GAYS Getting Married in San Fran.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I received a joke in my email today and thought I would share it with all of you. The problem is, I don't think it is too far from the truth...see what you think.

Imagine a scene like this at City Hall in San Francisco

"Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've

been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can

get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just

because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,Jane

loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can

express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The

more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the

constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a

marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to

marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

:D :D :D :D

[GUNWOUNDS]

Oh i heard they will stop issuing marriage liscenses now....

[danielsh]

If this queen may borrow a line from that of England, we are not amused. How often do a man and a woman get married just for the tax benefits? I've never heard of it happening, especially considering how difficult divorce can be. But of course, as soon as we let homosexuals get married, things will change, right? Because when we get equal rights, the sacred institution of marriage is destroyed and made a mockery of. (Not so with heterosexual marriage, right? That Vegas wedding that Brittany Spears had was plenty sacred.)

Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with polygamy. Don't polygamists deserve equal protection under the law as well---especially if it's a religious issue?

[Acriku]

Well, with the history in America concerning women being trapped and brainwashed into cult-like polygamy, it wouldn't stand much of a chance being legalized. I'd be interested in the psychological impact of polygamy on the women, and children.

[thomas]

polygamy is a dicey issue, The religions that support it are either really fucked up (LDS) or very sexist (radical islam)

[Andrew]

Polygamy may be a dicy issue in NA and Most of Europe, but most societies prefer it. :P

If only I was wealthy I could afford many wives. The more wives I get the more farmwork they could do for me. ;) (Like most societies that support themselves by growing crops and where woman do most of the farmwork)

But really, I think I would prefer Serial polygamy, but definitly not Polyandry. Group marriage sounds a bit too crazy for me. :-[ Levirate and sororate are a bit too sick for me to think of also.

They should probably just call it a union between gays and not marriage, unless your religion supports it. (Basicly so gays can get the marriage benefits like straight people)

If your religion doesnt support gay marriage, then why would you want to get married under that religion??

[danielsh]

But giving homosexuals equal rights in all but name establishes an unconstitutional "separate but equal" status for gays. The Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Education that no matter how equal two separate institutions are, if one is for the majority and another for a minority, that is inherently unequal and inherently unjust. If we gave African-Americans their right to vote, but called it "Black Voting" and established a separate series of polling places, that would be unjust---no matter whether their votes counted equally.

Maybe I'm just a radical, but I think that it's better to fight for full acceptance now than to await the possibility of it later.

[GUNWOUNDS]

But giving homosexuals equal rights in all but name establishes an unconstitutional "separate but equal" status for gays. The Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Education that no matter how equal two separate institutions are, if one is for the majority and another for a minority, that is inherently unequal and inherently unjust. If we gave African-Americans their right to vote, but called it "Black Voting" and established a separate series of polling places, that would be unjust---no matter whether their votes counted equally.

Maybe I'm just a radical, but I think that it's better to fight for full acceptance now than to await the possibility of it later.

the only reaosn this is a political issue is because of the government benefits... why do we even get those in the first place?

To help them build families i suppose? I dunno... i would guess so .. since you get even more benefits for each additional child you have.

Gay couples could adopt perhaps... but many people see gays as sexual deviants... so why are they allowed to adopt in the first place?

Oh i digress...

[danielsh]

People get government benefits so that they can visit their partners in hospitals, obtain their partners' death certificates, file joint tax returns, receive their partners' social security, and so on. It's nothing to thumb your nose at. Gay couples are allowed to adopt, despite the perception of homosexuality as "sinful" or "wrong" or "a disease," because two men or two women can do just as good a job raising a child as a man and a woman.

[emprworm]

People get government benefits so that they can visit their partners in hospitals, obtain their partners' death certificates, file joint tax returns, receive their partners' social security, and so on. It's nothing to thumb your nose at. Gay couples are allowed to adopt, despite the perception of homosexuality as "sinful" or "wrong" or "a disease," because two men or two women can do just as good a job raising a child as a man and a woman.

what about 4 men, 3 women?  why are you so biased against polygamy?  I hear you talk about gay rights...gay rights....gay rights...what about polygamist rights?  Cmon Dan.  The bias is getting quite obvious.  Try to be a human rights activist...fight for others not like you...not just pursue your own personal acceptance.

