Wanted: partner for a sham, loveless marriage

[Neecy]

Ever since we were told (repeatedly) yesterday that we aren't denied equal protection on the issue of gay marriage because we can legally marry someone of the opposite sex, I thought I'd advertise for a husband here. Hope I get some takers, because apparently I should be satisfied to lead a miserable existence with someone I don't love. I'll probably like you, though.

About me: I can cook, clean your (oop! I mean OUR) house, I'll go to the Opera with you but I won't sleep with you. Not that you'd want to. But we'd be married so we won't be denied ANY equal rights.

Okay, here's my dream hubby: I'll see you in passing while you're dating guys and I'm dating women. This is the 'marriage' that apparently is supposed to make up for the ones we can't have.

Taking applications.

[Democrats_win]

1. Would it still be legal if the opposite-sex person was gay?

The rules do get a little complicated. Next? You can't get married on Sundays. Or, you can only get married on the third Saturday of the fifth month when there's a quarter moon.

When the law is so arbitrary, why should I be expected to obey any of them. (Other than the ones that say do no harm to others, of course.)

[Neecy]

2. good question

We should probably remain mum until the sham marriage is actually performed, because otherwise we might have to take it to a vote.

[SacredCow]

3. I've often said this very thing.....

Can you imagine the uproar if someone started a matching service for gay men and women to create sham marriages just to work the system to their advantage? "zOMG!!!11!!11 Teh hummasexticals are making a mockery of marriage!!111! This HAS to be stopped!!!111!"

But seriously- why not? I can't get married, but I have a great job, with great health insurance that I could provide for a spouse (at very little out of pocket expense). Seems a shame for it to go to waste and all....

[Neecy]

6. yep

When the airline I worked for refused to give pass benefits to same sex partners, many of us considered entering into sham marriages with the gay/lesbian partners of our coworkers just to force them into giving benefits to those dreaded homosexuals. There were too many legal issues involved when it came to marrying total strangers, though, for us to go through with it. But it was tempting.

But now that I've been told that I should be HAPPY to have a sham marriage because it's equal protection and all I'm rethinking this. As long as my sham husband likes my girlfriends.

[SacredCow]

7. It's just a bizzare line of thinking.....

When the actual formula is so simple: You marry the person that you love.

What is so hard about that?

[Occulus]

4. Wasn't that just a terrible display yesterday?

And then, when we complained about it- in this forum- the thread got locked.

Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

[Neecy]

8. I'm still shaking my head

It was like an online heckling. I especially took offense at the idea that we simply want 'acceptance' instead of equal rights.

As soon as I read the hectoring about 'acceptance' I knew this was code for 'gay agenda'. Nice to be subjected to that here.

[pnwmom]

5. You're doing this all wrong, Neecy.

What you should do is pretend to be straight for as long as you can. Put on some lipstick and high heels. Think about getting some implants. Let the guy think you're in love with him until you've gotten the kids that you want. It will be MUCH easier for you to find a spouse this way.

:sarcasm:

But seriously, I would like to ask all these "traditional marriage" cretins -- would you like to marry a person who "used" to be gay but prayed a lot and has now changed? Would you want one of your children to marry such a person? How many people would honestly answer yes to those questions -- very, very few. As long as there is a stigma on people for being gay, there will be gay people who fool themselves and/or fool other people into thinking they're straight -- with consequences that benefit no one, but especially the children of these marriages.

Spoken as one of those children.

[theHandpuppet]

9. What do these folks have in common?

Richard Ramirez
Kenneth Bianchi
Angelo Buono
Erik and Lyle Menedez
"Tex" Watson
Ted Bundy
Susan Atkins

Yes, besides the fact that the names on this belong to vicious killers, they had/have at least one right basic right we don't -- as heterosexuals they were allowed to marry, and did so while incarcerated for their horrific crimes (Lyle Menendez twice, so far). Tex Watson even fathered several children during conjugal visits with his spouse.

Thank goodness the sanctity of marriage has been preserved from the likes of folks like us!

This is just sooooo fucked up.

[Fresh_Start]

10. Thats very interesting

Should be a good LTTE in that.


I would also think that it would add some additional weight to an appeal to the SC when the right is granted to imprisoned murderers and felons but not to law abiding americans. I don't know if its ever been discussed in the context of a case before.

[nichomachus]

11. Sounds like

"About me: I can cook, clean your (oop! I mean OUR) house, I'll go to the Opera with you but I won't sleep with you."

Sounds like half the trophy-wife marriages in my town -- except for the cooking and cleaning part. Promise to get your breasts pumped full of silicone and have a couple of face lifts -- and I can find you a husband toot sweet.

[we can do it]

12. About 20 Years Ago a Friend's Straight Brother and a Straight Woman Married

while in the Army because they were paid more- dissolved marriage right after discharge.