Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Russadonia]

This thread has become ridiculous and it is hilarious.

[Ifreann]

And if an impotent person marries, and the marriage is never annulled, then Cthulhu will rise and devour us all.

I disappear for a while and suddenly this thread has been threadjacked? The fuck happened?

Some dude started posting his silly ideas about how marriage should work.

[Jormengand]

I disappear for a while and suddenly this thread has been threadjacked? The fuck happened?

>.>

Not sure if familiar with Nation States General.

...

This is Divair you're not sure is familiar with NSG? As far as I'm concerned, the cavalry's arrived.

[Lost heros]

And if an impotent person marries, and the marriage is never annulled, then Cthulhu will rise and devour us all.

I disappear for a while and suddenly this thread has been threadjacked? The fuck happened?

I don't think this has been threadjacked. He presented an argument stating that gays shouldn't get married because they can't have kids, and we are arguing against that ridiculous notion.

[Auralia]

No, technically he can't. When a marriage is annulled, the state is effectively declaring that the marriage never existed, and the state was wrong to recognize it in the first place.

Oh really?

Then I would like for you to explain to us what are the reasons why the state, not the church, can annul marriages?

Because clearly you have been talking about certain schools of thought of the church all this time, not the state.

No, I've been talking about the state, not the (Catholic Church?). States can and do annul marriages. Reasons for annulment vary between jurisdictions, but most recognize impotence as grounds for annulment.

[The Emerald Dawn]

>.>

Not sure if familiar with Nation States General.

...

This is Divair you're not sure is familiar with NSG? As far as I'm concerned, the cavalry's arrived.

The joke -> o







Your head -> x

[Euroslavia]

No it isn't. Stop making shit up.

I'm not making anything up. I'm just making observations, the same observations that many other social scientists have made.

Three people does not equate to 'many people'.

[Caecuser]

Oh really?

Then I would like for you to explain to us what are the reasons why the state, not the church, can annul marriages?

Because clearly you have been talking about certain schools of thought of the church all this time, not the state.

No, I've been talking about the state, not the (Catholic Church?). States can and do annul marriages. Reasons for annulment vary between jurisdictions, but most recognize impotence as grounds for annulment.

Okay then - let's say we remove that.

[Ifreann]

No, technically he can't. When a marriage is annulled, the state is effectively declaring that the marriage never existed, and the state was wrong to recognize it in the first place.

What if he nor his wife don't want to have kids and thus don't care that his junk was cut off, and therefore don't get an annulment. Should they be allowed to marry in the first place?

No, no, it's okay. Trans* people exist, so now he has to let gay people marry.

[Divair]

I disappear for a while and suddenly this thread has been threadjacked? The fuck happened?

I don't think this has been threadjacked. He presented an argument stating that gays shouldn't get married because they can't have kids, and we are arguing against that ridiculous notion.

People who don't want kids can get married. Same sex couples can adopt or use artificial means.


Neeeext

[Jormengand]

...

This is Divair you're not sure is familiar with NSG? As far as I'm concerned, the cavalry's arrived.

The joke -> o







Your head -> x

Sorry, I prefer jokes when they make sense and are funny, thanks.

[Auralia]

I'm not making anything up. I'm just making observations, the same observations that many other social scientists have made.

Three people does not equate to 'many people'.

I just cited one article, because it was my favourite. I'm sure I could find many others.

[Auralia]

No, I've been talking about the state, not the (Catholic Church?). States can and do annul marriages. Reasons for annulment vary between jurisdictions, but most recognize impotence as grounds for annulment.

Okay then - let's say we remove that.

What do you mean?

[Euroslavia]

Three people does not equate to 'many people'.

I just cited one article, because it was my favourite. I'm sure I could find many others.

Please do. Reputable. Otherwise, your use of the word 'many' falls flat.

[Pandeeria]

Three people does not equate to 'many people'.

I just cited one article, because it was my favourite. I'm sure I could find many others.

Please tell me a list of things as to why gays shouldn't be able to marry.

[Ifreann]

Okay then - let's say we remove that.

What do you mean?

Remove impotence as grounds for annulment, obviously.

[Dazchan]

Incidentally, infertility isn't grounds for nullity (the Australian equivalent of an annulment) in Australia, and is only grounds for an annulment in the US if the infertility is not declared prior to marriage.

So, yeah, people without junk can be married, if their partners know that they don't have junk before they get married.

[Auralia]

What if he nor his wife don't want to have kids and thus don't care that his junk was cut off, and therefore don't get an annulment. Should they be allowed to marry in the first place?

No, no, it's okay. Trans* people exist, so now he has to let gay people marry.

No. For the purposes of marriage, biological sex, not gender, is relevant.

[Euroslavia]

Yes let's let the gays marry each other [sarcasm]. Well, at least "gay marriage" is more possible as "gay sex". Marriage is not intended for two guys or girls. Marriage is a HOLY COVENANT made by ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!! By "marrying" your friend of same gender is a disgrace. It is retarded to think about it. But, that shows were people are today. Stupid.

Let's not result to personal attacks and broad generalizations, okay? Stick to the discussion at hand, not the people discussing it.

[Auralia]

Incidentally, infertility isn't grounds for nullity (the Australian equivalent of an annulment) in Australia, and is only grounds for an annulment in the US if the infertility is not declared prior to marriage.

So, yeah, people without junk can be married, if their partners know that they don't have junk before they get married.

Infertility =/= impotence.

[Jormengand]

No, no, it's okay. Trans* people exist, so now he has to let gay people marry.

No. For the purposes of marriage, biological sex, not gender, is relevant.

Should either be? I'm still not seeing why.

[Auralia]

What do you mean?

Remove impotence as grounds for annulment, obviously.

That won't happen, because it doesn't make any sense. The law wouldn't reflect physical reality anymore.

[Auralia]

No. For the purposes of marriage, biological sex, not gender, is relevant.

Should either be? I'm still not seeing why.

Only a biological man and a biological women are capable of engaging in coitus.

[Caecuser]

What do you mean?

Remove impotence as grounds for annulment, obviously.

Yeah, this.

[Divair]

Remove impotence as grounds for annulment, obviously.

That won't happen, because it doesn't make any sense. The law wouldn't reflect physical reality anymore.

Yes it would. Law determines reality if enforced. That's what law does.