How do supporters of so-called same-sex "marriage" believe this union can be consummated?

[BellsMom]

I don’t care if two people can consummate a marriage, gay or straight. The marriage itself, the commitment to be a family isn’t dependent on someone being able to insert a male sex organ into a female sex organ.

 

[interestedman]

I don’t care if two people can consummate a marriage, gay or straight. The marriage itself, the commitment to be a family isn’t dependent on someone being able to insert a male sex organ into a female sex organ.

I have to agree.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I don’t care if two people can consummate a marriage, gay or straight. The marriage itself, the commitment to be a family isn’t dependent on someone being able to insert a male sex organ into a female sex organ.

Whether you care or not is not relevant, but rather what it takes to consummate a marriage is.

Youve pretty much conceded your point and are just saying “…and so?”

 

[RiverTam51]

Or ask the maid service in hotels when they have to change the brown sheets.

Normal anal sex does not involve feces. But it’s good to know that you take your thread seriously.

 

[CopticChristian]

Normal anal sex does not involve feces. But it’s good to know that you take your thread seriously.

River,

This is thought provoking. If an act is “normal” then when is it “abnormal”. Consumation of a marriage involves a normal act. I cannot imagine it ever being abnormal. To imply something that is “normal” as an adjective infers that there is somewhere described “abnormal”.

Normal Eating
Abnormal Eating

Normal Sleeping
Abnormal Sleeping

I am sure that many would be interested in when is something normal and when is something abnormal and who decides. There are 1445 viewing this thread that may want to know the answer as well.

In my opinion males involved in acts as you describe is never normal.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t care if two people can consummate a marriage, gay or straight. The marriage itself, the commitment to be a family isn’t dependent on someone being able to insert a male sex organ into a female sex organ.

Bells,

You certainly have a point of view. You don’t care. The tragedy is that marriage is governed by laws. Those laws are family laws.

lawteacher.net/family-law-resources/Non-Consummation-Marriage.php

Consummation of the marriage, according to Dr Lushington in D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039, requires “ordinary and complete” rather than “partial and imperfect” sexual intercourse, including erection and penetration but not necessarily leading to orgasm. It certainly need not result in conception, and the fact that the husband may be sterile or the woman barren is legally irrelevant.

Non-consumation of a marriage may render the marriage invalid. The Ninth Circuit court in Hawaii defined marriage in their ruling…

scribd.com/doc/102440860/…vs-Abercromnie

1. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the definition ofmarriage as “a consensual, contractual personal relationshipbetween a man and a woman. . . . is not peculiar; indeed it is traditional.

” Smelt, 447 F.3d at 680 & n.18 (citing 2 SamuelJohnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (London, W. Strahanet. al. 1755) (Marriage is: “The act of uniting a man and womanfor life.” To marry is: “To join a man and woman.”);

NoahWebster, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language 185(1806) (Marriage is: “the act of joining man and woman.”);

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1384 (3d ed. 1986)(Marriage is: “the state of being united to a person of theopposite sex as husband or wife.”);

Black’s Law Dictionary 972(6th ed. 1990) (Marriage is: “Legal union of one man and onewoman as husband and wife.”);

The Compact Oxford EnglishDictionary 1039 (2d ed. 1994) (Marriage is: “The condition ofbeing a husband or wife. . . .”)).

It stands to reason that if someone cannot consumate a marriage then that marriage may legally be rendered annuled.

It stands to reason that marriage as defined traditionally excludes homosexuals that any notion that these unions are marriages are invalid de facto.

It stands to reason that if you don’t care, I don’t care either because the Law cares and all I can do is say…wow…the law says that if you are not male and female then you don’t meet the standard definition of marriage historically. Courts look at this and I don’t care and then I can say…wow…they care.

Now if the Courts care and Family Law decides these issues then if marriage historically and traditionally is as defined and if Courts care and Family Law decides when and if a marriage is consumated that renders any hope of sames sex marriage from ever being reality because not only do they have to rewrite the definition of marriage and extract that definition from historical definitions, then the same-sex crowd is going to have to re-write Family Law as it concerns consumation of a marriage to be considered valid or annuled to include the de facto reality that same-sex couples never meet that standard.

I care about them changing the law to meet their selfish needs.

