How would a so-called same-sex 'marriage' be consummated?

[marymary1975]

If the state eliminates the requirement for consummation, this also has an impact on heterosexuals who marry since it makes it harder for them to get an annulment if they foolishly rushed into marriage. They won’t be able to get a state-granted annulment anymore based on the fact that they never consummated. But, if the state keeps the requirement for heterosexuals to consummate but only takes away the requirement for homosexuals (since it is always impossible in their case) then this would be an admission by the government that there is a difference.

Just to clarify, states don’t have a requirement of consumation prior to marriage (like age, blood relation, etc.) But divorce laws state that impotency and lack of consumation will render a marriage null ( though I have to say I have knowledge of only one case like this. These cases are very uncommon). To my knowledge no jurisdiction in the US has eliminated this so far. MA which is where I live and where gay marriage is legal does have laws that state that the incapacity to consumate marriage is grounds for annulment. Yea, this only applies to heterosexual couples and the SJC has never touched this issue…or any other court in MA. The problem is these cases are so rare that this issue doesn’t make any noise and that other matters like abortion have already paved to road to have completely contradictory positions in one jurisdiction as ok. But I agree this is a difference that perfectly reflect how is not the same but I hardly doubt this argument would ever be brought to a court

 

[Sparkythedog]

Weird. My sex life doesn’t look like that at all. :ehh:

Congratz, you’re not a wildebeest. Anything else, or are you just agreeing with me that sex is not solely about having children?

There is a world of difference between a child simply coming into the world in less than ideal circumstances, and deliberately manufacturing less than ideal circumstances and declaring it “just as good.” It’s not.

How is having two moms or two dads less than ideal?

 

[pensmama87]

This was a reply to Corki, not you, but I’ll address you here as well. If you do not want your civil marriage license, you are free to break it and still be sacramentally married in the church. Corki explained that this was a serious matter in the church but I think if you explained your reasons it could be worked out.

So I say again, if benefits are not important (as has been stated over and over in this forum) get a civil divorce and prove it. Otherwise, stop standing in the way of others who want the same. Gay family adoption is legal in this country. Let them have the same benefits that you have.

More are trying to get married, it’s just not legal for them yet in some states.

So, when something is legal (gay adoption), it’s good and right and I should have to put up with it…and also, when something is not legal (recognition of same-sex couples as being the same as married), it’s a moral travesty and I should have to put up with it changing?

The legality of something does not determine whether or not it is good. I prefer that the legal system reflect what is good and discourage what is not, though some things aren’t really worth spending tax money on (so from a legal standpoint, I don’t care who you sleep with, just don’t tell me to call it something it isn’t.)

I am not going to put my soul in jeopardy to prove something to you. I think there’s good reason for governments to provide those benefits to couples, as married couples provide a stabilizing effect on societies. I see no evidence that providing these perks to same-sex couples does any good for the government. Why should they be extended?

As I said before, there have been initiatives to eliminate red tape when it comes to establishing things like inheritance, visitation rights, etc. when no sexual relationship exists. As far as I know, these aren’t good enough for LGBT advocates. They want the sexual relationship regarded the exact same way as marriage, when such a sexual relationship cannot by definition provide the good that a marriage does. There are exceptions to this in heterosexual relationships, of course, but overall, that is why man/woman relationships get the benefits they do.

(By the way, there are lots of people my age who are not marrying who would have been a few generations ago. They’re shacking up, or just hooking up, instead.)

 

[pensmama87]

Congratz, you’re not a wildebeest. Anything else, or are you just agreeing with me that sex is not solely about having children?

How is having two moms or two dads less than ideal?

Primarily=/=only.

Seriously? I’d like to know and be raised by the people who made me. That would be my mother and my father. That’s the ideal.

There are situations where that can’t happen. These are sad. But the situation should reflect it as closely as possible. So, being raised by just one of your parents, or one of your parents and a stepparent, or being raised by a man and a woman who are not related, but have a relationship as a man and a woman should.

Intentionally depriving a child of that is wrong.

 

[marymary1975]

More are trying to get married, it’s just not legal for them yet in some states.

