Wherein Quartz has a bit of an epiphany on same-sex marriage.

Bullshit. It is unacceptable, because it means that same-sex marriages are second-class. Why do you hold on so fiercely to that word? Do you realize that the state gives marriage licenses, not the church? You and your church, if you belong to one, can freely decide not to recognize same-sex marriages. Those who want to get married don’t have such freedom.

This is the most laughable line of bullshit I’ve seen here in a long time. Your “solution” sounds exactly like “seperate but equal”. I don’t know where you stand on that issue, but if you believe that black kids can go to underfunded schools seperate from the white kids and still be equal, the Supreme Court respectfully disagrees.

It’s hilarious, too, that The Gays are now a conspiracy trying to use marriage to “get something else”, but you can’t quite figure out what it is. Maybe that’s becuase there is no “something else”, and there can be no “something else”. What possible devious advantage could people marrying others of the same sex gain through doing so? Use your wildest fancy to come up with some way that gay marriage can be parlayed into destructive power. I’d love to hear it.

Either you’re being unintentionally wooshed or you’re incredibly stubborn. Whether they use the word “inferior” or the phrase “imaginary purple elephant” doesn’t matter; the point is that the argument that people of the same sex can’t marry and take all of the benefits, including social status, tax benefits, legal rights, and the name of marriage–that argument is inherently based on the belief that one group’s relationship is inferior to another. There’s no other way to spin it. Either gay relationships are inferior and shouldn’t hold legal water, or they’re the same and should.

:smack: Now I remember why I stay away from these SSM threads. Thanks for the reminder, boys.

But it was good of you to confirm that the “rights” that married couples enjoy is NOT the issue. If not being sure about something can be considered a strain of ignorance, consider it fought and slayed.

Can we get back to my OP rather than the hijack, please?

I think you’re getting your answer.

I’ve never once heard that the opposition to SSM is based on tax allowances. As is amply demonstrated here, it’s based on the belief that same-sex relationships are inherently inferior to to ones of opposite-sex.

What you’re missing is right there in the bolded portion–if you “retain advantages” for straight couples, you have not been “fair” to gay ones. “Promoting family values” is just a euphemism for bogotry (not calling you one; just how it’s being used by politicians).

Now I agree that marriage should be removed from government sanction. It would be completely fair if the only thing the government did was issue civil unions to partners of any sex. If some of them want to be “married” by a church, fine, but it doesn’t get them any special privileges. Of course, there will be plenty of churches that will offer marriage cermonies to gay couples, too.

So, you’re saying that you agree with Magiver that SSM is some sort of gay plot?

Of course it’s about rights. It’s also about being equal and full members of society. I can’t believe there’s anobody who still thinks separate is equal.

Look, if, as Magiver suggests, we grant all rights, privileges, tax breaks, etc. to gay couples that we do to straight couples, what possible reason could there be for not calling that “marriage”? None. To retain that word exclusively for straights has no other purpose than to remind gay people that they are second-class citizens.

Look at it this way. A civil union with all the rights of marriage but not called marriage has been offered by some people (including you). It’s implied in your post (and by others) that “gay not-called-marriage-union” and “marriage” aren’t different at all, if the same rights are given to both. And yet, as you’d expect with two exactly the same unions, the terms aren’t interchangeable; which suggests to me that there is something about the word “marriage” that you and other people don’t want gay people to have. Seems like it’s a lever arm to…well, you get the idea.

You mean, if we allow same-sex marriage, then that opens the door to marriages based not on love, but on financial considerations or even simple convenience?

Let me break it to you - those have been around for a long time already.

Someone’s read Ex Machina.

Actually, I haven’t (I had to look it up). Is that a good or a bad thing?

Based on this quote, it seems that your ignorance is steadily increasing. On the off-hand chance that you do come back, why don’t you tell us what SSM is “really” about, if it’s not about equal rights, as everyone in this thread has maintained.

Sorry, it’s just that what you posted was, almost word-for-word, what the Mayor says when he’s trying to legalise same-sex marriage in the first book. I guess the writer must have stolen it from somewhere. My bad.

Did you read the example I gave that a couple without children would have the same benefits no matter the sex of the partners? Benefits only kick in once children are involved, which happens more often in hetero households than homo ones. I would suggest that this is promoting family values without being bigotted.

I guess I still can not figure out what the hell they are trying to protect my marriage from. Britney Spears has done more damage to marriage than any gay couple I can think of, and Jeb Bush has eclipsed her with the whole Terry Shaivo thing.

I believe marriage is about protecting families. Whether society recognies them or not, gay people create families. When I go to the hospital, my husband can visit me. What does it do for anyone’s marriage for a hospital to refuse admitance to a gay man’s partner of 20 years, and alow that man’s parents (who threw him out when he was 16) to make medical decisions for him?

With my ex’s consent, my husband was allowed to adopt my daughter. If anything were to happen to me, my husband would automatically be my daughter’s guardian. When a lesbian couple we knew found out one of them had lupis they had to go through all sorts of contortions to make sure that the other partner would wind up with the children. The ill one was the biological mother, and her parents were devote Born-Again Christians. They wound up having the bio mom give up custody and let the non bio mom adopt them. Even still when the bio mom died a couple months ago the parents instituted a custody battle that they could still win. This was a couple that had a 20 year relationship, and the kids were all born into that household. How does ripping them away from the only family they have ever known protect anyone’s marriage?