 

[RiverTam51]

River,

This is thought provoking. If an act is “normal” then when is it “abnormal”. Consumation of a marriage involves a normal act. I cannot imagine it ever being abnormal. To imply something that is “normal” as an adjective infers that there is somewhere described “abnormal”.

Normal Eating
Abnormal Eating

Normal Sleeping
Abnormal Sleeping

I am sure that many would be interested in when is something normal and when is something abnormal and who decides. There are 1445 viewing this thread that may want to know the answer as well.

In my opinion males involved in acts as you describe is never normal.

I do not want to be drawn into an argument on what “should” be considered normal. Those get too messy.
“Normal” here means the most common form. In the vast majority of anal sex, feces is not involved. Ergo, without feces is normal for anal sex, with feces is abnormal.

 

[fix]

I do not want to be drawn into an argument on what “should” be considered normal.

Sure, because then you have to defend what is evil.

 

[Cat]

In this day and age, I think that the concept of “consummation” is considered old-fashioned, archaic, and appropriate only for the older women’s gothic romance novels.

Also, it is considered “religious,” and therefore applicable only to those who practice the religions that teach the concept of “consummation.”

The doctrine of marriage as a “sacrament” and the supernatural, spiritual concept of “consummation” is not taught by anyone except Christians, and among Christians, only Catholics and some of the other older Protestant denominations teach sacramental marriage (and sadly, it is many of the older Protestant denominations who are fighting in FAVOR of legalizing gay marriage).

The evangelical Protestants, who are often most willing to join with Catholics in various political battles, do not teach “sacraments.” Their arguments against gay marriage are quite weak, because they are based entirely on seven passages in the Bible. The homosexual community convincingly argues that evangelical Protestant interpretations of these seven passages are “misinterpretations” of the Bible. And since evangelical Protestants do not have a “pope” to declare which interpretations are correct or incorrect, they are left to make this decision about the seven passages individually, and many of them choose in favor of the homosexual agenda, often because they have someone that they love who is homosexual and they can’t bear to make a judgement against this loved one.

It’s no wonder that the concept of “consummation” is not understood. I would go so far as to say that many Catholic Christians don’t have a clear understanding of what exactly “consummation” is. It IS more than just a penis fitting into a vagina.

We Christians have lost this battle against gay marriage, unless there is religious revival in this country that restores the moral compass and breaks the power that sin currently wields.

It breaks my heart to say it, but we’ve lost. I cling to the hope that the Holy Spirit will bring about revival, but in my heart of hearts, I have little hope, and I believe that my husband and I will spend our old age in a country in which sin is legal, rampant, and celebrated. It’s possible that people like us will be “punished” in some way for our failure to accept and celebrate the legalized sin.

The arguments against gay marriage from “history” and world tradition will not matter two pennies in a U.S. court of law. There are many “traditions” that have been overturned by our courts; e.g., the “tradition” of racial segregation, which is probably almost as old and world-wide (and still practiced in many countries) as the tradition of same-sex marriage.

The fact is this–the ONLY, the SOLE, argument against gay marriage is that it is sin. And since so many people do not believe in God, the Church, the Bible, or any kind of “sin,” this argument will be laughed out of court and out of society, and those of us who advocate this argument will be scorned and eventually criminalized.

It’s the old “frog in the boiling kettle” story. We Christians have missed many countless opportunities over the last few decades. In the name of tolerance and friendship, we have allowed homosexual sin to become “normalized” and “celebrated” in our society, and now it’s too late. And the centuries-old split between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox has rendered us weak and utterly ineffectual in rising to the challenge and battling the evil that has gradually infiltrated our culture. When we should have been mounting the war against sin with one united might front, instead, we have wasted energy and time fighting among ourselves. In our Christians churches and communities, we have argued more about music than we do about homosexuality.

All we can do now is attempt to be true to the Lord in our individual souls, and pray for revival and unification of the Christians.

God help us all. God have mercy on us all.

 

[CopticChristian]

I do not want to be drawn into an argument on what “should” be considered normal. Those get too messy.
“Normal” here means the most common form. In the vast majority of anal sex, feces is not involved. Ergo, without feces is normal for anal sex, with feces is abnormal.

