Dear Yuyutsu,

Please don't read anything more into what I say.

The point that I was making was that
marriage in this country is a
secular contract presided over by Government.

That is a fact, whether we approve of it or not.
All marriages are required to be registered to
be legally recognised - whether they are performed
by celebrants or religious ministers.

I didn’t think you’d be gone very long, Dustin.

<<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.>>

No, I did. You, on the other hand, inserted into the definition your own assertion that equality must be absolute.

<<2. You don’t know (or won’t acknowledge) the meaning of the word ‘eligibility’ …>>

No, I do. For your convenience:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eligibility

<<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.>>

Indeed equality and eligibility can overlap. You demonstrate this further down. You were the only one who strayed from the definition of ‘equality’.

<<4. I provided five examples where eligibility impacts equality seen in everyday life …>>

So, you do agree that the two can overlap now?

All five of your examples had rational reasons as to why eligibility impacted equality. You are yet to provide a reason as to why same-sex couples should not be eligible to marry.

<<5. You think allowing SSM places a burden of proof on the existing law while avoiding making any case for the affirmative …>>

Yes, it does. In civilised societies, rights are granted until it can be shown why they should be taken away, not the other way around.

<<… all the while admitting gay folk bring nothing to the institution.>>

Firstly, you are yet to explain why they should. Secondly, I admitted nothing of the sort. I was agreeing with you for the sake of argument, yet you still cannot explain why gay people should not be allowed to marry.

<<To support this, you cite US criminal law as if US law or any criminal law is relevant to the issue.>>

No, I cited a Wiki article on the legal burden of proof. That it spoke of US law was irrelevant. We're a little slow to learn, aren't we Dustin?

<<As a lawyer, I find this incomprehensible.>>

You’re a lawyer now, are you? I doubt that.

Try again, Dustin.

Dear Foxy,

«The point that I was making was that marriage in this country is a secular contract presided over by Government.»

Marriage is marriage: it occurs in heaven, or in heart-space if you like, irrespective where on physical earth the couple happens to stand.

And by the way, marriages occurred in this country for millennia before it had any government.

«All marriages are required to be registered to be legally recognised»

Big deal, so what if they are not legally recognised; and who needs such recognition anyway? Marriages that are not registered are still marriages!

Conversely also, it is extremely common for false-marriages to be legally recognised, when no marriage has actually taken place.

AJ Philips,

No.
The words describe different and discreet concepts.

Equality speaks to the sameness of things. It provides precision.The meaning is indeed absolute.
If it were not absolute, we could substitute the word ‘similar’.
You might have an equal number of apples and oranges. The fruit are different.

Eligibility speaks of the capacity to moderate, discriminate or qualify.
You might want to make an apple pie and that would see the oranges ineligible; but not if you were making a fruit salad.

Legally, it’s for those reasons that all people are deemed equal because they’re not restricted from marriage per se.
The qualifier is their eligibility which restricts marriage to those of opposite sex.

The concepts of equality and eligibility, while different, work on concert.
Perhaps that’s what you meant by “overlap”?

Alternatively, I guess, your argument might be that an apple pie is the same thing as a fruit salad . . because . . Humpty Dumpty.

Here’s the really amusing thing, though.
If the ’no’ vote gets up, you won’t know why you lost.
If the ‘yes’ vote gets up, you won’t know why you won.

Yuyutsu,

Homosexual people can't have kids: you simply have to accept you're wrong!

Dear CE,

Tell that to the children of Dr K. Phelps and
many others.