Dear JF Aus,

«I think the state should record prenuptial agreement and make provision for it to modified at any time by the couple»

This service is already provided by lawyers and indeed some people use it.
Perhaps there should be dedicated offices that specialise only in this service and provide it cheaper? why not, but why should it be run particularly by government? Do you expect government to also provide milk for its citizens, for example? Communist states do that, but then they also have rationing and you need to stand in queues and get only that much milk a week.

«I think you should study family court proceedings and custody issues»

I have no objection in principle, but my time is limited and doesn't allow me to study everything under the sun.

«We, humans, are of the same species»

All humans are of the same species, correct, but why do you write "We, humans"? We are not humans, we only identify with a human body for some 100 years or so, during which we fall under the illusion as if we are Arthur or Martha. We are indeed equal, but Arthur and Martha are not. Arthur and Martha might have similar natural instincts to some degree, but this they also share with their dog and nobody suggests that Martha and her dog are equal.

Whatever homosexuals want out of marriage, they can already get married and have it right now. This piece of paper that government provides for a fee, is not marriage anyway, it's a sham.

Toni Lavis:

“And we're back to gnomes.”

Well if they are only gnomes then what are you arguing for. How foolish is that to be arguing when you do not believe in their existence? Or are you trying to convince yourself that they are only gnomes? Maybe they are not.

Do you really believe that in the whole of the country there does not exist two heterosexuals of the same sex who are not eyeing off the advantages that can be gained from government certified marriage? The advantages are there for all regardless of sexuality. All that is needed is a change in legislation and they are just sitting back while homosexuals do all the dirty work in making that happen. Why wouldn’t heterosexuals want the same perks from the government? You would be incredibly naive to think that such people do not exist or else homosexual people are entirely stupid and deluded about the existence of those advantages. Which do you think is true?

minotaur:

“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.”

Is change to the marriage act the only possible way to get such protections and rights? Surely if you have rights to these things you have them on the basis that you have a relationship. None of these things need to be dependent on you having a government issued marriage certificate. In fact it is quite discriminatory to make them so. If you have rights then you should fight for your rights and not get married so that you can obtain what you have a right to regardless. Why would you get married to obtain what you should be entitled to whether or not you are married? It shows a lack of dignity to lower yourself to do what you should not have to do and dignity is much more important than any of those things which you are willing to resign yourself to marriage for.

Phillips:

I don’t need to present examples. I am not making an argument. I am just making a statement. People can take it or leave it. Why are you so worried? If it is not true then no one will relate to it. This is just your defensive paranoia at work again.

You know you are paranoid when you have to drag you wife and kids in as references to your charm.

“I see that you have now resorted to conspiratorial thinking by presuming to know the motives of the marriage equality movement”

I have an opinion about their motives and I cannot see what other motives they might have. Until I see a good reason why they might need to obtain a government marriage licence then I will remain suspicious. They do not need to be married in order to be considered equal but that is not what they feel nor is it what you think or else you would not be supporting them.

There is no evidence whatsoever that they are being discriminated against. They are being excluded which is not the same thing. They want to call it discrimination in order to manipulate others like you into siding with them. You have been sucked in by your own naiveté and you do not have the integrity to admit it. You are not so clever at all or you would not be so blind to the fact that you are being emotionally manipulated.

“they are on the uglier side of the debate which history will show to be the wrong side.”

History isn’t over yet and people might wake up to the fact that they have been conned

phanto,

Arguing, stating, it doesn’t really matter what it was that you were wanting to do. The fact remains that you could not provide an example of any of those accusations, even if you wanted to. Your “statement” was also an accusation, I might add. So, again, providing examples would be the polite thing to do.

Anyway, you keep telling yourself that you could provide examples if you really wanted, if that’s what soothes the cognitive dissonance.

<<You know you are paranoid when you have to drag you wife and kids in as references to your charm.>>

I never mentioned or alluded to charm. I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist applying your amateur psychology there, though. That's why I left it in after umm-ing and ahh-ing over it.

Speaking of paranoia, though, that’s another accusation that you’ve never substantiated. You also don’t seem to know what paranoia is, either. Although psychological diagnoses have never been your forte, have they? Paranoid people are obsessively anxious, suspicious, or mistrustful. Three characteristics that, again, I don’t think you could provide any examples of in my behaviour.

<<I have an opinion about their motives and I cannot see what other motives they might have.>>

Here’s one for you: a desire for better equality. You prefer your theory, however, because that way you don’t have to reconcile the fact that your position promotes ugliness and division, with the good person that you presumably believe you are.

<<Until I see a good reason why they might need to obtain a government marriage licence then I will remain suspicious.>>

Equality. It has numerous benefits, and no drawbacks. It's win-win.

<<There is no evidence whatsoever that they are being discriminated against.>>

See above.

<<They are being excluded which is not the same thing.>>

Exclusion without good reason is unjust, therefore, it is the same thing.

<<History isn’t over yet and people might wake up to the fact that they have been conned>>

Just like that disingenuous Civil Rights movement conned everyone, too, I suppose? After all, those blacks weren’t being discriminated against, they were being excluded.

"Equality. It has numerous benefits,"

Name one benefit of having a government marriage licence.

"See above"

See above.

"Exclusion without good reason is unjust, therefore, it is the same thing."

Inclusion without good reason is unreasonable. Citizens have a right that their government acts with reason.

The Civil Rights movement was a fight in favour of something worth having. A government issued marriage certificate is not worth having.

//A government issued marriage certificate is not worth having.//

Unless, apparently, you're a heterosexual couple. Or the argument would be to repeal the Marriage Act completely, rather than to preserve it in its current form.