How is a same-sex marriage consummated?

[johndelacruz]

Really, how? Because we all know (even “they” know) that the sexual organs of same-gendered persons are not sexually compatible. It’s a biological and physical impossibility. Other approximations are engaged in, which only amount to mutual masturbation, perversions of the true marital act.

So how are their so-called marriages consummated, in the legal sense? Consummation is a legal term for the first act of sexual intercourse between a couple after the wedding, which is part of sealing the bond made in the marriage ceremony.

Whatever their shameful acts are, contact between same-gender people is not sexual intercourse, because there is no “inter-course” (“between-the-sexes”). They are the same sex, so it is only sexual “intra-course”, not “inter-course”, there is no possibility of genital intercourse due to their incompatible genital organs. Bringing each other to orgasm in varied other ways is not intercourse or consummation. Non-genital relations even between a man and a woman would not be consummation of their marriage in the legal sense.

And civil marriages between a man and woman can be legally annulled if the marriage was not consummated. So these so-called same-sex marriages are invalid even civilly since they cannot possibly be consummated. I’m surprised this argument was not brought up in the legal proceedings (I’m not aware of it if it was).

I realize the horse is out of the gate on this, but to me this points out the central problem and illogic of considering same-sex “marriage” the same thing as true and natural Marriage.

 

[oliver927]

What makes you think they could not re-define consummation or intercourse if they thought it necessary to their goals, especially now since they just got marriage redefined?

 

[johndelacruz]

What makes you think they could not re-define consummation or intercourse if they thought it necessary to their goals, especially now since they just got marriage redefined?

I realize they could, they certainly do what they want anymore, I was just pointing out how marriage consummation works legally at this time - I know this country, and indeed the world, are not interested in listening to logic, or to biological reality, so I guess it is hopeless to appeal to either of these anymore…

They think they are so wise, but their own behavior manifests total illogic. And they don’t care.

 

[pensmama87]

The simple answer is, they aren’t.

But oliver927 is right. It’ll just be a redefinition of words. I would argue though, that it’s already happened. Since society has already tried to completely separate the idea that sex and babymaking go together, it’s been very easy, unfortunately.

 

[Ender]

What makes you think they could not re-define consummation or intercourse if they thought it necessary to their goals, especially now since they just got marriage redefined?

The issue is moot for civil marriage: there is no such obligation in the first place. For the church, however, this fact alone makes same-sex “marriage” impossible.
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
A Catholic “marriage” of same-sex partners is no more possible than the ordination of women priests. Some things actually cannot be changed simply because some people desire it.

Ender

 

[johndelacruz]

Catholic “marriage” of same-sex partners is no more possible than the ordination of women priests. Some things actually cannot be changed simply because some people desire it.

Good point - or like trying to consecrate potato chips as Eucharist, will not work

Looks like my above argument was actually tried by conservatives in England, to no avail:

theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/10/legal-definition-consummation-gay-marriage

We are living in a worldwide Sodom and Gomorrah, truly

 

[tee_eff_em]

I am not sure civil marriage has any “requirement” to consummate, but anyway:

The simple answer is, they aren’t.

But oliver927 is right. It’ll just be a redefinition of words.

The word has already been re-defined. Sexual assault laws have long referred to “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse” (and for all I know, the word “deviate” has likely been removed from such legal terminology?)

tee
Who Is Not A Lawyer

 

[marymary1975]

Yes many States do have an implicit legal requirement for comsummatiom as of not consumatted the marriage can be declared null (being my State one). But (the catch 22) what happens here is that this issue would have to be brought before the Course by one of the parties in the marriage and no homosexual couple is ever going to bring this issue to the Court for obvious reasons. We have had same sex marriage for about ten years…if I am correct?? And no one has ever brought up this issue to the Court and I am sure no one ever will. Also generally speaking the whole marriage nullity from a legal perspective has been pretty much left like dead law because with no fault divorce it has become pretty much moot.

The only possible area in which I could think this could have some relevance may be immigration but again the problem would be who would have standing. So while is true that there is no consummation and in the books it would be null no one will bring it up.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Do you really want to know?

 

[LittleFlower378]

“How is a same-sex marriage consummated?”

It cannot and can never be because God has made us with different biological organs. This is why same sex attraction is objectively disordered.

 

[johndelacruz]

Do you really want to know?

Awful stuff to imagine I know - but this is how they won, centering it on a “rights” issue on the person level, and not focusing on the nuts and bolts of their perverse acts.

