Good question. Anyone who's worried about the health of an institution like marriage (and I'm not yet ready for an institution, thank you) needs to be watched out of the corner of one's eye.
Aye. I married for health insurance. S_C will tell you that I said that. Oh, and I love him, too. He is the best dance partner I've ever had. And I want to see to his happiness (such as he allows) all the days we have together. Not that he makes it easy. But I married for health insurance. Isn't the world peculiar? Sign here. Say these words. You are a spouse. You suddenly look at your SO in a new way. Sort of.
My marriage can only be endangered by an attractive Unix sysadmin. We have a mortgage in common, and care about our hus.
My marriage can only be endangered by an attractive Unix sysadmin. I meet so few female Unix sysadmins that you don't need to worry about any attractive ones. (And attractive male Unix sysadmins are not a danger.)
Well, if you consider that the original speaker was (AFAICT) primarily addressing an audience for whom the Need To 'Defend' Marriage is axiomatic, and who had been using -- or tricked into accepting -- the 'defense of marriage' as a justification for bias against (even oppression of) homosexuals ... well that explains the "why" rather nicely while also confirming that they're talking to folks who need to be watched.
Importantly, it provides all of us a response to those folks that we can use without first having to convince them their axioms are wrong -- whether we share that particular belief of not.
(no subject)
(no subject)
How we hook up pernamently
My marriage can only be endangered by an attractive Unix sysadmin. We have a mortgage in common, and care about our hus.
Re: How we hook up pernamently
I meet so few female Unix sysadmins that you don't need to worry about any attractive ones. (And attractive male Unix sysadmins are not a danger.)
Re: How we hook up pernamently
Unless they turn your head.
(no subject)
Importantly, it provides all of us a response to those folks that we can use without first having to convince them their axioms are wrong -- whether we share that particular belief of not.