Phillips:

The government gives certain advantages to couples. It gives the same advantages to homosexual couples as it gives to heterosexual couples. It gives the same advantages to married couples as it gives to non-married couples. The defining factor is that the couple be deemed as a couple by the government.

There is no need to have a distinction between couples. The government does not need to know which couples are married and which are not. All couples should be treated equally. To give some rights and privileges to one group over another is discrimination. To give more to married people than to non-married couples is to discriminate on the basis of a marriage certificate.

Whether people are couples as defined by the government’s own criteria or whether they possess a government issued marriage certificate should not make any difference to the privileges which they obtain. They are all human beings with the same rights in relation to the government. Where differences exist then they should be addressed but this would only actually benefit non-married couples.

The fact that married couples have some advantages such as a piece of paper which says that the government thinks you are married is not a reason to get married. If there are inequities that can be shown to be important then they should be addressed but I cannot see how they would benefit anyone other than the non-married.

You do not solve the problems of inequity by forcing people to marry so you must find another way to make things equal. The only people who stand to benefit are the unmarried but they should not have to marry to get what is rightfully theirs.

The argument for same-sex marriage is a fallacy since everything that same-sex couples want can be obtained in more reasonable ways. The only thing that cannot be obtained is the piece of paper which is in itself worthless given that you can have everything you want without it.

Dear Phanto,

«The government gives certain advantages to couples.»

Then perhaps we should go one step further back and ask why government should give advantages to certain people just because they happen to have a personal relationship between them.

Perhaps we should go even one step further than that and ask why government should give certain advantages to certain people to begin with!

Yuyutsu:

I think it is reasonable for governments to do what they do in most cases. They have responsibilities to look after people when they cannot look after themselves. They also have a responsibility to make sure that social services are distributed equitably from the public purse.

They should only be involved as little as absolutely necessary but they cannot avoid those responsibilities.

I think they are reasonable in this regard. We pay taxes to provide services and help to other citizens because we all care about each other and we trust government to distribute those services according to need. I am quite happy with such an arrangement of society.

Dear Phanto,

No doubt that people ought to be looked after when they cannot look after themselves.

The question is just who should do this.

I believe that this and other benevolent functions should be handled by a benign and voluntary body rather than by a violent and compulsory one such as government.

It is inevitable that some violent body has to exist in order to preserve the peace and defend people against the violence of others, but it is not inevitable, nor makes sense, to assign benevolent actions to that very same body, which should remain slim and stick to its specific duty of protection.