River,

This is a degenerate discussion. Normal vs Abnormal. Common vs Uncommon. Perverted vs Unperverted.

This is clearly a problem with control and the what would be called anal retentive, believing you have control over the funciton of a natural body part. The digestive system is and always has been a system of intake and waste. What you suggest is more of your twisted paradigm. Intake is always intake whether or not there is food in the proximate end or not. The excretroy function does not change with or without waste. With or without does not change the reality that the system terminally is a system of waste. It would be abnormal, uncommon, perverted to use the system of waste in any other way thant it is supposed to function whether by evolution or design. Animals cannot reflect on the purpose of the parts that they have. Humans can.

 

[CopticChristian]

In this day and age, I think that the concept of “consummation” is considered old-fashioned, archaic, and appropriate only for the older women’s gothic romance novels.

Also, it is considered “religious,” and therefore applicable only to those who practice the religions that teach the concept of “consummation.”

The doctrine of marriage as a “sacrament” and the supernatural, spiritual concept of “consummation” is not taught by anyone except Christians, and among Christians, only Catholics and some of the other older Protestant denominations teach sacramental marriage (and sadly, it is many of the older Protestant denominations who are fighting in FAVOR of legalizing gay marriage).

The evangelical Protestants, who are often most willing to join with Catholics in various political battles, do not teach “sacraments.” Their arguments against gay marriage are quite weak, because they are based entirely on seven passages in the Bible. The homosexual community convincingly argues that evangelical Protestant interpretations of these seven passages are “misinterpretations” of the Bible. And since evangelical Protestants do not have a “pope” to declare which interpretations are correct or incorrect, they are left to make this decision about the seven passages individually, and many of them choose in favor of the homosexual agenda, often because they have someone that they love who is homosexual and they can’t bear to make a judgement against this loved one.

It’s no wonder that the concept of “consummation” is not understood. I would go so far as to say that many Catholic Christians don’t have a clear understanding of what exactly “consummation” is. It IS more than just a penis fitting into a vagina.

We Christians have lost this battle against gay marriage, unless there is religious revival in this country that restores the moral compass and breaks the power that sin currently wields.

It breaks my heart to say it, but we’ve lost. I cling to the hope that the Holy Spirit will bring about revival, but in my heart of hearts, I have little hope, and I believe that my husband and I will spend our old age in a country in which sin is legal, rampant, and celebrated. It’s possible that people like us will be “punished” in some way for our failure to accept and celebrate the legalized sin.

The arguments against gay marriage from “history” and world tradition will not matter two pennies in a U.S. court of law. There are many “traditions” that have been overturned by our courts; e.g., the “tradition” of racial segregation, which is probably almost as old and world-wide (and still practiced in many countries) as the tradition of same-sex marriage.

The fact is this–the ONLY, the SOLE, argument against gay marriage is that it is sin. And since so many people do not believe in God, the Church, the Bible, or any kind of “sin,” this argument will be laughed out of court and out of society, and those of us who advocate this argument will be scorned and eventually criminalized.

It’s the old “frog in the boiling kettle” story. We Christians have missed many countless opportunities over the last few decades. In the name of tolerance and friendship, we have allowed homosexual sin to become “normalized” and “celebrated” in our society, and now it’s too late. And the centuries-old split between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox has rendered us weak and utterly ineffectual in rising to the challenge and battling the evil that has gradually infiltrated our culture. When we should have been mounting the war against sin with one united might front, instead, we have wasted energy and time fighting among ourselves. In our Christians churches and communities, we have argued more about music than we do about homosexuality.

All we can do now is attempt to be true to the Lord in our individual souls, and pray for revival and unification of the Christians.

God help us all. God have mercy on us all.

Cat,

I dsagree that there is parallel with segregation and homosexuality as it regards same sex marriage. This in your wriiting adds fodder falsely to the notion that race discrimination is equivalent to what homosexuals call gender discrimination as if being homosexual and the alternate lifestyle is an entity that deserves special consideration. I believe that this is wrong. I cannot agree with this and I don’t believe the courts agree with this. My recollection in reading the Hawaii decision, that point is made. I believe you may want to rethink this parallel.

