Psych joe, it looks like you have googled logical fallacies. Unfortunately, your statements calling out those fallacies have generally been incorrect, and you are not immune from using a few yourself.
For example:
I've made the point about a CEO trying to force an elected government to abandon a vote that was promised to the people.
This is an example of what is known as ‘loaded language’. The CEO is not ‘forcing’ anything. He is adding to the political debate, just as you are here. As I have stated previously, this is a right that is provided by the Australian Constitution. A plebiscite is not the same as a ‘vote’, as it is non-binding. Election ‘promise’? Binding or non-binding? Yes, I agree they did take that policy to the election, however, like all policies, they have to be able to get the legislation through the Parliament.
It is difficult to take your argument about wanting a democratic process seriously when you have stated that if the Marriage Act is changed to allow same sex marriage, you would not accept anything other than your view of marriage as a real marriage. Your argument here is a classic example of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
If you honestly believe that changing the meaning of marriage is the same thing as freeing African slaves, then there is no rational discussion to be had with you
While the magnitude of the issue is different, the species is not. Both issues are about the denial of human rights. Discussion on this subject has taken place previously in this thread. However, I note response to that discussion was
, so I felt you may well have missed the point entirely.
You can't use "inequality" to change the definition of every word that you don't like
As has been clearly stated previously, the definition of marriage is stated in the Act. If the Act is changed to include same sex couples, then marriage it will be.
On the question of Howard changing the Marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society.
In Australia, the separation of powers has the legislature make legislation and the judiciary interpret. So, as I stated in previous posts, the definition of marriage prior to the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act was a common law definition. That is, it was determined by the courts. Since society was changing, and so was the definition, Howard inserted the definition into the Act to stop the socially accepted definition becoming fact.
Apart from angry rhetoric and use of the word "inequality", the revisionist case has not provided a clear and reasonable definition of marriage beyond saying that if two people want to call their relationship by that name, they should be able to by choice.
So this is a new requirement (changing the goalposts fallacy)? I would expect that if Parliament decided to change the definition, the words would be discussed and decided as you described in post #403. If you are asking for a suggestion, I would propose changing the definition from:
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life
To something like:
Marriage means the union two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.