Pensmama is correct on that, heterosexual marriage in the US has declined drastically and keeps declining. Cohabitation and single motherhood since the 90’s have gone strongly up. If I recall correctly 40% of children in the US are born to unmarried mothers and some places is higher than that, so her point is excellent, if it is so good why the opposite is what is going rapidly up.

 

[pensmama87]

I think I’m going to have to exit the thread. I’m feeling a little heated and I’d rather not get banned.

 

[Sparkythedog]

So, when something is legal (gay adoption), it’s good and right and I should have to put up with it…and also, when something is not legal (recognition of same-sex couples as being the same as married), it’s a moral travesty and I should have to put up with it changing?

The legality of something does not determine whether or not it is good. I prefer that the legal system reflect what is good and discourage what is not, though some things aren’t really worth spending tax money on (so from a legal standpoint, I don’t care who you sleep with, just don’t tell me to call it something it isn’t.)

I hear a lot of I feel this and I feel that. But nothing concrete. How is it harmful to have gay parents adopt?

I am not going to put my soul in jeopardy to prove something to you. I think there’s good reason for governments to provide those benefits to couples, as married couples provide a stabilizing effect on societies. I see no evidence that providing these perks to same-sex couples does any good for the government. Why should they be extended?

Who said anything about souls and Jeopardy? I’m just saying that you have a privilege that you say someone else doesn’t need because it’s not essential. I say that if it’s not essential, give it up. But I think you just want your comfortable privileges.

And it’s not about the government. It should be extended because gay couples should have the rights to pass on property, hospital visitation, child support, etc…

As I said before, there have been initiatives to eliminate red tape when it comes to establishing things like inheritance, visitation rights, etc. when no sexual relationship exists. As far as I know, these aren’t good enough for LGBT advocates.

Separate but equal, right?

They want the sexual relationship regarded the exact same way as marriage, when such a sexual relationship cannot by definition provide the good that a marriage does. There are exceptions to this in heterosexual relationships, of course, but overall, that is why man/woman relationships get the benefits they do.

What good does a marriage do? Raise children? Gays can do that too. It’s already happening.

(By the way, there are lots of people my age who are not marrying who would have been a few generations ago. They’re shacking up, or just hooking up, instead.)

Ok

 

[Sparkythedog]

Pensmama is correct on that, heterosexual marriage in the US has declined drastically and keeps declining. Cohabitation and single motherhood since the 90’s have gone strongly up. If I recall correctly 40% of children in the US are born to unmarried mothers and some places is higher than that, so her point is excellent, if it is so good why the opposite is what is going rapidly up.

And somehow this is because the gays want to marry? I’d love to see the correlation here.

 

[marymary1975]

A married couple can receive these “perks” regardless of whether or not they have kids.

.

Oh and this is not that accurate, a married couple with children is taxed in a different way than aarried couple with no children! So no they really won’t get the perks of having children

 

[marymary1975]

And somehow this is because the gays want to marry? I’d love to see the correlation here.

Gay marriage is only the icing on the cake. This is not “caused” by gay marriage. Gay marriage is the last nail on the coffin. This was caused by a very long process which started back in the 1950’s with no fault divorce, continued with contraception, abortion, radical feminism, sexual revolution, then cohabitation, and all the way through gay marriage. Gay marriage is not an independent event but one of the last steps of a very well organized plan.

Though I may have to correct myself gay marriage is not the last nail, it is the penultimate nail. Polygamy and polyamory are the last nails on the coffin.

 

[livingwordunity]

So, when something is legal (gay adoption), it’s good and right and I should have to put up with it…and also, when something is not legal (recognition of same-sex couples as being the same as married), it’s a moral travesty and I should have to put up with it changing?

The two ways they back up their position for so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ is first with an emotional appeal, and if that doesn’t work then it’s with brute-force of the civil law.

Emotion and power VS biology and reason.

 

[livingwordunity]

Gay marriage is only the icing on the cake. This is not “caused” by gay marriage. Gay marriage is the last nail on the coffin. This was caused by a very long process which started back in the 1950’s with no fault divorce, continued with contraception, abortion, radical feminism, sexual revolution, then cohabitation, and all the way through gay marriage. Gay marriage is not an independent event but one of the last steps of a very well organized plan.

