//Why do you define marriage as needing to have those things when many others define it as not needing those things.//

Maybe he doesn't 'define marriage as needing to have those things'. Maybe he just wants them - because they're trendy or traditional or whatever - and is a bit miffed that he's not allowed to have them just because he prefers the romantic company of gentlemen. Because it is almost 2016 and banning people from what they want to do just because they're cock fanciers is so 19th century.

I often fancy a bit of cock myself. Nothing beats a nice roast chook, and I still have lots of awesome duck/turkey jus left over from Christmas. I'd be appalled and outraged if the government redefined Sunday lunch in such a way as to exclude cock. Beef is good and lamb is better, and you can't beat getting some pork on your fork. But cock is cheap, easy and delicious.

But I digress... it isn't my place, anybody else's place to decide what other people want except for the people in question. It is our place to speak or act when people's desires will cause harm, but other than that I firmly believe - and I'm pretty sure J.S. Mill amongst others will back me up on this - that if people's actions don't harm anybody else or infringe on their freedom to do as they please, they shouldn't be curtailed. And if that means they want marriage the way straight people do it, I say good luck to them.

//Is your definition of marriage the only one?//

Excellent question, phanto. What do you think?

“Maybe he just wants them - because they're trendy or traditional or whatever - and is a bit miffed that he's not allowed to have them just because he prefers the romantic company of gentlemen.”

But he wants them from the government and the government shouldn’t give things to people just because they are trendy or traditional. Are we all entitled to have from the government whatever we want for no other reason than trends or tradition?

“Because it is almost 2016 and banning people from what they want to do just because they're cock fanciers is so 19th century.”

You might say the same thing about marriage.

No one is banning them from marriage – just marriage as defined by the government which they do not need and have not given good reason for.

“I often fancy a bit of cock myself.”

Why do you feel the need to tell us this? Are you trying to convince yourself or the rest of us about what you fancy?

“And if that means they want marriage the way straight people do it, I say good luck to them.”

So if you want someone to give you something they should do so providing it does not hurt anyone. Are you saying that do not have to present reasons for wanting it – you simply have to want it. If you want something from the government all you need to say is that it will not harm anyone. That is not a reason why they should give it to you but a statement that in your opinion it will not cause harm.

“//Is your definition of marriage the only one?//

Excellent question, phanto. What do you think?”

What do I think about what?

Dear Eric,

I notice that you have not answered my question:

Assuming that the definition of "marriage" is going to soon be changed - will you or will you not allow those who so wish out of the millions of Australians who are currently "married" according the old and possibly obsolete definition, to opt out and have their marriage de-registered on the grounds that this is not what they originally signed for?

//the government shouldn’t give things to people just because they are trendy or traditional.//

I think you'll find that my statement was 'trendy or traditional or WHATEVER', which pretty much covers all bases. I don't really know or care exactly why gay couples want to married, any more than I do for straight couples. The fact is that some of them do.

//No one is banning them from marriage – just marriage as defined by the government which they do not need and have not given good reason for.//

No one needs marriage and straight people have no better reasons for wanting it than gay people. So by your reasoning, we should just get rid of marriage entirely.

I'm cool with that, but a lot of people won't be. If you're engaged and you've already put down on a deposit on the hall hire for your reception and the government comes along and says they've banned marriage because you don't need it and haven't provided good enough reasons for it, you would be a bit put out. And justifiably so. The fact is that people want to get married, even if they don't need to and can't provide good reason to do so.

People don't need to listen to country and western 'music' either, and there is a no good reason to do so. Sadly, we still allow them to listen to country and western 'music'. We do so because if we ban country and western just because nobody really needs it and we dislike it, what is to stop them banning classical because nobody really needs it either and they dislike it? Society is happiest and healthiest when people are allowed to do what they want to do - within the limits covered in my last post - even if they don't need to do it and don't have clear rational reasons for wanting to do it.
....

continued

If you were to try to run a society on the model you suggested, you'd have to ban all sorts of pointless and unnecessary leisure pursuits - golf, watching TV, discussing stuff on this forum, chess, bird-watching, you name it - they'd all have to go, and nobody would ever have any fun. I don't much like the sound of that.

//Why do you feel the need to tell us this?//

It's called an 'drawing an analogy'. I did it just now with country and western 'music'. I don't know why you're so bothered by the thought of eating cock. They're no good for anything else.

//If you want something from the government all you need to say is that it will not harm anyone.//

No, just claiming it will not cause harm is not sufficient: it needs to actually not cause harm. For instance, claiming that 'crystal energy' can cure cancer has the potential to harm any cancer patients foolish enough to believe it, so it should be banned. Thankfully in the case of marriage the evidence is already in: we know marriage isn't harmful.

Dear Toni,

Nobody, even in our worst nightmares, has ever suggested banning marriage, such that you would be stopped even "If you're engaged and you've already put down on a deposit on the hall hire for your reception".

All that Phanto suggests - with my support, is that government will not be involved in your wedding: you may still dance all night there using any music of your choice and do everything else according to your original plans, the only difference being that you will not need to fill in papers and pay the state for a certificate which means nothing anyway. Obviously you could still obtain similar certificates and even more beautiful ones from other bodies, including churches, non-profit and for-profit organisations that will specialise in those things and may be even cheaper.