 

[fix]

The arguments against gay marriage from “history” and world tradition will not matter two pennies in a U.S. court of law. There are many “traditions” that have been overturned by our courts; e.g., the “tradition” of racial segregation, which is probably almost as old and world-wide (and still practiced in many countries) as the tradition of same-sex marriage.

The fact is this–the ONLY, the SOLE, argument against gay marriage is that it is sin.

Sorry, but that is acccurate. There are plenty of arguments against the nonsense called “gay marriage”. The problem is not the arguments though.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I think, in order to overturn gay marriage, we must also overturn similar social and moral ills which have already been legislated into normality in this godforsaken country.

Chief one being contraception. I remember Patrick Coffin saying using contraception is effectively “gay-ifying” the conjugal act.

'Cos basically gay sex is a combination of two problems: contraception and fornication. And both of those have been statistically proven to do damage to the society - contraception causing lower birth rates and a weakening economy (no people, no economy, after all), and fornication undermining the structure and dependability of the family, the unit of society in which children are raised to become productive members of society.

Tackle fornication and contraception, and you’ve got sodomy kicked.

 

[JimG]

I think, in order to overturn gay marriage, we must also overturn similar social and moral ills which have already been legislated into normality in this godforsaken country.

Chief one being contraception. I remember Patrick Coffin saying using contraception is effectively “gay-ifying” the conjugal act.

'Cos basically gay sex is a combination of two problems: contraception and fornication. And both of those have been statistically proven to do damage to the society - contraception causing lower birth rates and a weakening economy (no people, no economy, after all), and fornication undermining the structure and dependability of the family, the unit of society in which children are raised to become productive members of society.

Tackle fornication and contraception, and you’ve got sodomy kicked.

I agree that widespread acceptance of contraception led directly to acceptance of gay marriage. Once the procreative aspect of marriage is removed, all else follows.

And it is not even that procreation is a requirement; only that the marital act does not exclude its possibility.

And I have to disagree with Cat that “the SOLE, argument against gay marriage is that it is sin.” Marriage between men and women has been recognized by human societies long before Christianity, before Judaism, before a distinct concept of sin. Cultures instinctively recognized that the conjugal aspect of marriage was necessary for the continuance of civilization. Other types of sexual liaisons might have been tolerated, but not recognized as marriage.

When family structure reaches a tipping point–when it becomes so disordered as to no longer form a foundation for society, the society itself becomes unstable, reaching a tipping point as well. That doesn’t happen often in the history of civilizations. According to Carl Zimmerman’s book "Family and Civilization, it has only happened twice before and is in the process of happening again. (But he was writing in the 1940’s–family structure has undergone further devolution since then.)

 

[Cat]

I agree that widespread acceptance of contraception led directly to acceptance of gay marriage. Once the procreative aspect of marriage is removed, all else follows.

And it is not even that procreation is a requirement; only that the marital act does not exclude its possibility.

And I have to disagree with Cat that “the SOLE, argument against gay marriage is that it is sin.” Marriage between men and women has been recognized by human societies long before Christianity, before Judaism, before a distinct concept of sin. Cultures instinctively recognized that the conjugal aspect of marriage was necessary for the continuance of civilization. Other types of sexual liaisons might have been tolerated, but not recognized as marriage.

When family structure reaches a tipping point–when it becomes so disordered as to no longer form a foundation for society, the society itself becomes unstable, reaching a tipping point as well. That doesn’t happen often in the history of civilizations. According to Carl Zimmerman’s book "Family and Civilization, it has only happened twice before and is in the process of happening again. (But he was writing in the 1940’s–family structure has undergone further devolution since then.)

Do you honestly think anyone in the U.S. cares about history?

First, they will say that your version of history is “white, Eurocentric, male-dominated, and Christian,” and therefore, not complete or accurate.

Second, they will say that just because something has always been doesn’t mean that it’s meant to be.

Third, our technology allows for conception outside of the womb, so even though it was necessary throughout history, in this modern age, a union between a male and a female is no longer necessary for the continuation of the race.

Fourth, the “family” has been re-defined as “a group of people who care for each other.” They don’t have to be related in any way. If you try to deny this new definition, you are asked to prove it, and if you try to cite historical precedent, you are told that “as more facts have come to light, things are different now than they were in the past.”

Fifth, people in the U.S. do not comprehend the concept of “learning from history.” In many settings in the U.S., bringing up historical facts is no longer acceptable as a means of defending a position.

