Canada: Dangerous case study in the perils of same-sex marriage

[Flubber]

Flubber, I hink that your experiences are crucial, in understanding marriage. You married your wife, not because she was all of thse sthings, smart funny and compassionate, but also because she was a woman. I think that to be honest you have to come on the side that sex is relevant. Very relevant to marriage and any functioning marrriage relationship.

Ben -- I was never OFF the side of sex being relevant to MY marriage. Our connection in that regard was a big thing. BUt for hundreds of years aged old lords were married off even on their near deathbeds to cement crowns and alliances . . .many women married for financial security and only did their duty as absolutely required and in many marriages due to health or age or whatever . .. sex becomes less and less a part of things.


BUt Ben why donèt you taek us to your next step. You would have to grant that gay couples also have sexual relations ( and many straight couples choose to avoid conception theough contraception or through performing many of the same acts as the gay couples. Come on Ben lets get to the part where you assert that gay sex does not count. THat is where you are headed is it not


Lets forget about the plethora of traditional marriages that are essentially sexless or were marriages of convenience etc etc etc and move on.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because he was sexually attracted to her, not because she was a woman.

I;ll take it from the horses' mouth. That's not what he says.

Using your logic, he'd marry a 98 year old corpse of a woman.

We all know you hate women so if that's how you see them... I already said that I think sex is a crucial part of marriage and that a marriage without the union isn't really a marriage.

[Flubber]

No argument. I think you have an example of what I see marriage as it ought to be and I find it personally discouraging that rather then uphold yourself and your own relationship as an example for others to follow, you'd rather teach something else entirely.

Do you mind if I say do as you obviously do and not as you say?

BUt what I personally do is irrelvant to what the law should be. If you want marriage to be permitted only in YOUR ideal, I suspect that only a small fraction of heterosexuals would ever be married

[Flubber]

We all know you hate women so if that's how you see them... I already said that I think sex is a crucial part of marriage and that a marriage without the union isn't really a marriage.

Words are important -- Define the UNION

[Asher]

We all know you hate women so if that's how you see them...

Er, WTF?

Your only criteria is "woman". I'm pointing out it's not that it was a woman, it was a sexual attraction. He happens to be sexually attracted to a subset of the world's women. Not any woman. Not all women.

I already said that I think sex is a crucial part of marriage and that a marriage without the union isn't really a marriage.

So you would legally prevent people incapable of having sex from marrying, then.

[Asher]

Personally, I think having intimate verbal conversations are part of any marriage. Deaf people should therefore not get married.

[/Ben]

[Flubber]

Ben

My question to you is whether gay people can have sex with each other --- sex being so crucial to marriage and all

[Flubber]

Er, WTF?




So you would legally prevent people incapable of having sex from marrying, then.

I have already asked this but no answer yet

Ben

[Asher]

Ben

My question to you is whether gay people can have sex with each other --- sex being so crucial to marriage and all

Obviously, Flubber, he doesn't mean all kinds sex. The bible clearly states marriage is only a marriage if a man and a woman have vaginal sex at least five times every fortnight. A man and a woman who engage in oral sex or anal sex ought not to be married, either. In fact, the government should divorce any couple found to be engaging in such sinful acts.

[Ben Kenobi]

BUt Ben why donèt you taek us to your next step.

Sure,

You would have to grant that gay couples also have sexual relations ( and many straight couples choose to avoid conception theough contraception or through performing many of the same acts as the gay couples.

I said union and I'm not sure if I was perfectly clear as to what I meant with the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Vaginal sex. Gay men and lesbian women can't do it that way. I also have a problem with contraception, because you're basically putting a rubber between each other. That going to impair your union.

[Asher]

Sure,



I said union and I'm not sure if I was perfectly clear as to what I meant with the union of a man and a woman in marraige. No, gay men and lesbian women can't do it that way. I also have a problem with contraception, because you're basically putting a rubber between each other. That going to impair your union.

Why does the gender matter? The only case gender should ever matter is if it's your assertion that sex is exclusively for the purpose of procreation, and therefore marriage is exclusively for the purpose of providing a moral way of having sex.

Any other argument is internally inconsistent.

[Ben Kenobi]

The bible clearly states marriage is only a marriage if a man and a woman have vaginal sex at least five times every fortnight.

I want your bible. Unfortunately, no, it doesn't say that, except that a man and a woman are not to deprive one another of trhe pleasure of each other except by mutual agreement and only temporary.

A man and a woman who engage in oral sex or anal sex ought not to be married, either. In fact, the government should divorce any couple found to be engaging in such sinful acts.

If you can quote me have at it. Never said anything about either. Consummation is enforceable, the other two are not. Legally consummation and refusing to consummate a marriage is a ground for divorce.

[Flubber]

Sure,



I said union and I'm not sure if I was perfectly clear as to what I meant with the union of a man and a woman in marraige. No, gay men and lesbian women can't do it that way. I also have a problem with contraception, because you're basically putting a rubber between each other. That going to impair your union.

This is where it was clear you were going and even if I agreed with you at every step until here ( I do NOT) here is where you completely go haywire. If sex is only contraceptionless P in V (probably for the purpose of making a baby) then here your vision of marriage differs totally from mine. IF a heterosexual couple are married and he and she loves it that he sodomizes her and they perform lots of oral sex on each other-- that might be a great marriage and the fact that they do not want children and they do not perform the sex act you mandate-- so what-- they can hit all the high points of committed couple -- thats a marriage

make the couple gay and doing the same stuff-- thats a marriage


OH and Ben--m there is contraception that places no physical barrier between you and a woman-- you did know that right !!!!

[Flubber]

Ben if the crux of your argument is that gay couples do not have procreational sex, we are done here as I reject outright the premise that procreatrional sex should be required for a marrriage to exist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben if the crux of your argument is that gay couples do not have procreational sex, we are done here as I reject outright the premise that procreatrional sex should be required for a marrriage to exist.

A logical reasonable position, and one that will likely happen. The legal result will equate marriage with roommates, and cohabitation would be the only requirement. Are you really sure this is a positive direction? It's also a fundamental change that is a necessary predicate of gay marriage.