Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?
And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex.
'Biological compatibility' has never been a requirement of marriage.
Infertile couples can marry just as easily as fertile ones. Nor does any State (including the Great State of Texas) require anyone getting married to have kids or be able to have kids.
Making 'biological compatibility' irrelevant to marriage....long before Obergefell.
And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
No that's what a minimal majority did and like all court decisions, it's subject to change, either by another court or an amendment.
Its very unlikely to change by other method though. You can't cite a single example where the court has recognized a fundamental right....and then found that the right doesn't actually exist.
And there's little to no interest in a constitutional amendment on marriage. Conservatives have been trying for over a decade. They simply don't have the numbers. With support dwindling even among those states they could bring on.
Texas is a gay marriage state. Gays and lesbians get married there every day. And their marriages are just as valid and protected by the Great State of Texas as those of any straight couple.
Get used to the idea.
Nope, I'll keep fighting either to get an amendment or change the make up of the court. Several of the regressive judges will soon be following Scalia, hopefully sooner rather than later, it can all change.
If you could pass an amendment all by yourself, that might be relevant. But you just don't have the numbers or the public support:
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Texas is a gay marriage state. Every day, gay men and lesbian women marry, have receptions, dance, celebrate with friend and families. And then start families of their own. And Texas recognizes their marriages as being as legally valid and legitimate as those of straight couples.
And there's really not a damn thing you can do about it.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex.
'Biological compatibility' has never been a requirement of marriage.
Infertile couples can marry just as easily as fertile ones. Nor does any State (including the Great State of Texas) require anyone getting married to have kids or be able to have kids.
Making 'biological compatibility' irrelevant to marriage....long before Obergefell.
That's a lie, biological comparability has always been a component of marriage, that's why only opposite sex couples could do it, there was just no requirement for procreation. So keep dancing with your deflections and semantics, it doesn't alter biology or the purpose for which marriage was established in the first place.History is my witness all you have is 5 unelected regressive judges.
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
No that's what a minimal majority did and like all court decisions, it's subject to change, either by another court or an amendment.
Its very unlikely to change by other method though. You can't cite a single example where the court has recognized a fundamental right....and then found that the right doesn't actually exist.
And there's little to no interest in a constitutional amendment on marriage. Conservatives have been trying for over a decade. They simply don't have the numbers. With support dwindling even among those states they could bring on.
Texas is a gay marriage state. Gays and lesbians get married there every day. And their marriages are just as valid and protected by the Great State of Texas as those of any straight couple.
Get used to the idea.
Nope, I'll keep fighting either to get an amendment or change the make up of the court. Several of the regressive judges will soon be following Scalia, hopefully sooner rather than later, it can all change.
If you could pass an amendment all by yourself, that might be relevant. But you just don't have the numbers or the public support:
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Texas is a gay marriage state. Every day, gay men and lesbian women marry, have receptions, dance, celebrate with friend and families. And then start families of their own. And Texas recognizes their marriages as being as legally valid and legitimate as those of straight couples.
And there's really not a damn thing you can do about it.
Wrong, all I need is 37 State legislatures or a good president that will appoint judges that will follow the Constitution and not try to change it.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex.
'Biological compatibility' has never been a requirement of marriage.
Infertile couples can marry just as easily as fertile ones. Nor does any State (including the Great State of Texas) require anyone getting married to have kids or be able to have kids.
Making 'biological compatibility' irrelevant to marriage....long before Obergefell.
That's a lie, biological comparability has always been a component of marriage, that's why only opposite sex couples could do it, there was just no requirement for procreation. So keep dancing with your deflections and semantics, it doesn't alter biology or the purpose for which marriage was established in the first place.History is my witness all you have is 5 unelected regressive judges.
Show me one state that required that a couple have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. Or one that even mentioned 'biological compatibility' in their marriage laws.
You can't. As you're just making shit up.
No that's what a minimal majority did and like all court decisions, it's subject to change, either by another court or an amendment.
Its very unlikely to change by other method though. You can't cite a single example where the court has recognized a fundamental right....and then found that the right doesn't actually exist.
And there's little to no interest in a constitutional amendment on marriage. Conservatives have been trying for over a decade. They simply don't have the numbers. With support dwindling even among those states they could bring on.
Texas is a gay marriage state. Gays and lesbians get married there every day. And their marriages are just as valid and protected by the Great State of Texas as those of any straight couple.
Get used to the idea.
Nope, I'll keep fighting either to get an amendment or change the make up of the court. Several of the regressive judges will soon be following Scalia, hopefully sooner rather than later, it can all change.
If you could pass an amendment all by yourself, that might be relevant. But you just don't have the numbers or the public support:
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Texas is a gay marriage state. Every day, gay men and lesbian women marry, have receptions, dance, celebrate with friend and families. And then start families of their own. And Texas recognizes their marriages as being as legally valid and legitimate as those of straight couples.
And there's really not a damn thing you can do about it.
Wrong, all I need is 37 State legislatures or a good president that will appoint judges that will follow the Constitution and not try to change it.
You don't have 37 states. And the leading proponent for your way of thinking is dead. With the courts currently 5-3 in favor of same sex marriage. Nor can you cite a single example where the court recognized a right....and then took it back.
You *want* Obergefell to be overturned. And you're allowing your desire to confuse your thinking mind on what is likely. Nothing you've described is likely.
Face it: Texas is a gay marriage state. From Austin to El Paso. Your clerks issue marriage certificates to same sex couples, your law protects their marriage as much as it does the marriages of opposite sex couples.
Its very unlikely to change by other method though. You can't cite a single example where the court has recognized a fundamental right....and then found that the right doesn't actually exist.
And there's little to no interest in a constitutional amendment on marriage. Conservatives have been trying for over a decade. They simply don't have the numbers. With support dwindling even among those states they could bring on.
Texas is a gay marriage state. Gays and lesbians get married there every day. And their marriages are just as valid and protected by the Great State of Texas as those of any straight couple.
Get used to the idea.
Nope, I'll keep fighting either to get an amendment or change the make up of the court. Several of the regressive judges will soon be following Scalia, hopefully sooner rather than later, it can all change.
If you could pass an amendment all by yourself, that might be relevant. But you just don't have the numbers or the public support:
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Texas is a gay marriage state. Every day, gay men and lesbian women marry, have receptions, dance, celebrate with friend and families. And then start families of their own. And Texas recognizes their marriages as being as legally valid and legitimate as those of straight couples.
And there's really not a damn thing you can do about it.
Wrong, all I need is 37 State legislatures or a good president that will appoint judges that will follow the Constitution and not try to change it.
You don't have 37 states. And the leading proponent for your way of thinking is dead. With the courts currently 5-3 in favor of same sex marriage. