Spouting unsubstantiated bollocks? I took the argument set out and I showed what it logically entailed.
What is your argument in favour of gay marriage again? Please show me how I got it wrong?
Name calling and slating the argument as "unsubstantiated" actually does not displace my argument, it just shows you up.
I couldn’t possibly be rational, taking your argument at face value and right about what it logically entails. I must be “trolling” and “misinformed”.
Attack the person and not the argument. Logic 101 FAIL
I've lost count of the ad hominem responses - you lot really like to level insults and engage in psycho-analysis rather than respond don't you?
If your argument is that grown adults should be able to have their relationships recognised then by what non-arbitrary and irrational means do you draw a line between same sex unrelated relationships and whatever sex combo polygamous or incestuous relationships, etc?
All are grown adults, all are in committed relationships, all love each other, all consent, all pay their taxes - it meets all your criteria. How you can you deny it and in the same breath level accusations against me?
I am being consistent, I am taking your argument and applying it consistently. Your argument sucks as it entails everything from incest through to necrophilic marriages but that is because you can't reason - not because of anything I did - I just applied it consistently.
Craig: "please provide a sourced direct link to one marriage equality advocate anywhere advocating any such thing.
Every single one of you who offers the marriage equality argument (and the argument that if two people love each other then…) all advocate for such a thing. It is called the rules of logic – your argument logically entails this.
I want the same choice all of you have to marry someone of the opposite sex, it is not fair that some people have that right but I don't - oh wait, it is equal.
What you want is unequal. You want to cherry-pick among the alternative relationships present in society and saw yours is ok but yours is not.
It would be great if the number of parties in parliament would settle down so that there were only two main ones and two minors. Then the system would not matter.
Not sure that this is red-blooded enough for me.
Marriage equality? What's that? The right of any adult to marry any adult they please? Brothers, sisters, mothers, children, parents, same sex, opposite sex, group sex.
Then there's beings that lack capability for consent or for whom consent can be given by proxy, animals, the dead, minor children as long as their guardian consents for them.
Marriage equality entails too much.
Marriage should either not be recognised by the state at all or it should be between one man and one woman who are not related as this is the relationship with the stats on its side as being good for society.