You're the only one who seems to think anyone is saying that you're racist; I certainly haven't said that. You have claimed that marriage was historically exclusively between a man and a woman, and, as such, it should always be that way, as tradition must be upheld. By the same logic, black people should not be allowed to marry, since this was 'tradition'. Accordingly, it is perfectly reasonable to ask your views on black people marrying in order to determine whether you apply your views consistently, or selectively. The same goes for the abolition of slavery and the women's suffrage movement - long-standing traditions stipulated that black people could be held as slaves and that women were not permitted to vote. So, is tradition really a good reason to maintain policies? If so, women shouldn't be allowed to vote and we should all have black slaves. A man should also legally be entitled to rape his wife, since this was legal until relatively recently - it is only a new phenomenon that a man can't rape his wife with impunity. You've relaxed your language slightly from your earlier claims that marriage is and has always been universally and exclusively between a man and a woman. Instead, you are now saying that it has been and is mostly between a man and a woman. This has not been disputed - the sources I used were to establish that marriage is not and has not been exclusively a one male and one female affair, which, you seem to have quietly conceded whilst simultaneously claiming to have been correct by making subtle changes to your language, as if that's exactly what you had been saying all along, perhaps assuming that I wouldn't recall exactly what you'd said previously. You "couldn't give two shits what consenting adults do in their private lives", except for when those consenting adults are of the same sex and what they want to do in their private lives is to get married, right? Why you think that you, or anybody else aside from the two lovers, is or should be considered a stakeholder in another couple's marriage remains a mystery. The polls I cited were not 'internet polls'. You've already made it clear that you fail to understand how such polls work, and I'm not even going to try explaining how statistics works. Plenty of questions have been answered by me and by others. You seem to fail to understand most of what others say - that, or you just pretend to in order to avoid responding in any meaningful way. You mean this? All that says (and, you may recall that I had actually linked to a particular section of that same page previously - but what you think the point of linking to the entire multi-page article covering a wide range of issues, without indicating the relevant section, is, I really don't know) is that the debate currently occurring in our parliaments is relatively new. You've already been shown information from experts (and the actual information was nothing to do with ABC Fact Check, since you don't like it - but, it doesn't matter what source anyone cites to refute you, you'll rubbish it because everything with which you disagree is a 'tool of the rabid left' or some such paranoid nonsense - the whole point of this is that they 'check facts' by consulting experts in the field - it's not based on their opinion, but on information from experts, which is why much of it was directly quoted text) making it clear that same-sex couples, along with other sorts of couples not at all fitting the 'one man and one woman' definition have had marriages and similar unions recognised across many cultures throughout history. If that's really all it is, there is no need for you to try to justify it. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions. As I've already made clear, where I have blatantly disagreed with you is on your factual claims that you have made. If you want to keep being confused, thinking that gay people want to marry so that they can then be recognised as a man and a woman, that other people's marriages are anything to do with you, etc, go right ahead. Nobody can force you to be realistic. Lastly, the mention of science was simply in regard to my willingness to cite evidence in refutation of your incorrect factual claims, versus you offering nothing other than further unsubstantiated claims. If you think that I am saying that science actually has anything to do with my opinion, or my ability to form an opinion, on this matter, you are, once again, entirely missing the point.