Don’t know how it can be any clearer…

Where did that come from? People aren’t lawyers, is what I’m saying.

depends
a whole lot on the jurisdiction, doesn’t it? In either case, splitting
everything in half is a whole lot better than having everything go to
the name on the contract.

There’s quite a bit of complexity involved in “splitting everything in half”, or any other method of dividing property. I’m convinced that no solution can be both equal and just.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to write up a plain-language contract; complicated legal terminology is mostly a protection against another person acting in bad faith.

depends a whole lot on the jurisdiction, doesn’t it? In either case, splitting everything in half is a whole lot better than having everything go to the name on the contract.

Plus, the system as I have seen it does not provide a good solution for separation. Especially in jurisdictions where all property is declared to be held in common, determining what rightfully belongs to each person can be impossible. I don’t have a solution for that, and neither does the traditional system.

Second best option: Have the government treat every marriage equally, without putting limits on the number, gender, or sex of spouses. As long as there is a privileged class, I want everyone to have equal access to it, especially me and mine.

Yes, there is a little bit of “have my cake and eat it too” in those positions.

We have this institution called marriage, it’s recognized by the state and has been for a very long time…

I saw this as the tradition/status quo/historical argument. You seemed to be saying that there is some immutable aspect involved, that the state is needed to determine the existence and legitimacy of a marriage. I do not concur.

Um.  I’m arguing in favor of expanding access to marriage.  You were saying you wanted to boot the government out of it entirely, which is what I responded to.  I don’t know quite where you got this idea that I like what people euphemistically call “traditional” marriage.  The only point I was making is that arguing that the state shouldn’t have anything to do with the institution of marriage is a pointless intellectual exercise.  It doesn’t get us any closer to equality.

If you want to argue that we should allow any *number* of consenting adults to commit to each other in marriage, that’s fine.  If you want to argue that we should allow any number of consenting adults to commit to each other legally and have that recognized, that’s fine.  I don’t see where you’re going though.  First you want marriage to have nothing to do with the government, then you want your life partner(s) to have tax breaks for being your partner(s)?  I’m very confused.  Do you just want to stop calling it marriage?  Because, again, history does not go away.

If you’re genuinely not a troll, just an unhappy person who wants to reform the whole institution because it’s unfair (I don’t disagree with that in principle), maybe you should take a bit of time and explain how and why your argument makes sense. 

Marriage is an explicit acknowledgement that people are now in the same family. Most people typically name family members in medical powers of attorney and wills, because those are the people they trust and care for.

Medical POAs and wills are used to indicate your instructions if you should be incapacitated or killed.

Why is tradition a reason to continue to tolerate my government dictating who is allowed in my family?

We have this institution called marriage, it’s recognized by the state and has been for a very long time in a number of places and under a number of definitions, and it’s not going to suddenly disappear because you think it would be more rational for people to draw up contracts with each other for exactly what they want.

Besides…  that’s actually what gay people already do, did you know that?  In places where we can’t get married, I mean, and want joint ownership and inheritance and all that.  It’s a pain in the butt, sometimes very expensive, and doesn’t always hold up in court.  So I’m going to go with “not actually a good solution.”