Since consummation isn’t possible in a same-sex relationship, the state must eliminate the requirement for it if they want to make so-called same-sex “marriage” the law. If someone wants to argue that SS"M" can’t possibly include people who are close friends but who have a non-sexual relationship please provide the legal text of a SS"M" law currently in place to show how this kind of an arrangement isn’t possible with SS"M" laws.
Yes, which is one of the objections that is sometimes raised. Any two people could get a civil “marriage” in oder to secure benefits, gain immigration status, etc. regardless of any actual relationship between them. There has always been a certain amount of marriage fraud, even with “traditional” marriage but this is a really big loophole.
I saw this for myself back in the 80s. I worked for a non-profit that wanted to provide same-sex partner benefits. Of course there was no SS"M" at that time. There was no way to construct the plan without it covering any pairing, including just roommates or friends.
No, that is a(nother) ridiculous thread question LVU. Stop littering the Social Justice forum with nonsense questions.
To answer it though, the state requires homosexual “consummation” for a same sex marriage. Would you have sex with your same sex friend for tax benefits?
If that’s the case then the state redefinition of “consummation” is just as arbitrary and inconsistent as the SS"M" redefinition of “marriage”. The problem with discussing SS"M" on CAF is that there are some crucial key questions we aren’t allowed to ask. And I’m not going to go there.
For men, I would imagine that they would consummate with anal sex. For women, I’m not sure how that would work. It might involve a simulated penis or else simple cunnilingus.
Its funny, but the fact that this isn’t the case is one of the reasons I am against people who want to expand legal marriage to SSM. If the government is going to provide a benefit to a particular group of people there should be a compelling** governmental **reason to do so. The two reasons related to the current marriage contract are the raising of kids, and so future citizens of the state, and for the sake of helping to make all sorts of legal and red-tape issues match the reality that two people have made a commitment to share their life together. While it can be argued quite easily that our current legal contract of marriage is very flawed if you look at it from the perspective of being for the sake of raising productive, healthy, effective citizens, that can still be argued as its purpose. If you expand it to include SScouples that will no longer be true. Meaning, if you want to expand the current legal contract to include SScouples the only compelling reason left to do so is based on the fact that they have made a serious commitment to share their life together. The thing being that it is just as possible for siblings, parents and children, or just amazingly close friends to make similar commitments to each other. If you expand the current legal contract to include SS romantically involved couples without including non-romantically involved people who make a similar comitment, you are either saying the governmental purpose is for those who share their life together and declare yourself as being discriminatory against non-sexual comitments to share their life or you are saying that the government has a compelling governmental reason to reward people for having sex. If its not about future generations or the commitment to share your life together, than it is about sex, and honestly, I really don’t want to live in a country that thinks whether or not people are having sex, in and of itself, is something the government has a legitimate reason to concern itself with. I’m fine with the government being involved for the sake of other things, such as protecting people from violent acts, developing healthy and productive citizens for the continuation of the state etc, but not with the government concerning itself about people’s sex lives just for the sake of being involved in their sex lives. Either make the contract be for the sake of future generations, make it be open for everyone who makes a commitment to share their lives with each other, whether or not they are romantically involved, or have two separate contracts, one for each purpose, but don’t try to turn it into some weird mixture of the two which fails to fulfill either purpose. :shrug:
I guess I don’t think these kinds of questions are silly, like I don’t think questions about the legal ramifications of personhood laws are silly. I suppose intentions behind the questions matter, but on surface-level, they’re questions about policy, aren’t they? How does the government really know any relationship has been consummated? Not trying to stir up a hornet’s nest, but I’ve honestly never thought about that until now.
If they’re going to legalize same sex marriage how would it make it any worse to allow friends to be “married” if they desire to live together?
Oh and uh, lack of consummation doesn’t necessarily make a marriage in valid depending on the jurisdiction.
Actually, as pointed out in another thread recently, in some locations, “consummation” has been redefined as signing the contract, not any sexual act. That’s why this is a legitimate question. If you think it does not belong in the SJ forum, you could ask a mod to move it.
I’m glad you pointed that out. The SS"M" advocates were trying to argue that there isn’t even a need for there to be a consummation requirement in marriage.
Wasn’t there an Adam Sandler movie that addressed this?
OP has a history of posting ridiculous questions in the Social Justice forum about a group of people he is diametrically opposed to (gays, liberals) with distorted wording to try to make the group of people look unfavorable. If it were anyone else, I would not nearly be as harsh in my post as I was.
If you’re wondering, this is his/her 5th time posting a ridiculous thread in Social Justice. The others compared bisexuals to polygamists, liberals as communists, liberals as intolerant of differing opinions, and of course, a complete repeat of this question asking how gay people consummate their “weddings.” I would hope even someone who agreed with him/her on issues would also be able to admonish topics like these at some point.
What did I do to you that I deserve that kind of personal attack? There was one time that you said that I had judged you wrong. And I said that I was sorry for misjudging you. Are you still holding a grudge against me for that? Opposition to so-called same-sex “marriage” doesn’t equal opposition to homosexuals.
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
No…? I’m not mad at you or holding a grudge against you at all. And of course opposition to SS’M’ doesn’t mean opposition to homosexuals. I used the phrase “diametrically opposed,” [def: “at opposite extremes”], which usually refers to political positions, not simply “opposed.”
I’m not sure why you took it as a personal attack at all. I asked you to stop posting ridiculous, over-the-top questions in the Social Justice forum of a Catholic forum. But if you want reasons why I’m growing less patient with you, may I again suggest the following threads as reasons:
You consider me discussing these four threads an ad hominem attack? That’s not what ad hominem means. An ad hominem attack is when you attack someone’s character baselessly to distract from the topic at hand. I was merely explaining to Corki why I was less patient with you in the tone of my post, and I cited factual evidence of your behavior on these forums. If you think I am insulting you, you can be assured I am not. But I am most certainly impatient with your persistence with these types of threads, despite being asked multiple times in your most recent one by other posters, including myself, to cease and desist.
You are focusing the attention on attacking my personal character instead of addressing the point of this thread. Repeatedly saying that my threads are all “ridiculous” doesn’t make what you claim about me true. I post this in Social Justice because SS"M" is considered a social justice issue by those who advocate for it. And I have just as much a right as any other CAF member to post here. I’m not against every homosexual person. I’m against the lobby that is promoting abortion and SS"M".
I can’t think of any other sub-forum where this would be more appropriate. If we could stay on topic, this could be an interesting discussion.
Can’t speak for others, but I’ve hardly ever raised questions like this regarding SSM, publicly. The one time I did raise a question, it was dismissed as patently absurd, and I was called an ignorant, hurtful person. Polyamory is a lively topic. So is SSM. For what it’s worth, I would like to have this explained to me! Unless the government puts up cameras in everyone’s bedroom, I’m not sure how the government can require or enforce a consummated relationship. In the past, children were taken as one obvious evidence. How does one prove that a relationship was or was not consummated? Are people required to show PDA?
Then why allow infertile couples to get married? How can the government know they’re consummating their marriages? Are we going to demand every married couple send the government a sex tape? :rolleyes: This really is a ridiculous conversation.
How about all of those couples who deliberately don’t have kids?
But, isn’t that exactly proving the point that the government can’t stop friends from getting “married”?