This is a really stupid thing to say I know but maybe the best you will get is agreement to disagree rather than anything else!
To try to be a bit more constructive for you I could put forward the divergence of views between those of us who want to see change.
As you may know John Mutari was prepared to go to prison because of his belief that fathers should be treated equally to mothers, or parents should be treated equally (some say he's just a support payment defaulter, okay, but when he wrote to me from his jail cell, a month of so into his hunger strike last summer, even my mention of the word "joint" rather than "equal" as a description of what the campaign is about caused him to correct me).
I would be satisfied with a rebuttable legal presumption of contact for fit parents (this may be or amount to what some people think is "joint custody").
I would like to see "busybody" officials kept out of our private lives as far as possible, and I think the presumption I've mentioned would assist curtail their activities somewhat, though they are not going to go away completely I acknowledge that. Children will get to have their say in custody and contact matters in the future as far as I can see.
This link to a Canadian judge's views on the subject (called "Let the Child Speak Out") shows how much attention the subject has given, plus some of the pitfalls:-
http://www.lawrights.asn.au/docs/williams2001.pdf
However, if the prevalence of children putting forward views in line with custodial parents views can be reinforced (as the Canadian judge quoted, was identified as long ago as 1925), then this would be a worthwhile excercise I would have thought and move matters forward.
I hope I've helped you clarify what this is all about for some of us.
All the best, Graham