Though I may have to correct myself gay marriage is not the last nail, it is the penultimate nail. Polygamy and polyamory are the last nails on the coffin.

I agree except that I don’t see how polygamy is worse than so-called same-sex ‘marriage’. It seems that they were able to skip polygamy and go straight for something worse. I think the only thing that can be more degrading is if they redefined marriage to include bestiality. Also, I don’t see how the state can explain why they are not allowing for polygamy after they had approved of SS’M’ when polygamy has a historical precedent (unlike SS’M’) and is still practiced by the Muslims.

How are they going to say no to the Muslims when they start asking for more than one wife? Or, how are they going to say no to a bisexual who wants to be married to one of each sex? Or, any homosexual who decides that they ‘love’ more than one of the same sex and want that to be called ‘marriage’? Will the state make a bisexual choose between one sex or the other to marry? Or, course not. As we can see, all it takes is a strong enough political lobby to get the government to change the civil law definition of marriage to mean anything the strong lobby wants it to mean. But, I think they know this and are pretending that this is all they want. After all, we know they lied when they said that all they wanted was ‘civil unions’.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Oh and this is not that accurate, a married couple with children is taxed in a different way than aarried couple with no children! So no they really won’t get the perks of having children

The benefits that I mentioned earlier are available whether or not you have children.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Gay marriage is only the icing on the cake. This is not “caused” by gay marriage. Gay marriage is the last nail on the coffin. This was caused by a very long process which started back in the 1950’s with no fault divorce, continued with contraception, abortion, radical feminism, sexual revolution, then cohabitation, and all the way through gay marriage. Gay marriage is not an independent event but one of the last steps of a very well organized plan.

Though I may have to correct myself gay marriage is not the last nail, it is the penultimate nail. Polygamy and polyamory are the last nails on the coffin.

Who is organizing this plan? I don’t understand, we’ve had polygamy and polyamory in this country well before 1950.

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

Who is organizing this plan? I don’t understand, we’ve had polygamy and polyamory in this country well before 1950.

then why is it not legal in this country? Polygamists can raise children just as well as same sex couples. If polygamy isn’t legalized. then we don’t have true marriage “equality”.

 

[Mulligan2]

What sparks these types of questions? This almost feels rhetorical at this point. I feel like you must have come across the reasons why two people of the same sex would want to be married by now.

Gay people want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do. They love each other. They want to spend their lives together. They may want to raise a family (gay people can adopt children). They want to be able to pass on their inheritance. They want hospital visitation rights. …and so on and so on…

It really doesn’t affect you if gay people get married. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, don’t do it.

And if you’re really concerned with how gay people consummate their marriages, just google it. I’m sure you’ll learn more than you ever wanted to know.

Excellent post.

Another thing I don’t understand - many opponents of same-sex marriage have an almost unseemly interest in the sexual aspects of same-sex relationships. That strikes me as odd and prurient.

 

[JimG]

Excellent post.

Another thing I don’t understand - many opponents of same-sex marriage have an almost unseemly interest in the sexual aspects of same-sex relationships. That strikes me as odd and prurient.

Not at all. But as the thread title implies, it just a fact that a same sex union is incapable of the marital act. It’s not a temporary defect. A same sex union can never be conjugal. Such a union has no capacity to be marital.

 

[Mulligan2]

Not at all. But as the thread title implies, it just a fact that a same sex union is incapable of the marital act. It’s not a temporary defect. A same sex union can never be conjugal. Such a union has no capacity to be marital.

Your reply validates my comment.

 

[JimG]

Your reply validates my comment.

Sorry. I’m just stating a fact of life. Two men, two women, can’t have marital sex. It’s just not possible. Consequently same sex ‘marriage’ is not possible.

 

[livingwordunity]

But as the thread title implies, it just a fact that a same sex union is incapable of the marital act. It’s not a temporary defect. A same sex union can never be conjugal. Such a union has no capacity to be marital.

I’m just stating a fact of life. Two men, two women, can’t have marital sex. It’s just not possible. Consequently same sex ‘marriage’ is not possible.

Well said!