Michelle Bachmann - gays can marry, but only the opposite sex....

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

Strictly speaking as far as some people are concerened and depending on their definition of marriage she may be right .Some people feel that a couple cannot be married untill it's been consumated which quite clearly same sex couples cannot do

Why can gay couples "quite clearly" not consummate a marriage? They can still have sexual intercourse with each other, just not heterosexual sex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consummate

3.
to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse.

Originally Posted by danielf

It's not all bad though.

I saw that earlier on the BBC site. If gay rights are human rights, then perhaps the Administration should try changing things at home as well as abroad. They've made a start by repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", but could (Congress willing [unlikely tbh]) go a lot further by getting rid of DOMA, for instance.

Originally Posted by Matt D

Why can gay couples "quite clearly" not consummate a marriage? They can still have sexual intercourse with each other, just not heterosexual sex.

so in the eyes of a lot of people including the US federal law the marriage is not consumated

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

so in the eyes of a lot of people including the US federal law the marriage is not consumated

Surely that's completely circular? Homosexuals can't marry because they clearly can't consumate, and they can't consumate because they can't marry?

Odd type of reasoning.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

so in the eyes of a lot of people including the US federal law the marriage is not consumated

Consummate does not equal "first heterosexual sex of a marriage", it is "first sex of a marriage".

"Eyes of a lot of people" does not equal "gay people can 'quite clearly' not consummate".

Gay people can and do have sex, just not the same way as heterosexual people, given that each partner has the same... equipment. If a gay couple get married, they can quite clearly consummate their marriage by having sex with each other in whatever way they happen to do so. It would still be their first sexual act as a married couple, and so still be consummation.

Federal law - Totally different thing, nothing to do with consummation. Refusal to accept that gay people can "consummate" is not why US federal law does not recognise gay marriages.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the US Federal law which prohibits the federal recognition of same-sex marriages (& so prohibits same-sex married couples from claiming any federal benefits that opposite-sex married couple can claim), and defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife". It also states that no State shall have to recognise any same-sex marriage as valid just because it was performed in another State where it is legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...riage_Act#Text

Text

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:[8]

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

[thenry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not really, as that would play into her hands, outraging "middle America" with their (in their eyes) freakish/outlandish/immoral/uppity ways....

GaGas already done it, I forgot about the speech she gave about "don't ask, don't tell". I wouldn't bet against her speaking out if this women gathers momentum.

just found this via google - http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx...=1&Category=26

Don't worry about it. She won't be the republican nominee, she is a sideshow, a extremist appealing to the tea party crowd but in reality that isn't a big republican base. She won't be the nominee and she won't be the next President. Idiotic statements like this are the only way she can get attention at all, the last time she did it was by claiming that vaccines cause 'mental retardation'. She is an idiot, ignore her and she will go away.

[thenry]

Originally Posted by Damien

the last time she did it was by claiming that vaccines cause 'mental retardation'. She is an idiot

lmao

[Alan Fry]

If she becomes President of America, then god help us all!!

[slowcoach]

It's all very Sad.

[NitroNutter]

The purpose of the formal union known as marriage is clear and scientifically absolute and therefore physically impossible for any alternative involving only one sex, ideology is irrelevant. There is only one law that can alter such a definition and I am sorry to say that is beyond the scope of mankind.

The laws of man relies on definitive terminology, not the other way around and it should not need to be said the dangers that exist should this status quo change.

I believe the same things were said about allowing women to vote or own property, or legalising miscegenation, banning slavery, or even giving the "common people" the vote.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I believe the same things were said about allowing women to vote or own property, or legalising miscegenation, banning slavery, or even giving the "common people" the vote.

I fail to see the relevance Hugh, perhaps you could elaborate further your historical analogies to include details of your belief of which you have refered to if you wish to use them as examples of precedent ?

[danielf]

Can I have some of what you've been smoking. I'm hoping it'll suddenly reveal some warped logic in your posts.

How is it, according to the definition you kindly posted, physically impossible for two people of the same sex to 'achieve the state of being married', and why is that a purpose of being married?

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

The purpose of the formal union known as marriage is clear and scientifically absolute and therefore physically impossible for any alternative involving only one sex, ideology is irrelevant. There is only one law that can alter such a definition and I am sorry to say that is beyond the scope of mankind.

The laws of man relies on definitive terminology, not the other way around and it should not need to be said the dangers that exist should this status quo change.

What?

We can change the terminology easily. It's not impossible by any means, some places already to do it and found out that it's very possible.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

I fail to see the relevance Hugh, perhaps you could elaborate further your historical analogies to include details of your belief of which you have refered to if you wish to use them as examples of precedent ?

That may be because you fail to understand that the laws of man (I think you may mean society, because we gave the pesky distaff side equivalence (mostly) quite some time ago) are based on societal norms, not on Judeo-Christian writings of over 2000 years ago, otherwise we would be banning the teaching of evolution in schools, keeping slaves, and not wearing wool/linen mixed fabrics (but that is the subject for another thread).

You appear to be conflating the laws of science (reached through the scientific method) with your prejudices, which appear to have no scientific rationale whatsoever...