[danielsh]

Unfortunately, this debate is developing a nasty tendency to span two threads:

Would you like to hear my endorsement of polygamy? Here it is: I endorse polygamy. I endorse consensual anything, as long as it poses no harm to anyone but the consenters. I do not "abandon polygamists"---if a polygamist were to bring his case to the courts, I would shout for his rights as loudly as I am shouting for my own.

Then again, I did allude to my stance on the issue in this thread too:

Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with polygamy. Don't polygamists deserve equal protection under the law as well---especially if it's a religious issue?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Would you like to hear my endorsement of polygamy? Here it is: I endorse polygamy. I endorse consensual anything, as long as it poses no harm to anyone but the consenters. I do not "abandon polygamists"---if a polygamist were to bring his case to the courts, I would shout for his rights as loudly as I am shouting for my own.

Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with polygamy. Don't polygamists deserve equal protection under the law as well---especially if it's a religious issue?

i dunno if the worm is gonna be satisfied with that either :P :P... he wanted you to endorse pedophilia and incest too... :P

i dont think he is gonna let you off the proverbial hook on this one .

[Anathema]

what about 4 men, 3 women?

[Inoculator9]

Polygamy is outlawed for legitimate reasons. I can't think of any serious reason why gay couples should not be permitted to marry. The whole 'the institution of marriage would fall apart' argument is nonsense.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Polygamy is outlawed for legitimate reasons.

what are those?

[Andrew]

There are 20 000 - 60 000 people in the Rocky Mountain states that live in households made up of a man with two or more wives. Law enforcement officials do nothing about it.

Sororal polygamy may decrease bickering between wives, although in western cultures that somehwat goes against the incest taboo.

Although you should be wealthy to afford many wives. :-X

Doesnt the church from upon serial monogamy?

Even though 1/2 of all first time marriages end in divorce in the U.S. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

There are 20 000 - 60 000 people in the Rocky Mountain states that live in households made up of a man with two or more wives. Law enforcement officials do nothing about it.

Sororal polygamy may decrease bickering between wives, although in western cultures that somehwat goes against the incest taboo.

Although you should be wealthy to afford many wives. :-X

Doesnt the church from upon serial monogamy?

Even though 1/2 of all first time marriages end in divorce in the U.S. :)

I heard divorce has alot to do with the extended lifespans of humans.....

before people only lived for 40 years.. so if you got married at 15 that would be only 25 years of marriage...

however... now people can live to be 120 ... and if they marry at 18 .. thats 102 years of marriage..

[Andrew]

Average lifespan = 80 years. not 102.

Probability that both people live to be 80 not as high as making it to 80.

Unless your saying that people can only put up with spouses for 25 years, then must get another, therefor divorce rate is high.

Is it considered divorce when your spouse dies and you remarry? (pertaining to the legal part not social)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Average lifespan = 80 years. not 102.

Probability that both people live to be 80 not as high as making it to 80.

Unless your saying that people can only put up with spouses for 25 years, then must get another, therefor divorce rate is high.

Is it considered divorce when your spouse dies and you remarry? (pertaining to the legal part not social)

i was just using the most extreme example.... if you marry at 18 and then both live to be 120 .. thats 102 years of marriage...maybe some people cant handle the thought...

[SurlyPIG]

Is it considered divorce when your spouse dies and you remarry? (pertaining to the legal part not social)

No.  "'till death do us part" - death ends the marraige legally.

Frankly, it's a wonder why the state endorses unions of any kind.  The argument for same-sex marriage is simply to strive for social consistency.  If you're going to endorse unions of two people, it's damned backward if you only allow certain genders/races of people the status of the union.  Whether or not gay unions are called marraige is immaterial to me, as I think it's more important simply to have the same financial/legal options available to them, though I can understand why they pursue the word marraige.