Sorry. Forgot to fix the links;

http://www.25logicalreasonstovoteno.com

http://www.australiansforchange.com/prediction-map/

Joe:

The issue of inter-racial marriage is only introduced as a slur directed at people who oppose SSM.

If there are genuine arguments for SSM then they should be presented but saying it is 'like' something else always has an ulterior motive. Philips has an ulterior motive to try and hurt those who oppose SSM because he is bitter and resentful about his Christian background and he equates opposition to SSM with Christianity.

Of course he will deny that but he lies about many things so that is not unusual.

Hi Phanto,

Yeah, I would have thought that the essence of BOTH legal marriage and inter-'racial' marriage is that the parties are NOT the same, male/female, Black/white. So the analogy with male/male or female/female breaks down immediately.

In SA, from the earliest days, if a white man married an Aboriginal woman, SHE was offered a lease of land, in her name, to be surrendered if she died. Out of the hundred or so leases to Aborigines in the late nineteenth century, perhaps half a dozen were to Aboriginal women. In one case, her Aboriginal husband had held the lease which was transferred to her when he died: because she had a large number of kids, she was provided with rations until the boys could grow up and take over the lease, eventually about twenty years later.

Probably quite irrelevant :) But inter-marriage between Black and white British subjects (and from 1949, citizens) has never been illegal. I really can't see how, as AJ insists, there is some analogy between that and homosexual marriage.

Cheers,

Joe

' Of course he will deny that but he lies about many things so that is not unusual.'

Yeah AJ is consistant with the bigots and thugs on the YES side of the debate.

Name-calling does not give anyone credibility.
No one likes or supports illogical, abusive
debaters.

Joe,

How is the biological sex of the parties fatal to the analogy? How does that negate all the parallels that I mentioned? If this is indeed the case, then you should be able to explain what it is about the genders of the parties makes the analogy fail. The mere fact that they are different is not a reason in itself. Analogies do not have to be perfect, there need only be a shared and relevant factor.

Why are same-sex couples not deserving of equal treatment?

<<I really can't see how, as AJ insists, there is some analogy between that and homosexual marriage.>>

I have already explained it in quite some detail now, and you have said nothing to counter any of it. You are just digging your heels in now.

Speaking of equality and parallels, though, equality is another parallel that I should have noted when listing the parallels. That equality is whatever we want it to be is a premise you had inserted into my claim. I had said nothing to suggest that this is what I thought. There is no reason why same-sex couples should not be deserving of equal treatment.