Some interesting question(s)...

[Guamsst]

ROFLMAO.....I just realized that if Texas approved gay marriage, you couldn't keep the same roommate for too long or you would end up with a statutory marriage. How bad would it suck to accidentally be gay married to your roommate. Bet that would be hard to live down.

[Guamsst]

we discussed the legal side of this at work today and I brought up the issue of two brothers marrying and got the expected response about biological reasons for prohibiting incest. I then countered with the fact that there is no chance of birth defects between two men. It was pretty fun to watch the mental trainwreck. A whole slew of what seemed like reasonable points on both sides comes to a crashing halt when you throw that into the mix.

I was also told I could not have a valid point if I only used the most extreme circumstances. I countered that the most extreme is the logical response to the least extreme which is the argument of "Why can't two people be together if they love each other?"

Then the issue of not allowing the "Partner" into hospital rooms was brought up. I pointed out that this is total HORSE$#!@. They expect me to believe hospitals ban gays from visiting each other in the hospital, yet I have repeatedly gained access to patients by saying "I'm a friend of theirs" Maybe in commiefornia they might ban them, I guess we are more tolerant of gays here in Texas...LOL

[Art]

If same sex marriage was made legal, the divorce lawyers would have lots of new clients. community property and all that. You couldn't just tell your "significant other" to move out!

This is one of the reasons this whole thing is largely symbolic. Homosexuals are simply more promiscuous than straight people, it's the culture they live in. The women don't tend to "cat around" as much as the men but even they like their "freedom of association." I remember bringing that up to a lesbian my wife and I know; cute little "soft butch" girl. Like a lot of the gals this woman is a practitioner of "serial monogamy" and in the15-20 years we've known her she's had at least a half dozen live in partners some of whom were total babes. They sort of come and go through her life. She did concede that most homosexuals wouldn't really want to marry because of the hassels when it was time to move on. They just want the affirmation that their lifestyle is cool and feel that a right to marriage, even if unexercised, gives them that credibility. The whole divorce thing would be too much of a headache for the vast majority of them.

[Guamsst]

Yep Art, there are two main reasons for it, one is financial, the other is forcing acceptance.

[togor]

Hey JT, I tried PM'ing you with my email address so I could see pics of the early 03 rebuild (the one I "helped out" on with a front sight sleeve). System says your box is full.

Onto topic at hand, it gets even crazier if you add "gender reassignment" to the mix. For example, I believe in Texas, you cannot get the "M" on your drivers license changed to an "F" (or vice versa) as a result of a simple operation. What they put on your birth certificate is what stays there. In other states, this is not the case.

So in Texas, two "soulmates", one labeled F, the other M, find each other and get engaged. Before the Big Day, one of them goes to Sweden (or wherever) and crosses over to the other side. Now in Texas, if I understand the laws correctly, both could happily walk down the aisle in gowns, or tuxedos, and complete the ceremony without violating the laws of the state. But if by chance they moved to say Wisconsin before the wedding, they could have a civil union but take it no farther.

To me all of this gender-bending is the best evidence yet of a world gone amuck. Yes, in nature there is occasionally some shade of grey between the black and white of physical gender, and humans have probably always had some leanings to the same side, in some percentage, from day 1. But the free-for-all era we're entering will, in my opinion, only serve to undercut what little social cohesion we have left. It used to be that a functioning society was essential to making sure, for example, that people didn't starve to death or weren't butchered like hogs at the hands of a invading army. But in this wondrous era of automation, machines take care of most of the essentials of life, leaving people "freedom" to express themselves in all sorts of ridiculous ways.

[Vern Humphrey]

In those States that recognize same sex marriages:

Do polygamy laws apply?

I actually heard Barney Frank in an interview on this subject (some 20 years back) say no, because polygamy is "Unnatural."

Do same sex marriage consumation preclude annulment?

Is "fisting" or "rimming" consumation?

Do same sex marriages have the same rules regarding incest?***

Just some thoughts going through the old noggin.

***Note... think about it... my brother has MS and no health insurance. Can I marry him and get him covered under my group health insurance? If yes, do I have to have sex with him to "consumate" the marriage? Do I have to divorce my wife before I marry him?

You have an excellent point -- why not marry your brother, sister or mother if they need health coverage.

And if you're a millionaire and your estate is big enough to incur the Death Tax -- marry your grandchildren. Spouses don't have to pay the Death Tax.

Wouldn't you like to hear Obamama and his followers answers?

No.

[Deano41]

Yep Art, there are two main reasons for it, one is financial, the other is forcing acceptance.

You and Art nailed it. It's not about "marriage equality". It's about acceptance of homosexuality as NORMAL behavior.

I'm sorry folks, but homosexuality is NOT normal. If it were, the human race would have been extinct a long time ago.

[Vern Humphrey]

we discussed the legal side of this at work today and I brought up the issue of two brothers marrying and got the expected response about biological reasons for prohibiting incest. I then countered with the fact that there is no chance of birth defects between two men. It was pretty fun to watch the mental trainwreck. A whole slew of what seemed like reasonable points on both sides comes to a crashing halt when you throw that into the mix.

I was also told I could not have a valid point if I only used the most extreme circumstances. I countered that the most extreme is the logical response to the least extreme which is the argument of "Why can't two people be together if they love each other?"

Then the issue of not allowing the "Partner" into hospital rooms was brought up. I pointed out that this is total HORSE$#!@. They expect me to believe hospitals ban gays from visiting each other in the hospital, yet I have repeatedly gained access to patients by saying "I'm a friend of theirs" Maybe in commiefornia they might ban them, I guess we are more tolerant of gays here in Texas...LOL

Show this to your uneducated friends:

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

You have used reductio ad absurdum quite properly -- rejection of the standard rules of marriage produces absurd results, as you demonstrated.

[Dan Shapiro]

You and Art nailed it. It's not about "marriage equality". It's about acceptance of homosexuality as NORMAL behavior.

I'm sorry folks, but homosexuality is NOT normal. If it were, the human race would have been extinct a long time ago.

Exactly!
Years ago, the LGBT crowd just wanted "tolerance". Now they DEMAND acceptance. It started in the late 70's. Some shrink stood up at the American Psychiatric Assoc annual meeting and started the notion that Bi's were "normal".

Procreation is hardwired into our DNA. Just like protecting your body from injury. I'm still waiting for gays to sue Mother Nature. Because in their case, 1+1 is NOT going to equal 3 without outside help.

They yell and scream about "rights". It's all BS. In all the states where marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman, the gays still have recourse to the same benefits through 'civil unions'. As a matter of fact, heterosexuals have the same opportunity if they so choose.

It all comes back to 'you have to accept me'. NO, I don't.

[Deano41]

A number of years ago, the LGBT crowd pushed a couple of students to try and establish a LGBT club on campus at Mission Viejo High School in Calif. They brought in their lawyers and activists to try and force the issue. The district superintenant said sorry, it's not in the school curriculum. The lawyers said you have other clubs, and we want this one. The superintendant said "we teach those subjects, we don't teach sexuality". That was the end of it.