The New Marriage

_dmp_

Member
Oct 16, 2003
854
7
16
Subject: FW: The New Marriage


A scene at San Francisco City Hall .

"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!!"
 
Originally posted by jon_forward
:laugh: :laugh: this should have been in humor....:clap: but Darrin you do have a point...well taken
It should be in the sick to your stomach forum. It's making me ill- because of the truth of it!
 
Those in favor of gay marriage can deny it until they turn blue, but this is exactly the can of worms that will be opened. Very sad.
 
If you really think that gays being able to marry will cause the breakdown of the family structure, then it isn't a stable insitution.

Something that fragile is doomed. Fortunately, your fears are misplaced. Heterosexual, non-related males and females are not going to stop being attracted to each other, marrying and having children. Anyone who thinks that gay civil unions will destroy his own marriage has far deeper self-identity issues.
 
Originally posted by wonderwench
If you really think that gays being able to marry will cause the breakdown of the family structure, then it isn't a stable insitution.

Something that fragile is doomed. Fortunately, your fears are misplaced. Heterosexual, non-related males and females are not going to stop being attracted to each other, marrying and having children. Anyone who thinks that gay civil unions will destroy his own marriage has far deeper self-identity issues.

I think the point of this thread flew right over your head. It's not going to change the way a heterosexual feels. It very well may change the way father/daughter, brother/sister, brother/brother, polygamists and other people in relationships feel about marriage. They'll sure have a hell of an argument based on equal rights should the queers succeed.
 
The point did not go over my head. I do not believe the sky is falling. Do you really think family structures are so insecure that is gays are able to marry, that you yourself will want to marry your father?

Get a grip.
 
Originally posted by wonderwench
The point did not go over my head. I do not believe the sky is falling. Do you really think family structures are so insecure that is gays are able to marry, that you yourself will want to marry your father?

Get a grip.

Again, over your head!!

I said NOTHING about me. I said those already in those deviant relationships will now have grounds to apply for their own so called 'equal rights'.

Read first.
Then comprehend.
Then reply.
 
Originally posted by wonderwench
The point did not go over my head. I do not believe the sky is falling. Do you really think family structures are so insecure that is gays are able to marry, that you yourself will want to marry your father?

Get a grip.
Regardless of your thoughts on gay marriage, there is no justification for limiting this open marriage scenario just to gays. Sisters, brothers, fathers, sons, daughters, etc. should then be able to marry. Since when is marriage limited to love? Marriages are made for all kinds of reasons.

In fact, I should think the INS rules regarding marriage to non-citizens should be thrown away too. People from another country should be able to pay someone here to marry them so that they can become citizens.

After all, marriage is just about property rights according to the gays.
 
this will impower those sicko's that live way out on the fringe of society..if the gays have the right to be legally recognized as a couple, how in heavens name can the wayout fringe wacko's be denied the same said rights. this isnt a tin-foil moment just an inkling of what may lie ahead. do you see what we are trying to get across to you WW? the proverbial shit hitting the fan....a very big fan..
 
Guess what? The "sickos" are going to do what they want regardless of the law. They do it now.

If you think "non-sickos" are going to run out and become polygamists and uncle fuckers just because gays can form civil unions, then the "non-sickos" weren't very moral to begin with.
 
Originally posted by wonderwench
Guess what? The "sickos" are going to do what they want regardless of the law. They do it now.

If you think "non-sickos" are going to run out and become polygamists and uncle fuckers just because gays can form civil unions, then the "non-sickos" weren't very moral to begin with.

I guess you skipped step #2 - comprehend

NOBODY SAID ONE THING ABOUT ANYONE CONVERTING TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT HEY ARE ALREADY DOING.
 
I have been saying this from the very beginning of our discussions on this topic, ITS ABOUT LIMITS! Society must have limits in order to function and if this is allowed to stand whats to stop any group no matter your cause or your size from claiming equal protection under the law? Hell what are laws anyway if any government official with an axe to grind can break it and then claim that he's protecting his constituents from discrimination?
 
Originally posted by OCA
I have been saying this from the very beginning of our discussions on this topic, ITS ABOUT LIMITS! Society must have limits in order to function and if this is allowed to stand whats to stop any group no matter your cause or your size from claiming equal protection under the law? Hell what are laws anyway if any government official with an axe to grind can break it and then claim that he's protecting his constituents from discrimination?

I've also said this before and quite frankly, I think this is getting old.
Maybe all of us that are smokers should start protesting about the designated smoking areas that hardly exist?
But you know what they say.... opinions are like a--holes, everybody has one and they usually stink!
 
It's also pretty gross when you think about it. They stick their whats where? As Joseph Sobran has said, homosexual sex doesn't give rise to new life, unless you count bacterial life.
 
limits AND controls....simple to say hard to put into practice. the question is once you allow one "group" to use civil unions..whats to stop the others from crying that they are now the ones being discrimanated against.....I say the line should stay where its at...leave well enough alone..pandoras box is very close to being opened..do we really want that..once the genie is out of the bottle she dont go back in...
 
We have a choice as a society: To respect one another's individual autonomy or to try to force other's to do our bidding. The basic rights set forth in the original Bill of Rights are the freedoms to be left alone.

The role of government is to protect each individual's right to live his own life in his own manner as long as he doesn't trespass upon the rights of others. Just because you dislike someone else's private life is not justification to meddle with it. There is no harm to you.

I take just as much offense at the bigotry I read here as you do to the bedroom behavoir of homosexuals. The difference is that I do not expect the government to legislate the way you think. Me being offended does not mean you have harmed me.
 
wonderwench, do you believe in God? I'm of the opinion God has given you over to a reprobate mind...I'm thinking I should as well. That doesn't mean I'll stop loving you, as a person, it'll just mean I'll give up in my attempts to get you to understand 'truth'.

Reprobate...look it up.

:-/

May God have mercy on your soul.
 
The problem is, they AREN'T keeping their lives private. And now they want to force themselves down our throats.

And they do cause harm. I get sick every time I see one or read about one.
 

Forum List

Back
Top