Basically, history won’t cut it. I wish it would.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I do not want to be drawn into an argument on what “should” be considered normal. Those get too messy.
“Normal” here means the most common form. In the vast majority of anal sex, feces is not involved. Ergo, without feces is normal for anal sex, with feces is abnormal.

Wait,but then who decides that anal sex with feces is abnormal? You are being a bigot here, if I were a coprophiliac. Id say my way is just as normal as yours and everyone elses. Why are you filled with so much hate? Its not hurting anyone! And so on…

 

[CopticChristian]

Wait,but then who decides that anal sex with feces is abnormal? You are being a bigot here, if I were a coprophiliac. Id say my way is just as normal as yours and everyone elses. Why are you filled with so much hate? Its not hurting anyone! And so on…

Crimson,

Let’s take this argument to the penultimate insanity. Is it with or without bacteria?

The reality is that whether there is solid or not there is always bacteria and that then leads to the unhealthy aspect of the behavior. You cannot sterilze the colon…I doubt that homosexuals resort to a complete bowel prep and even if they did at least one study shows that the bacterial count remains the same.

**Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010 Apr;25(4):439-42. Epub 2009 Dec 9.

Mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the intramucosal bacterial colony count.
Jung B, Matthiessen P, Smedh K, Nilsson E, Ransjö U, Påhlman L.

SourceDepartment of Surgery and Perioperative Sciences, University of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden. barbel.jung@hsf.gotland.se**

RESULTS: MBP did not influence the median colony count of E. coli, Bacteroides or total bacteria in our study.

CONCLUSIONS: MBP did not affect the intramucosal bacterial count in this study. Further studies are suggested to confirm these findings.

 

[JimG]

Do you honestly think anyone in the U.S. cares about history?

First, they will say that your version of history is “white, Eurocentric, male-dominated, and Christian,” and therefore, not complete or accurate.

Second, they will say that just because something has always been doesn’t mean that it’s meant to be.

Third, our technology allows for conception outside of the womb, so even though it was necessary throughout history, in this modern age, a union between a male and a female is no longer necessary for the continuation of the race.

Fourth, the “family” has been re-defined as “a group of people who care for each other.” They don’t have to be related in any way. If you try to deny this new definition, you are asked to prove it, and if you try to cite historical precedent, you are told that “as more facts have come to light, things are different now than they were in the past.”

Fifth, people in the U.S. do not comprehend the concept of “learning from history.” In many settings in the U.S., bringing up historical facts is no longer acceptable as a means of defending a position.

Basically, history won’t cut it. I wish it would.

Well yes, they will say all those things. Any culture has the option of ignoring reality, and our culture has been doing this for some time now.

But in the end, history always wins out. We can read disinterestedly about history’s losers. Whether our civilization joins them is a matter of indifference to history, but it should not be a matter of indiffenrence to us.

 

[RiverTam51]

Wait,but then who decides that anal sex with feces is abnormal? You are being a bigot here, if I were a coprophiliac. Id say my way is just as normal as yours and everyone elses. Why are you filled with so much hate? Its not hurting anyone! And so on…

Normal here is an imprecise statistical word, referring to what is done often. In this case, it means what the majority does. The majority of those having anal sex do nothing involving feces, so doing things with feces is abnormal in this context.
-I would explain this to our hypothetical coprophiliac, and add that I have nothing against any sexual act, so long as it is done privately by consenting adults.

 

[CopticChristian]

Normal here is an imprecise statistical word, referring to what is done often. In this case, it means what the majority does. The majority of those having anal sex do nothing involving feces, so doing things with feces is abnormal in this context.
-I would explain this to our hypothetical coprophiliac, and add that I have nothing against any sexual act, so long as it is done privately by consenting adults.

In the beginning was the thought and that thought was of man…

The words were given on legal tablets of yellow saying…

1. Thou shalt sodomize in private
2. Thou shalt not judge actions with feces
3. Thou shalt not judge thy sodomite
4. Thou shalt accept all that sodomize

And then the legal tablet was lost until the man had to get another

The words were then written

Sodomize as you would be sodomized

And the sodomites could not reproduce and left the earth, vacant, with only a record on a legal tablet.