[ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!)

[spike]

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Picone
...
> 
> Would you marry a man and openly admit homosexuality (assuming you
> don't already profess it) for monetary gains?...

As a society, we appear to be in the process of opening the definition of
marriage.  Currently heterosexuality is not required to enter a marriage,
only that the couple is opposite sex.  Similarly, if the legal system allows
same sex marriage, it would not require the partners to be homosexual.  In
either case, there is no practical way to prove the orientation of the
partners.

Regarding a sham marriage, I know of no rules that require the partners to
engage in any form of sexual contact.  The law does not require the partners
to hold any particular feelings for each other.  So a marriage set up in
order to perpetuate a social security pension appears to me to be within
legal bounds currently.  As a society, we are broadening our definition of
the marriage contract.

The irony of all this is that the relionistas claiming that gay marriage is
a threat to the institution of marriage.  It appears to me that the
institution of social security is actually what threatens traditional
marriage.


>...    Outside of San Francisco, gays tend to
> deal with quite a bit of shit that Io wouldn't be willing to choose
> for a paycheck down the road.


Ja, I do forget that at times, being a San Francisco area resident for most
of my adult life.  Around here one can be perfectly OK with gays, even cheer
them on, yet still be considered politically far to the right.  {8^D

spike