Actually, you did, Dustin.

<<I didn’t say it was a problem.>>

If it is a justification which gay people need to provide in order to marry, then it is a problem for them.

<<I merely asked what, if anything, they might bring.>>

Oh, okay then. How about we start with the assumption that they bring nothing to the institution of marriage. Diddly squat. So, what?

<<I’m now more intrigued because you seem reluctant to say and I wonder why that might be.>>

There is no reluctance, I'm simply waiting to see if you can explain why gay people need to add something to the institution of marriage.

<<I made no such precondition.>>

I know you didn’t. However, I’m still willing to concede that my lack of an answer to your question is "telling" if you can explain why there needs to be an answer at all. How’s that for a deal?

<<There’s no need to justify what is irrelevant.>>

There is if your argument rests upon the irrelevance of something.

<<You made a mistake, that’s all.>>

You are yet to demonstrate that I have ever made a mistake in our debates. You couldn’t in the other thread. Let’s see if you can do it now?

<<I even pointed you to the relevant Govt. department which will confirm same.>>

What? That equality in marriage is irrelevant? Think again:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sexual-orientation-sex-gender-identity/projects/marriage-equality

<< . . but under Australian law this time, OK.>>

This time? Name one instance in which I have ever strayed from Australian law. Can’t do it, can you?

Dear Cupric,

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

Homosexual people can have kids.
The only difference is that they do not derive pleasure from the act,
but nothing stops them from pairing up just for the purpose, homosexual men with lesbian women; and doing what it takes as there are several other ways to achieve stimulation.

«Face the facts: ssm is about destroying the church and therefore Western Civilisation»

But we need to differentiate: I was writing about homosexuals, rather than about the ssm movement. Yes, the ssm movement is indeed all about destroying the church (well that's their stupid delusion that they can destroy the church, besides, some churches already marry couples of the same gender), but the vast majority of homosexuals do not participate in that nasty movement: we even have an example in this very forum of a homosexual person who opposes this ssm.

Dear Dustin,

«Good luck getting a birth certificate, then»

If, as Foxy believes, the rule was "no marriage certificate - no marriage",
then this would indeed follow: "no birth certificate - no birth".

So you truly think that people need the state to be born? Never heard about storks?!?

AJ Philips writes:
“This time? Name one instance in which I have ever strayed from Australian law. Can’t do it, can you?”

You’re being tedious and dishonest, AJ.
You know full well that you cited US criminal law with respect to the onus of proof.
I reminded you of this on two occasions.

If you don’t have the intellectual integrity to concede a simple point, it becomes clear that you’re not interested in any form of honest exchange in which I wish to be involved.

It appears I was right about your sincerity and willingness to engage in good faith the first time.
My mistake was allowing you to draw me in once more.

So, cheers and be lucky.

So, in other words, Dustin, you cannot provide an example.

<<You know full well that you cited US criminal law with respect to the onus of proof.>>

No, I linked you to a Wikipedia article on the legal burden of proof to give you an example of what the burden of proof is, because you clearly didn’t know (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243937). That the article was talking about the legal burden of proof in the US was irrelevant.

I also linked you to the philosophical burden of proof, which was more relevant to what we were discussing.

Incidentally, apart from defamation law, the US and Australian legal burdens of proof are virtually identical, since you’re apparently so concerned about which country the article spoke of. We both know you’re not of course. You just thought you’d use that to try to make me look foolish.

<<I reminded you of this on two occasions.>>

Yes, I then explained the above, on two occasions, to which you then dropped your little lie pretty damn quickly. Which I guess makes you the only one here being “tedious” and “dishonest”.

<<If you don’t have the intellectual integrity to concede a simple point ...>>

Don’t I know that! Three times now you have failed to demonstrate that you do not have the integrity to take your accusation back.

<<It appears I was right about your sincerity and willingness to engage in good faith the first time.>>

Apparently not.

So, I take it then that we will all, once again, miss out on hearing why the issue of eligibility is more important than equality? Hardly surprising, given your colossal blunder there regarding the HRC. Whoops.

That had to be embarrassing.

I guess we’re also not going to find out why it needs to be demonstrated that gay people will bring something to marriage?
Pity, I even had something in mind.

It all becomes so clear, now, why you introduced this little lie of yours once again. It was to be a means of slinking off again before you had to justify any of your claims.

Bye bye, Dustin.

AJ Philips,
Allow me summarise:

1. You don’t know (or won’t acknowledge) the meaning of the word ‘equality’ even after you yourself provided the link to the Oxford dictionary definition.

2. You don’t know (or won’t acknowledge) the meaning of the word ‘eligibility’ even though that’s very likely in the same Oxford dictionary.

3. You think 1 and 2 “overlap” and that equality is somehow elastic or could have an alternate definition, none of which are noted in the dictionary.
I concluded your dictionary might only exist in the Matrix.

4. I provided five examples where eligibility impacts equality seen in everyday life, and over which no one bats an eyelid.
In the only example addressed, you asserted “balancing competition” as the reason mixed doubles tennis is reasonable. You know . . completely missing the point on one, while studiously avoiding engaging the others.

5. You think allowing SSM places a burden of proof on the existing law while avoiding making any case for the affirmative, all the while admitting gay folk bring nothing to the institution.
To support this, you cite US criminal law as if US law or any criminal law is relevant to the issue.
As a lawyer, I find this incomprehensible.
If SSM were to be judged under criminal law, you’d be behind bars, valiantly calling out . . “it’s the vibe”.

6. You think I “use[d] that [US legal burden of proof] to try to make me look foolish.”
Why would I do that while you’re doing such an excellent job.

Honestly, it’s like having a conversation with Humpty Dumpty.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

AJ Philips writes:
“Pity, I even had something in mind.”

Too late.
The case is closed. You could always appeal, but given you never made a case in the first place, I don’t like your chances of having it heard.