If I die before my husband, even if I don’t leave a will, society will recognise that he and I built our assets together, and he will get to keep them. I remember when one of my friends died of AIDs, his parents sued his partner of 12 years for the house they bought together. The house was virtually the only asset that was left after the illness and the man was left destitute facing his own fight with the disease. He died 5 months later. The parents hadn’t talked to their son in years.

I am afraid I do not understand the other side on this discussion, and I haven’t seen any arguments that make any sense. It is about fairness and protecting families, that exist, whether some people want them to, or not.

No, that’s cool! I’m just not terribly well versed with graphic novels. I think they had the same idea expressed on the *West Wing * last year, too, so it’s not too uncommon an idea.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I did not intend to imply that you were bigoted. Merely that “promoting family values” is largely an empty phrase.

I still don’t see how your solution affects SSM, unless you’re advocating (as it seems you are) that governments only recognize partnerships (of any variety), in which case taxation and inheritance are of secondary importance.

Again, I’ve never heard anyone be for or against SSM because of tax issues. They are important, but only as one part of a whole host of legal issues and rights that are denied same-sex couples. I think the problem with your solution is that it builds a huge, unnecessary system of laws to affect change that could be accomplished just by saying marriage applies to gay people, too.

But it isn’t: this method encourages stabler families by giving families financial incentives to stay together and reproduce - meaning more taxpayers for the government.

I’m not suggesting that it’s not pro or con because of tax issues, it’s that the iniquity and inequity can be resolved through tax. It’s a subtle but important distinction.

What huge system of laws? Remember that we’re building on the currently existing concept of business partnerships.

This system answers the conundrum, “What if two straight people of the same sex want to get married.” This takes marriage per se away from the State; the State only recognises partnerships.

How is that a conundrum? Is it any more of a conundrum then, “What if two gay people of different genders want to get married?” That’s happened quite often under our current marriage laws, and the Republic has survived. Two straight guys getting married isn’t a flaw in the idea of SSM. It’s a red herring thrown out by anti-SSMers who are desperate for an argument. It’s a total non-issue, a red herring meant to distract people from the real issues, and something that’s never, ever going to be any sort of a real problem, no matter how we change up the marriage laws in this country.

And, once again, the way to get people to accept gay marriage is to make it absolutely clear that giving gays the right to marry will take absolutely nothing away from straights who are already married. Schemes that rest on the idea of removing government recognition from marriage are completely counter-productive to the goal of realizing equal rights for homosexuals. All that’s going to do is turn people against us.

Actually, I agree. That’s just my standard, “fine then, nobody gets to play with the ball” reply.

I’m not sure why you say that. I have a slight preference for the state’s getting out of the marriage business entirely, for an unrelated reason (my love life is none of the state’s business, IMO), but would be almost as happy with SSM’s legalization, and would be much less happy with a two-tiered system of any sort. I’ve therefore advocated the nobody-gets-a-state-marriage idea on messageboards, and I’ve seen far more conservatives amenable to that idea than I’ve seen amenable to the idea of everybody-gets-a-state-marriage idea. I believe the idea might be workable.

Even if it’s not workable, I think it’s a useful thought experiment. It removes the primary reasons by which folks overtly oppose SSM, confronting them with a world in which there’s real equality. In doing so, it might serve to get them accustomed to the idea of real equality in relationships.

I don’t see any way in which it’s counterproductive.


The chief argument I hear against SSM is that it will destroy, or fundamentally alter to the point of unrecognizability, the institution of marriage. I don’t think you can effectively rebut that argument by proposing to alter the institution of marriage to the point of unrecognizability. The vast majority of opposition to SSM is based on a simple fear of change. If we want to change people’s minds about it, we’ve got to make that change as minor as possible.

And, frankly, I don’t personally care for the idea of getting the government out of the marriage business. When I get married, I want the state to recognize it. I don’t want it stripped of centuries of meaning and significance by debasing it to something akin to a simple business agreement. To me, it’s akin to “saving the village by destroying it.” I think marriage has value, apart from its religious significance, and as an atheist, removing it entirely to the religious sphere would render it as inaccesible to me as… well, as it currently is because I’m dating a guy. I don’t want a civil union, I want a marriage, and I don’t expect most heterosexuals would feel that much differently than me. Besides which, if all anyone can get from the state is a civil union, I’m pretty sure we’ll hear exactly the same arguments about why only straights should be allowed have civil unions.

Also, getting a lot of conservatives to agree with your formulation is nice, but conservatives are hardly the only people opposed to SSM. Liberals aren’t too keen on it either, in the States.

Perhaps, but I’d rather focus on actual, real-world strategies.

I disagree. The primary opposition to SSM is fear of gays and an evolving society. It is, at it’s base, irrational, and altering the nature of marriage (beyond allowing same-sex pairings, obviously) is not going to address that fear: the same objections will merely migrate to the new formulation. The best way to get past that fear is to assure people that it is baseless, that the proposed change will not upset their world.