As You Like It - Men Becoming Women

The law has no business doing so.

The law has no business doing so.
What does whether the husband and wife have anal sex have to do with protecting the children?

Wow...

there's a whole load of iggrince and twisty thinking going on here.

Consummation is LEGALLY binding? Really? Wow. I did NOT know that.

Oh, wait. That's 'cuz it's not.

Catholics aren't Christians?

Christianity started before Christ?

Defining anal sex as sex means that a husband gets to demand it?

WOW...

this is some weird shit going on in THAT brain.

In before the lock...


Oh, and...

You don't get to tell me how to run my SL.
If I wan to play a boy, girl, wolf, tiger, lion or bushbaby, (Shameless plug. Go buy Lost Ferals! Be a wolf, dammit!) you don't get to tell me I can't.

And, while I'm straight, you don't have ANY right to tell me what I can and can't do in my bedroom, and to base what MY legal rights are by whom I choose to spend my life with is simply and utterly disgusting.

AND Un-Christian.

And if 'marriage' IS reserved for religious unions, does that mean heterosexual atheists/agnostics should be limited to civil unions as well?

Three different things can happen here... this Avawyn person could possibly become enlightened (doubtful), this thread could get locked (likely) or it could grow to epic proportions and implode or rival the Undying Thread- in any case- it is a glorious train wreck.

Actually, she's just sick of all the nit-picking.

I never said consummation was legally binding? I said that is what makes a marriage legal in that it cannot be annulled it has to go through divorce, with few exceptions regarding the Roman Catholic church as they have a lot of their own rules regarding marriage, as marriage is a sacrament to them. For instance, in the Roman Catholic church, a marriage not performed within the Roman Catholic church is not considered a "marriage", although it is legally. I know a couple who decided to get their marriage redone so to speak within the Roman Catholic church so it would be recognized within that church.

I never said that Catholics were not Christians. I said Hilter was not Christian, he was Catholic is there ARE wide variables between Protestant Christians and Roman Catholics. And I used that because most Catholics prefer to be referred to as Catholics, not Christians. That is their preference. However, there is a new uprising in America in which Americanized Catholics who do not associate with the Vatican now want to be called just Christians. However, most prefer to be called Catholics. I also referred to Hilter as Catholic as it is a very different religion from that of Protestants in that they believe there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Protestants believe there is no salvation outside of Christ. Catholics believe that the Pope has the sole right to interpret scripture, Protestants denounce that teaching. With these widely vast differences, most Catholics prefer to be called Catholic and that everyone should be Catholic or there is no salvation for them. Protestants think of Catholics as off beat Christians who do not stand on the word of God or the Bible but rather the Pope's interpretation thereof, which can if the word of God is taken in such a way much more easily led to mysticism, the route Hilter took since Catholics (and that's about 90% of them do not read the Bible nor even care too). Their teachings are more from the Roman Catholic hierarchies than the Bible.

I said show me one religion or religous book including Christian, Islam, Judiasm, anything that says gay marriage is excepted or was practiced.

No, not defining anal sex as sex. Defining penile/vaginal sexual intercourse on par with anal intercourse as one in the same for consummating a marriage would make then equal forms of intercourse, therefore where does that leave heterosexuals who denounce that that would be consummation or even sexual intercourse and how would the court answer a heterosexual husband and wife with such a dispute?

Then I added, how would sexual intercourse and the definition therein now be taught in schools also?

And as to your last point, of course the laws of the land have a right to interfere in your bedroom as you put it, though you may mean bed as in sex. You do not have a right to have a child in there, nor an animal, nor your sister or brother, to name a few.

Everything you wrote implies you don't believe Catholics to be Christians. Follow this logic:

Since a Catholic is a Christian, and Hitler was a Catholic, then Hitler was a Christian.

If you don't agree with the conclusion, then you are contesting one of the assumptions. Either, "Hitler was a Catholic" or "a Catholic is a Christian". We all assumed the latter. And still do.

