We humans have been exploiting animals since we stood up and started roaming the earth; most species that we seek to preserve now were bought to this stage by humans exploitation.

We look at the cattle farmers, sheep farmers, poultry farmers and other animal farmers – are they not exploiting animals for profit in the true meaning of the word.

We look at the horse and harness racing, ($7million allocated) zoos (National Zoo and Aquarium in the ACT), the Royal Canberra Show, dog and cat shows, the RSPCA million Paws walk, circuses, animal farms, Tidbinbilla, supermarkets, butcher shops etc are they not exploiting animals for profit in the true meaning of the word.

There is no humane way of killing an animal for one's own gain.

This has come about because of some people in the greyhound industry being found out doing the wrong thing, but do we, as a people, find some bad apples growing on an apple tree condemn the whole tree or do we clear the bad ones and maintain and nurture the tree for future use.

If this government (especially the Greens) and the RSPCA were so serious in their belief in cruelty to animals most animal-based events and industry would cease to exist. For those who live in glass houses, when you sit down to dinner tonight, of either meat, fish, or poultry, think how it got to your plate and that word "exploitation" which certain government and RSPCA members like to throw around, before you cast the first stone.

Errol Good, Macgregor

After reading the front page of The Canberra Times on September 4 ("Families shut out of care") I ask the question why the federal government can spend $122 million on a same-sex marriage postal plebiscite when we struggle to fund desperately needed respite care facilities in Australia. I've voted "yes", but I don't understand why we need to spend this sort of money on same-sex marriage.

I know many people who live in Queanbeyan would prefer the money to go towards a much-needed state of the art respite care facility that caters for all ages and all illnesses.

Paul Walshe, Respite Care Facility for QBN

I can believe that Canberra water use is down 40 per cent on that of the 90s, (page 1-2, September 18). A quick look around the suburbs that still have gardens reveals the dry, unkempt or dying nature of many. Dry weather, water costs and water-use-times restrictions, even in winter, are major reasons, particularly as many of the established gardens are owned by the now-ageing members of our society . A population now dwelling in flats or units without gardens or in now minute house blocks with minimal garden areas has generated a drop in percentage water use figures that also can mislead.

As my old statistics teacher once said , "Figures can be made to say anything".

If The Canberra Times could find room on the weather page to reinstate the rainfall figures for the past day, month and year to date versus those of the previous year I would be most grateful. The coloured rainfall is nice, but I would happily do away with the Australia Today map and use figures for the capitals, using the space for the deleted rainfall figures.

Paul O'Connor, Hawker

It's par for the course. The per capita use of water has remained at about 300 litres/day since the end-of-the-millennium drought (Canberra Times, September 18). That must be good. But Icon Water is proposing to almost double the annual supply charge from $104.21 in 2017-18 to $200 in 2022-23 and reduce the consumption charge for those who use more than 50 kilolitres/quarter from $5.38/quarter to $4.95/quarter in 2022-23 (Canberra Times, August 12). In other words those who use the least water will be punished by larger increases in water bills and those who use the most water will be rewarded.

So much for encouraging the ACT to be a sustainable city. And what if anything is the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, which sets the prices, going to do about it?

David Denham, Griffith

A lifetime ago, I remarked to my husband, "There can't be much wrong with a country where you can do this."

We were sitting on a stair, about half way up one of the stair cases that link the Great Hall in Parliament House with the next level, waiting to hear the kids from our daughters' school sing. I can't remember what the occasion was, but I do remember feeling very proud that, unlike so many other countries, here, in Australia, the seat of government was truly a house of the people. That was "before" of course, before September 11 and subsequent horrors, the world has changed. Instead of a place reflecting our free and open society, Parliament House has become a fortress cowering behind fences to keep people out. Children no longer run and roll down those wonderful sweeping lawns; no lunchtime athletes puff to the top of the slope and the satisfaction of being able to jump on a politician is no more.

Of course there are risks, any day an unhinged individual or group of individuals could, and indeed may, attack Parliament House or any other place in the country. Such attacks are virtually impossible to predict or prevent.

The fence is an abomination, an appropriate symbol for the paranoid, xenophobic attitudes our political leaders embrace. The terrorists have won.

Sallie Ramsay, Torrens

I'm with you Ronald Elliott, of Sandringham in Victoria (letters September 18), yes to a republic and no to that damned wall. I will join you in that million people walk to Parliament House demanding to tear down that wall.

P.S. It's really a fence but the sentiment is the same.

Jan Gulliver, Lyneham

Fair-minded people must be appalled at the latest feral behaviour of the SSM lobby – Catholic uni students being vilified and physically attacked; Israel Folau pilloried in social media; ABC journalist Benjamin Law inciting sexual retribution on opponents; and banners headed "Marriage Equality/Safe Schools – Legalise Now", revealing their agenda to legitimise recruitment in our schools, such as the "Gender Fairy" text for five-year-olds headed: "Only you know whether you are a boy or a girl — no one can tell you" (i.e. parents)." There is a simple answer – vote "no"!

Johann Sheller, Forrest

Regarding Michael Short's piece ("A voluntary non-binding open letter to former prime minister Tony Abbott", canberratimes.com.au), some of your criticisms of Mr Abbott's piece are wrong. In general, you have not accounted for the fact that Mr Abbott was writing an opinion piece: not an academic treatise. Opinion pieces are not a style of writing where full reasoning for each point is expected. Specifically:

■You complain that Mr Abbott doesn't justify why loving the gay community doesn't require support for same-sex marriage. Fair enough. The reason is that heterosexual and homosexual unions are inherently different. Heterosexual unions naturally produce children and have as a primary purpose the raising of children. Homosexual unions do not (they can get and raise children, but it's not an inherent feature). So, different relationships should be treated differently.

■You're correct to point out that same-sex couples do not have the same rights as married couples. Nonetheless, this can be resolved without redefining marriage, and no one would object to it being so resolved.

■"Humanity is the foundation of community," you stated. This, barely two paragraphs after complaining one of Mr Abbott's points was "utterly unreasoned". That's not even Orwellian of you, it's straight-out hypocrisy.

■Despite your unreasoned assertion, part of the same-sex marriage issue is freedom of speech and religion (because the evidence from the rest of the industrialised world suggests these will be imperilled). If same-sex marriage gets passed, not only will people in love get married, some of them will sue people whose speech and action does not sycophantically support them. Regardless, if opponents think it is a issue, why not address it rather than pretend it doesn't exist?

As for your mother's writing, she makes entirely valid and necessary points about how the debate is conducted, and how it is not currently conducted in a Christ-like manner. However, Jesus' example of love was not to give everyone what they wanted, and definitely not to abandon what scripture clearly says. Todo so is, in fact, the opposite of love.

Michael may be interested in some academic sources that cover many of the points he has queried in proper depth.

Christopher Budd, Turner

On the weekend, I read a Facebook post by my youngest son which labelled all supporters of the "no" campaign in the same-sex marriage debate as being devoid of any intelligence and of being heartless. I was obviously disappointed and saddened by my son's lack of tolerance and his unwillingness to ask some simple yet fundamental questions in this debate. I myself sit firmly in the "no" camp and apply the principle that "if you don't know, vote no".

I suggest that if you applied an ounce of intelligence to this debate you would have to concede that we have put the cart before the horse. We are casting a vote on a very important societal institution without knowing or understanding its wider ramifications. Based on what has happened in other countries since navigating this same road, we need to know and understand what lies ahead before we plunge headlong into the abyss and blindly listen to our political mad-hatters.

Sadly, many members of the "yes" campaign seem to be following Dorothy blindly down the rabbit hole without asking themselves what is actually at stake. Freedom of speech, belief and conscience along with radical changes to the education of our children and the removal of parental rights should make every thinking Australian take a serious look before leaping.

As a dad I say to my son, I do have a brain, and a heart and also the courage to speak out. What is at stake is so important that it requires more than blind faith, it requires the willingness and openness to question; it requires the passion to stand for what is best for your family and the generations to come; and it requires courage to speak out regardless of the fury and vitriol that is often reserved for naysayers.

Michael Quilty, Jabiru, NT

The current Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey causes me to reflect on my own experiences.

My wife and I married in a church in 1985. We have two sons, and so far, one grandchild.

When we got married, the person running the gift register did not question if we were planning on having children.

The woman who made our cake did not ask if we were divorcees remarrying.

The chef at our restaurant, a member of our Church, did not ask if we would raise our children in the faith.

The Priest that married us DID ask us those questions. Religious authorities will continue to have the right to ask their adherents these sorts of questions even if the "yes" vote succeeds. Our marriage will go on.

Others will continue to remarry, choose not to have kids and others to raise their children as they choose.

The only differences would be these options would be open to a wider group of people.

Tom Mavec, Karabar

RAZOR WIRE NEEDED

I am concerned, looking at the photos of the Parliament House fence, that it is not high enough to keep our entitlement-obsessed parliamentary representatives in and suggest that razor wire is required on the top. The fact that they voted for this monstrosity in the first place supports my case.

Ric Hingee, Duffy

WEDDING TANGLE

Across the ditch, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is officiating same-sex marriages. Is this the answer to our Bledisloe Cup woes?

Matt Ford, Crookwell NSW

POPULAR EX-PM

D. J. Fraser (Letters, September 18) neglects to add that John Howard was popular enough with the people to be elected prime minister four times. I am sure that many would still remember him fondly.

C. Rule, Gilmore

ACT YOUR AGE

While I feel sorry for the lady who fell at Ginninderra Creek (September 18, p8), what was a 96-year-old thinking of, walking in the bush on her own? Clearly not acting her age.

Anne Bowen, Macquarie

CENTRIST TRUMP

Donald Trump has "agreed in principle to grant long-term legal status to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients" ("This is the week that Trump's 'fake news' attack lost its power", September 18).

Perhaps Trump is moving to the sensible centre after all.

Michael McCarthy, Deakin

NOT JUST ANY TRAIN

Sydney lord mayor Clover Moore and our very own Chief Minister Andrew Barr are apparently in agreement about building a "premium" train service between Sydney and Canberra. Does that effectively mean that the train will be rainbow coloured?

Mario Stivala, Spence

BEGGING TO DIFFER?

Is it possible for gay pride, which celebrates the difference, to co-exist with marriage equality, which pretends there is no difference?

Roger Quarterman, Campbell

BRITAIN LAID BARE

Jake Wilson in his review of Victoria & Abdul (Panorama, September 16) thinks that British cinema "spends so much time dwelling on past glories". However, Victoria & Abdul depicts a society that is class-ridden, racist and bigoted. Nothing glorious about that!

Felicity Chivas, Scullin

LOGIC-FREE ZONE

Those who say "no" to same sex marriage argue that "it will be impossible to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion". I just don't get the logic. Can someone explain?

Anne Willenborg, Royalla