,

<<I would have thought that obvious.>>

then immediately proceed to assert that if gay people want to have the law changed, then they should explain what they will bring to the institution of marriage.

So, why do they need to bring something to the institution of marriage at all? You seemed to skip that bit.

<<If gay folk want to have the law changed, I presumed they think something positive might come from it.>>

How about equality? That’s something positive which requires absolutely nothing from them apart from their mere existence.

<<The corollary might be: if they can’t answer that, then why should anyone bother.>>

You haven’t yet explained why they should answer it.

AJ Phillips,

<<So, you believe that same-sex marriage will encourage lesbian couples to seek IVF, or increase its accessibility? What about the women already accessing it?>>

I can't say how many people, exactly, will access anything. Would one expect a decrease? I doubt it. Watching all of the video from the 'Festival of Dangerous Ideas: Kajsa Ekis Ekman – Surrogacy Is Child Trafficking', I suggest as many as possible, view this.

<<To put this into perspective, going by what you’re saying, you are wanting to deny equality to an entire demographic just because it might increase the number of children who don’t have the ability to find out who their biological father is.>>

Yes and no. I do believe people have a right, to have access to family records and not have these locked in government filing cabinets or be denied things I may simply take for granted. It's a basic human rights issue. As stated, family history research takes time and historic research isn't just about one parent. I know undertaking historic research before.

<<What about the fact that allowing for same-sex marriage will lower the suicide rate within the gay community, going by what has happened in other countries?>>

This has nothing to do with my post. In terms of suicide, people need professional assistance from qualified individuals to address that matter, not marriage.

<<Why don’t you just advocate for the right of children conceived via such means to locate their biological father? That way, you help all the children who are already living - whether or not their mothers are gay.>>

Once again, lack of understanding is a complexity here. If one takes into consideration family research, there are multiple levels of family elements to consider. Also with the video I referred to, the speaker refers to matters like (surrogate mothers, sperm donors, parents, financial elements and issues like emotional connections between those having to give up a child after birth).

<<Something tells me surrogacy isn’t the real reason you’re going to vote ‘no’>>

I haven't said if I will vote at all.

AJ Philips writes:
“So, why do they need to bring something to the institution of marriage at all?”

Because in it’s absence, the only conclusion one can draw is that they bring nothing.
Otherwise, I presume you’d provide some insight.
Why can’t you provide a simple answer to a simple question? There’s no gotchas in there.

Dodging that simple question is telling, though. It causes the casual reader to draw negative inferences and think you either haven’t got a case or are unwilling to present it.

If we were to take your previous argument using US law, your case would never get to court. I’d be summarily dismissed.
I’d be asking for the court to award costs, too.

AJ Philips writes:
“How about equality?”

Bzzzt.
We’ve covered that. The underlying constraint is eligibility, not equality.

If equality was a genuine issue, the Australian Human Rights Commission is where you need to be.
You can bet Gillian Triggs would swoop down like a seagull onto a hot chip.
But guess what . . . *crickets*

Oh, and happy non gender specific day to you.

Dear Cupric,

«same sex couples can't have kids.»

Assuming or wishing that this was the case, doesn't this render them better citizens?

Just imagine, had nearly everyone been homosexual, we would have no overpopulation!

We could have enjoyed the bounty of this earth with its plentiful resources - no government, no corporations, no wars, no bills, no electronic distractions, no hard labour (since we would only be picking earth's low-hanging fruit). We could instead devote most of our time to worship, prayer and meditation - in short, heaven on earth!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 31 August 2017 2:32:16 PM
<<

Yuyutsu,

You say I assume or wish: it's a fact !!

To call them better citizens because of not being able to have children has nothing to do with them wanting to corrupt the word "marriage" so as to destroy the church and therefore Western Civilisation.

Face the facts: ssm is about destroying the church and therefore Western Civilisation and the no vote has every right to be very concerned where this attack on Western Civilisation is coming from!

NathanJ,

On the contrary, an inevitable reduction in the suicide rate within the gay community (going by the experience of every other country that has allowed for same-sex marriage, at least) has everything to do with your post. If you are going to cite altruistic motivations for a stance against same-sex marriage, it is only reasonable that you weigh it up with all other risks and benefits.

<<In terms of suicide, people need professional assistance from qualified individuals to address that matter, not marriage.>>

In no way did I suggest that same-sex marriage be introduced as a means remedying suicide. But if it is capable of reducing the suicide rate, then this cannot be ignored.

--

Dustin,

You're still evading my question.

<<Because in it’s absence, the only conclusion one can draw is that they bring nothing.>>

Again, though, why is that a problem?

<<Otherwise, I presume you’d provide some insight.>>

I'll do my best just as soon as soon you can tell me why they need to bring something to marriage in the first place.

<<Why can’t you provide a simple answer to a simple question?>>

Ditto.

<<Dodging that simple question is telling, though.>>

I will concede this just as soon as you can tell me why gay people need to bring something to marriage in order to be allowed to marry. Suddenly a preliminary question I raised is not so obvious, eh?

<<If we were to take your previous argument using US law… >>

I have never cited US law as an argument. You tried this one on last time. Remember? You're being dishonest again.

<<We’ve covered [equaily].>>

Yes, and you were unable to justify why equality was not relevant.

<<The underlying constraint is eligibility, not equality.>>

Bzzzt.

You tried that line the last time. It flopped. Did you need to go through it again?

AJ Philips writes:
“Again, though, why is that [they bring nothing] a problem?”

I didn’t say it was a problem.
I merely asked what, if anything, they might bring.
I’m now more intrigued because you seem reluctant to say and I wonder why that might be.

AJ Philips writes:
“I will concede this just as soon as you can tell me why gay people need to bring something to marriage in order to be allowed to marry.”

I made no such precondition.

AJ Philips writes:
“Yes, and you were unable to justify why equality was not relevant.”

There’s no need to justify what is irrelevant. You made a mistake, that’s all.
I even pointed you to the relevant Govt. department which will confirm same. Are you expecting me to schedule a collect call from Gillian Triggs, or something?

Alternatively, perhaps you could point me to the case law that supports your claim of inequality . . but under Australian law this time, OK.