Yuyutsu, you and I probably have different opinions in many areas, but I completely agree with you that government should not be regulating private relationships between consenting people.

Regardless on your position on same sex marriage/marriage equality, by removing government intervention in our private lives e all have the freedom to do what we personally believe is right. Homosexual couples can get married without needing governement (or church) approval, while those that disagree are free to not recognise these unions.

The only reason I can see for people to want government intervention is to force those that don't agree with you to recognise your opinion. I wonder why nobody here on OLO (other than you Yuyutsu) will even debate this fact.

I challenge anyone here to make an argument why government should regulate marriage.

So I have a question for the pro gay marriage supporters, if you get your wish and are allowed to marry and, assuming many out there either don't care, or don't acknowledge your marriage as being equal to theirs (a normal marriage between a man and woman) will you accept your status as same sex married, or will you forever fight to have your marriage recognized as equal, because to me, having the right to be married is one thing, but acceptance is a whole new ball game, and one I doubt you will be able to get over.

rehctub, I'm not really sure if I understand your question, but if I assume correctly, then yes, you have the right to personally regard your own marriage as superior to anyone else's. Nobody is going to force you to be tolerant, kind, or even intelligent, so nothing to worry about!

Dear Yuyutsu
Thanks for the clarification, if your argument is against state-sanctioned marriage in general, not gay marriage in particular, I have some sympathy with it.

....I challenge anyone here to make an argument why government should regulate marriage.
Posted by Stezza, Friday.

So that vulnerable girls under the age of consent are not forced into marriage.
So that vulnerable females are not forced into polygamous marriage nor exploited in a polyandrous marriage.

There are also the Social Service aspects; support benefits etc., to consider.

Dear Is Mise,

<<So that vulnerable girls under the age of consent are not forced into marriage.>>

If the girl consents, then nothing legally prevents that even now.
If she doesn't consent, then it's a form of violence, or assault, which is illegal anyway.
And if that forced marriage involves sex, then it is a case of rape, which is also dealt with separately by the law.

<<So that vulnerable females are not forced into polygamous marriage nor exploited in a polyandrous marriage.>>

Even now, nothing legally prevents females (or males) from entering a polygamous or polyandrous marriage (unless they opt to ask the state to sanction that marriage).
Now forced marriage on any type is an assault, or rape if sex is involved, which already carries a heavy jail sentence.

In Australia, any woman who feels exploited in a relationship of any sort, with any number of people, can simply leave. Moreover, if she feels in danger then the state provides here with safe-houses. Whether women that are abused in a relationship are married or not makes no difference.

<<There are also the Social Service aspects; support benefits etc., to consider.>>

Such unjust and irrational humps need to be removed, rather than be further protected and enshrined.