Not at all Psych Joe.
The argument about not allowing same sex marriage is that it denies a section of the community a human right. That exclusion is a decision that someone else has made to deny them the opportunity of entering into a marriage.
The definition of marriage that I offered was simply a minimalist change to the existing definition that removes the words man and woman and replaces with people. The 'exclusion' referred to in the definition is a reference to the type of relationship between the people. It is entered into voluntarily, therefore there is no human rights issue and cannot be equated to slavery. The term 'voluntarily entered into' also carries with it the requirement for the parties to have the capacity to provide that consent. This removes the false argument that it is a slippery slope to anyone marrying anything.
And yes, there are other sections of the Marriage Act and criminal code that prevent certain people from entering into such a relationship. That is not inconsistent with a rights based approach.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 26th Mar 2017 at 22:09.