When curlcoat, of all people, is someone that–for once–I can agree with, you’ve hit an all time low.
No, they constitute a pro forma breeding pair. But homosexuals cannot do even that.
The dictionary says that means something of little importance.
If a eunuch enters matrimony with a woman who has undergone a bilateral salpingo-oophor-hysterectomy (just to be clear, there are no gonads on either participant), is that a marriage, or a “cargo cult” marriage?
Doesn’t it refer to something done as a pure formality to satisfy certain minimum requirements? Neither breeding nor the ability to breed is a requirement when a couple gets married; nothing of the sort has to be done as a pure formality; as it happens, the exact opposite can be brazenly pointed out.
Yes, we continue to think of marriage as the formal union of a breeding pair even when they are infertile males and females, pro forma (i.e., in accordance with custom).
Okay, let’s go a little further with the removal of the formas, and make both participants victims of a tragic accident which left them deprived of genitals entirely. The man has no penis, the woman has no vagina.*
Marriage, or “cargo cult” marriage?
*I’m very sorry, you two, I’ll get you fixed up after we finish demolishing this asshat.
Why do you say “we” when making that claim? I certainly don’t think of it that way; after all, I’m not in the habit of thinking a pair that can’t breed is a pair that can breed. Why do you continue in the habit of thinking that things are what they aren’t?
I have a friend (male) who got married at the age of 62 to a 64 year old woman. It was his first marriage, her second. She has children (grown). He has none. They had been living together for several years. He is Catholic and she was not, but converted. The first priest they went to refused to marry them because they were ‘living in sin’. I found this absolutely absurd. First of all, I don’t see the point of marrying at that age given their circumstances, but they wanted to be ‘legit’. This is an example of a ‘pro forma’ marriage: just for the sake of ‘propriety’, in other words. He had wanted to be married for a long time.
By the way, they went to the pre-Cana classes intended for young couples, which was embarrassing, he told me.
Bite me.
No, they don’t. This is the same thing as saying that since I am female, I am on earth to create babies. Are you that much of a knuckle-dragger to believe that too?
“We” who? I think of marriage as a formal union of two people who want to get married.
Did you know that a heterosexual couple in Utah can be denied marriage because they can breed?
If you were to learn that your (male) friend had been living a lie all this time, and was actually a F-to-M post-operative trasgender person (born and raised as a woman, that is), do you ask for your wedding gift back and get them a “cargo-cult” wedding gift?
That is interesting. Why? Makes no sense.
My guess would be if they are brother and sister.
Then you, of all people, should be able to understand it perfectly.
Truly! The only time a new order takes hold as normalcy is when those who support the old order (and are supported by it) die off.
Every time I notice how accepted gay marriages, gay rights are among younger people, and not just accepted but considered
completely normal, my heart beats a little faster and a spring comes into my step.
I probably won’t be alive to see this come to pass among all people but I can rest assured that it is already past the point of
being reversible. The most Melchior et al can do is provide us with moments of amusement as they wend their way to their graves.
Toodles, Melch.
Yeah, it’s sort of like getting mad at a sea sponge. The sea sponge can’t help it. It lacks the capacity to contemplate the idea of acting otherwise.
There are a lot of legal benefits conferred on married couples
Woo! I’m cargo culting like a motherfuck!
(Actually, plenty of people tried to say a marriage like mine couldn’t be called “marriage,” either. But Loving v. Virginia punched them in the throat.)
The law applies if they happen to be first cousins. They have to both be 65 or older or have to be 55 and older and demonstrate to a district court that either party is unable to reproduce.
So, the need to reproduce isn’t a condition of legal marriage anywhere in the U.S., and in Utah (and Arizona, which has a near-identical law) reproductive ability can be a barrier to marriage. Therefore, I dismiss any arguments that legal marriage should be denied to homosexuals on the basis of reproductive ability because it is so obviously a latter-day desperation with no historical support.
Plus same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for almost a decade with no ill-effects to society or children that I’m aware of.
I have no illusions that any of this will matter to you.