On an aside, I find it ironic how gay men seem so “clean-cut” in appearance, whereas the acts they engage in in private are the most vile and unclean imaginable.

Another aside observation, how lesbians say they are attracted to females, but then end up with unfeminine “manly” women - just a first-hand observation, very odd.

I’m just feeling really discouraged and unmotivated this week - definitely not feeling very patriotic, just in time for July Fourth.

 

[Spudbynight]

Here in the UK, when marriage was redefined to allow people to the same sex to “marry” each other consummation was omitted from the legislation.

The reason for this is because no agreement could be reached on what consummation was between two people of the same sex.

The end result is “equal marriage” isn’t actually equal. Consummation only exists for couples comprising both a man and a woman.

 

[johndelacruz]

The end result is “equal marriage” isn’t actually equal. Consummation only exists for couples comprising both a man and a woman.

Ridiculous and illogical

This opens up so much - it will only take one lawsuit by one polygamist group in America, appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, to expand the definition of marriage to include groups of 3 or more consenting adults. There are no legal grounds to exclude it, following the prevailing “logic”.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

You cannot consummate something that is void in the eyes of Natural Moral Law.

 

[Memaw]

What makes you think they could not re-define consummation or intercourse if they thought it necessary to their goals, especially now since they just got marriage redefined?

The Catholic Church would NEVER do that, and it is the Church that defines what is a valid Sacramental marriage. I doubt the others give a hoot. Prayers for all. God Bless, memaw

 

[Patti_M]

Really, how? Because we all know (even “they” know) that the sexual organs of same-gendered persons are not sexually compatible. It’s a biological and physical impossibility. Other approximations are engaged in, which only amount to mutual masturbation, perversions of the true marital act.

So how are their so-called marriages consummated, in the legal sense? Consummation is a legal term for the first act of sexual intercourse between a couple after the wedding, which is part of sealing the bond made in the marriage ceremony.

Whatever their shameful acts are, contact between same-gender people is not sexual intercourse, because there is no “inter-course” (“between-the-sexes”). They are the same sex, so it is only sexual “intra-course”, not “inter-course”, there is no possibility of genital intercourse due to their incompatible genital organs. Bringing each other to orgasm in varied other ways is not intercourse or consummation. Non-genital relations even between a man and a woman would not be consummation of their marriage in the legal sense.

And civil marriages between a man and woman can be legally annulled if the marriage was not consummated. So these so-called same-sex marriages are invalid even civilly since they cannot possibly be consummated. I’m surprised this argument was not brought up in the legal proceedings (I’m not aware of it if it was).

I realize the horse is out of the gate on this, but to me this points out the central problem and illogic of considering same-sex “marriage” the same thing as true and natural Marriage.

Perhaps this could be a legal loophole for religious purposes?

 

[unstoppable_II]

Ridiculous and illogical

This opens up so much - it will only take one lawsuit by one polygamist group in America, appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, to expand the definition of marriage to include groups of 3 or more consenting adults. There are no legal grounds to exclude it, following the prevailing “logic”.

What about Reynolds v. United States?

 

[pnewton]

What makes you think they could not re-define consummation or intercourse if they thought it necessary to their goals, especially now since they just got marriage redefined?

Good point. The names of the sexual organs could also be re-defined, just picking which ever name you want, and even prepositions could be re-defined to mean the opposite of their current meaning. Call the elbow after the male organ, and the knee the female. Call a touch, penetration, and voila. All you have to do is touch the elbow to the knee. Language is wonderfully flexible when you take the path of SCOTUS and ignore the meaning of words.

 

[marymary1975]

The end result is “equal marriage” isn’t actually equal. Consummation only exists for couples comprising both a man and a woman.

Actually this is the impact that is has in the US on immigration “equal marriage” is “unequal” because immigration wants to make sure that male/female couples have consummated their marriage and they look in a very strict way to circumstantial evidence to make sure is consummated. However this won’t happen with same sex couples. Basically for immigration purposes gay couples would get a free pass while others would still have immigration on their noses.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Actually this is the pact that is has in the US on immigration “equal marriage” is “unequal” because immigration wants to make sure that male/female couples have consummates their marriage and they look in a very strict way to circumstantial evidence to make sure is consummated. However this won’t happen with same sex couples. Basically for immigration purposes gay couples would get a free pass while others would still have immigration on their noses.

So much for “equal” treatment.