/Totally emotionless:

I'm elated. I'm ecstatic. I'm tickled pink you're the type that's sooo easily amused.

Actually, I had to go back to double check on said "comment." For a second there, I though I had written something worthwhile since I received such a strong reaction from that other person to what I perceive to be such a bland comment on my part.

Good good. We both win.

Follow this: Read above.

Again, if religion is a required component of marriage, why are heterosexual atheists and agnostics allowed to marry, no questions asked? And if religion ISN'T a required component, why the hell should we care whether same sex marriages aren't favored in some archaic books?


Do you seriously not see how bizarre an argument this is?


It's been a while since I was in school, but they only covered the bit that was likely to lead to procreation then, and from the 'this is how our bodies work' sense. I don't know why that would change.

I already went over this point in that non believers were never forbidden from marrying each other in the Bible.




Do you seriously not see how bizarre an argument this is?[/QUOTE]

No.

It's been a while since I was in school, but they only covered the bit that was likely to lead to procreation then, and from the 'this is how our bodies work' sense. I don't know why that would change.[/QUOTE]

Present this argument as you would in a court of law. Why wouldn't it? If penile/vaginal intercourse and penile/anal intercourse are now one in the same as legal forms of consummating a marriage?

_____________________

Sorry, I don't know how to separate the quotes but I tried. Anyhow, I want to go on to some other threads.

Wait wait! I thought you were a doctor, not a lawyer?

Well, that's nice. A moldy old fictional book allows me to get married, just so long as I follow the rules it outlines! I'm so excited!


You're basing your argument on the fact that some heterosexual couple somewhere *might* decide to end their marriage due to a lack of consummation, and that those people *might* have differing definitions. I'm pretty sure most couple also engage in oral sex, but I don't remember any sensational court cases involving whether THAT counts as consummating a union.


So you get to present your odd opinions any which way, but I'm supposed to pretend I'm in a court of law? Um, OK...

Along with greater stability and support for the mother and children, the custom of marriage was introduced to increase reproductive surety for the male of the species. If there was no penile/vaginal intercourse - ie, consummation - then any offspring the female produced were definitely fathered by another man. If the marriage was consummated in the expected manner and the male continued to have increased access to the female, chances were good that the offspring were his.

In other words, it's all about the (potential) babies.

Until homosexual males are able to become pregnant via anal intercourse, vaginal intercourse will likely always be the 'consummation standard' for heterosexual couples. The fact that oral sex has never been considered consummation only increases this probability.

And, before we get off on the "Marriage is for making babies and homosexuals can't, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry" tangent...it's modern times, our planet is overpopulated, and plenty of heterosexuals marry with no intentions of ever have children.

Edit: Better yet, let's just get rid of the consummation excuse altogether...it's ridiculous to pretend a marriage never happened based on just one aspect of the union.

Marriage between widowed older couples are allowed in the Bible as well.

I believe homosexual marriage infringes upon the rights of the First Amendment and I am entitled to my belief and tolerance is a two way street as is hate. However, I do not believe same sex unions do, as I see that as a secular concept to benefit, nurture and protect the children within that union.

Wait 'til you hear from people who don't even believe in same sex unions.

I wasn't discussing what some work of fiction allows, but why marital consummation for heterosexual couples will likely always be defined as vaginal intercourse.

Wut.

"Likely" is the key word there. I want some of these questions addressed in the court hearings and I want answers from the judges period.

Congress shall enact no laws interfering with an ESTABLISHED RELIGION or the free exercise thereof.

That is not what the First Amendment says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Which means your religion should be allowed to forbid homosexual marriage in their church if they choose to, not that they have the right to say such a thing can't exist at all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

Do you make these mistakes on purpose? Or is there a deliberate distorted version of the U.S. Constitution sitting around like some Wiki that people change for their own purposes?

Damn, third out the gate. Should have made a shorter comment.