Yuyutsu:

“the law will treat them all equally as far as their relationships go and this will be a good thing”

This not what homosexuals mean by equality. They do not want marriage equality – they want equality of sexuality. The government acknowledges heterosexual marriage but in doing so it is not acknowledging the validity of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality does not need validation.

Homosexuals do not want marriage as much as they want to have their sexuality validated by the government. If the government agrees to SSM, however, it in no way validates homosexuality any more than the present Act validates heterosexuality. They have tried to make out that the refusal to agree to homosexual marriage is a refusal to validate their sexuality but marriage never has and never will validate it. It should be valid in its own right. You should not have to be married to validate your sexuality and most people feel validated in their sexuality whether they are married or not.

The problem is not one of equality but why some homosexuals feel the need to be married to validate their homosexuality. They give all sorts of reasons for wanting to marry but none of them stack up because as you say these relationships do not need to be acknowledged by the government. There are no good reasons why anyone would want a government issued marriage licence.

They can try and manipulate others into feeling sorry for them and cry ‘discrimination’ but anyone with critical faculties should be wary of this hidden agenda. No such wariness is required in the case of heterosexual marriage because heterosexuals do not have to try and justify their own sexuality with government approval.

If the government opted out of all involvement of marriages then homosexuals would be very upset because they could no longer point to government approval of their marriage as validation of their sexuality. Even where they can legally marry they continue to strive for more and more validity from the state. They will never be satisfied.

Dear JF Aus,

I was not suggesting to only "repeal present Marriage Act law", but rather to repeal forever any similar laws that attempt to define personal relationships.

At present, no law deals with whatever agreements and/or vows are made between two people on the basis that they are deemed to be legally married. In fact, the state doesn't even know or record such agreements and vows (if any) that are made upon marriage and I'm not suggesting that it should.

All that the state does anyway, is to accept your payment, make a few checks, then hand you a meaningless piece of paper that reads "Marriage Certificate" (then you make another payment and receive another paper that reads "Divorce Certificate"). This stupid practice should stop (and doing so will automatically also produce marriage-equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples).

If married people wish to modify their agreements, then they can already do so now, with or without, before or after any marriage/matrimony laws.

I'm afraid that I am not at all familiar with family-court proceedings and custody issues, so I cannot really comment on them, but to the best of my knowledge, it makes no difference whether the parents are legally married or otherwise.

«I think all we humans are equal in a humanitarian sense. Do you think otherwise, Yuyutsu?»

Again I'm afraid that I do not understand the question. Please explain:
1) why the word "we"? If you think that all humans are equal, then please explain why, but then surely this would be regarding humans, not regarding us. Yes, it is agreed that WE are equal, but not so the humans that we identity with, which come in all shapes and sizes, etc.
2) what you mean by "humanitarian sense".

Dear Phanto,

Yes, it should never be the role of government to acknowledge anybody's sexuality. The only valid role of government is defence (external against enemies and internal against criminals).

While homosexuality is not perverse, wanting to be validated by a government is, so I disagree with any such notion as if homosexuals are perverts - this whole trouble is rather the making of certain political activists who are predominantly not even homosexual in their personal life. Their aim is not to validate either themselves or others, which is only a pretext: their only aim is to destroy religion.

Oh dear Bagsy, yearning for a bygone era that wasn’t half as nice or utopian as you make it out to be is pointless. You also need to do some research into the evolution of marriage as you clearly don’t know it. Your long and winding soliloquy also failed to address what consequences there may be once same-sex marriage is legally ratified.

What you, and almost every other opponent of same-sex marriage, completely ignore is that it is not illegal for same-sex couples to enter into relationships and they do so daily. They are also able to have marriage ceremonies and no one gets arrested. It is not illegal. Therefore same-sex marriage does not need to be ‘legalized’. What is being sought is having the very same rights and protections that state recognized heterosexual married couples have given to same-sex married couples via minor legislative amendment.

So, tell me again exactly what adverse consequences will come from giving legislative recognition to relationships that in many instances are already in existence. If in doubt consult Phanto as he’s got a crystal ball that is able to predict everything, heck it even reads the thoughts of each and every gay person. He’s gonna make a fortune!

Hi Yuyutsu,

I think the state should record prenuptial agreement and make provision for it to modified at any time by the couple. That would help courts determine custody and divorce settlement, saving time money and hardship.

I think you should study family court proceedings and custody issues, especially custody issues that deprive the male of fair time with their child/children.

We, humans, are of the same species, generally we have same or similar natural instinct and compassionate feelings.
Agreed in all different shapes and sizes.
What some individuals might identify with is their view.

Not knowing about being arthur or martha may involve confusion including about what some homosexuals may actually want out of marriage.

So I take it then, phanto, that you have no examples of my alleged side-stepping, subject changing, or language manipulating? That’s alright. I didn’t think you would have. Which is why you didn’t provide examples in the first place.

It’s always easier to personally attack another - with a hit-and-run spray over several discussion threads, full of slanderous claims - than to admit that your arguments have problems and that your way of thinking is flawed. I’m always fascinated to see the different ways in which people resist admitting they were wrong and transfer blame to the one whose words caused the feelings of anxiety and conflict.

I see that you have now resorted to conspiratorial thinking by presuming to know the motives of the marriage equality movement, just as you attempted to portray me as some insincere and sinister character who is somehow pathetic enough to spend 10 whole years of his life trolling forums to make himself feel better, when his wife and children are more than enough of an ego boost.

You’re right about one thing though, phanto. I am obsessed. I’m obsessed with arguing for more equality, and I can’t imagine why anyone who was happy with their life would want to devote so much time and energy arguing for something as negative and ugly as discrimination and inequality, or dreaming up insincere motives on their opponents’ behalves to avoid having to face the fact that they are on the uglier side of the debate which history will show to be the wrong side.