And, on what basis would the state grant them an annulment if they wanted one? Also, there’s a practical and biologically logical reason why heterosexuals are most often in coupled relationships, it’s because it takes one man and one woman to make a baby. What is the reason for limiting the number to two for so-called same-sex ‘marriage’? Is it to mimic a heterosexual couple?
Exactly, what if a homosexual loves more than one person? Than they couldn’t marry whom they love. Doesn’t sound much like marriage “equality” to me. those who do not support multiple spouse marriages are not pro marriage “equality”, because there would still be limitations on marriage.
Obviously a same sex ‘marriage’ cannot be consummated because there is no sexual complementarity. There can be no marital act, and thus no marriage.
But, like the Red Queen explaining the workings of wonderland to Alice, “a word means just what I want it to mean.” So marriage can mean its opposite. It can mean the impossible. We’ve gone through the looking glass.
We traveled through the looking glass a long time ago, we have just ventured further. Wait until you see what is next!
The same way homosexuals engage in sexual acts outside of legal marriage or civil unions.
We don’t need to explore this in any graphic detail as I am sure we all have a vague idea of what non-procreational sexual stimulii include. Consummation isn’t what seals the marriage as far as the law of the land is concerned, it’s the moment you/they sign the marriage certificate and it is approved by the officiant.
The sexual act itself is irrelevant already as far as courts are concerned. Also, I believe it is limited to two because monogamy remains the social norm of marriage even if it now includes wider varieties of gender match ups. The myth that homosexuals retain large harems of casual sex partners is untrue from any of them I have encountered, they have only sought a deep relationship with one individual rather than many at a single time.
How is that the same as how heterosexuals consummate a marriage? There never was any such thing as so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ until the idea was recently concocted by the left. Even as recent as the 1990’s, there was no country in the world that legally recognized such an idea. In ancient Rome and Greece, the leaders of government practiced homosexuality and homosexuality was widely and officially accepted. But it was never considered marriage by anyone in these ancient societies where the behavior was common. Why all of a sudden now do some people insist that it has to be called ‘marriage’ when not calling it ‘marriage’ never bothered anyone before? When they got it to be called ‘civil unions’ they had the same legal benefits as married couples, but that still wasn’t enough for them. Why?
I think the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2013, which legalises homosexual marriage in England and Wales in 2014, removes the consummation requirement for marriage.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales responded to the briefing on the bill
The Government, in proposing this change to the law and definition of marriage, has itself not sought complete equivalence between same sex couples and heterosexual couples. We have already shown how significantly the Bill distinguishes between same sex and opposite sex marriages (there is no consummation requirement, there is no common law presumption as to the parenthood of any children, and adultery will not be a ground for divorce). What results in the Bill is a distinct set of differences between opposite sex marriage and same sexmarriage.
I presume similar differences are seen in other bills that have legalised homosexual marriage in different countries. ‘Equal marriage’ some people say legalising homosexual marriage is, but how are the requirements for homosexuals and hetrosexuals to marry equal?
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.
The secular world does not work from the Churches perception of marriage, the sex act is not essential (presumed perhaps, but not required).
There have been calls for equal recognition of homosexual partnerships far predating the 1990’s, I can remember campaigners in Britain back in the late 70’s. The only difference was they were mostly ignored or silenced.
It isn’t a new thing, the only difference is homosexuals won’t be publicly lynched for not pretending to be heterosexual anymore.
It’s usually not for want of knowing, but to disprove or discredit an idea condemned by the Catholic Church.
Which is fairly pointless if the object in question is not exclusively affiliated to the Catholic Church and does not require approval from it as far as the law of the land is concerned like secular marriage ceremonies.
You are missing the question. How is the way same-sex partners ‘consummate’ the same as the way heterosexuals do? Because isn’t the ‘gay’ lobby’s argument that there isn’t a difference?
Signing the dotted line in the registry office.
You are missing the point, this is irrelevant as far as secular law goes.
And if we really have to get graphic then ok, Anal sex, mutual maturation, oral sex, pegging…Lets not keep going eh? :o
What about polygamy? Polygamists aren’t affecting our lives in any negative way, so why be opposed to that? and abortion isn’t affecting me in any negative way, because I’m already born, but am strongly opposed to it.
All these things are available without being married. Just need to work a little harder.
And I didnt get married to make sure that I could visit my wife or inherit her riches…that’s just a nice perk. I married her because God called me to. God doesn’t call homosexuals to marry each other.
And since they can’t BE MARRIED no annulment would ever need to be granted.
(but a i agree with another statement made above, which is, what’s the point of this thread, really…it’s been hashed out many times…)
That’s not how consummation has been defined in heterosexual marriages. A man and a woman who get married on an impulse but who regret signing on the dotted line immediately afterward can get a state-granted annulment if they didn’t consummate the marriage. So, how is the way that homosexual partners ‘consummate’ the same as the way heterosexuals do if there is supposedly no difference between heterosexual marriage and so-called same-sex ‘marriage’?
When people speak of redefining marriage, they talk about what is favorable to society, and society has always seen monogamy as ordered to the common good. Hence, people would make polygamy illegal.
Society has always seen marriage as being between a man and a woman and has seen sodomy as being against the common good. One can’t use the common good argument after throwing out what had always been understood by everyone as the common good. If the common good can change to whatever on a whim it has no meaning. One can’t use a moral argument right after throwing out the concept of morality. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.
Whenever the SSM laws have been passed around Europe the legal definition of hetrosexual marriage was changed as well. Sex wasn’t always a required component in most countries but it is now consumatted by hetrosexual and homosexual couples in the same way, signing the dotted line.
The Church ceremony itself is not recognized as marriage by the government within the UK anyway I believe and hasn’t been for some time. Most/all priests merely also have secular authority to conduct and authorize marriage and this is what counts to the legal system.
It can, and it has repeatedly including within the past 150 years within the church. Marriage formerly used to be more based around the formation of dynastic ties and producing offspring of a set standard of pedigree rather than affection which was deemed largely irrelevant, and now we are taught to marry for love rather than material gains or social prestige which formerly was the highlight of marriage.
How do same sex partners have heterosexual sex? They don’t. Why is this important? I’m straight and I can have intercourse anyway I like, vaginal and otherwise. (providing my partner’s consent of course) There is no law stating that married couples need to have vaginal intercourse in order to be married. (and if there were - I’d be curious to see how it is enforced)
I’m not sure who the “gay lobby” is, so I can’t speak for them. But gay people who want to get married are generally looking for the benefits that I described in my last post.
Because those who want so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ say they want ‘marriage equality’. Equal means the same. But, as you have admitted, it’s not the same thing as what has always been the definition of marriage up until this sudden new attempt to redefine it.
Then why did you bother to get your marriage recognized by the state. If you feel the state is mocking your view of marriage then why not renounce this state sanctioned abomination. You would still be married in the church and in the eyes of your god. Put your money where your mouth is and show everyone that you didn’t get married for the “perks”.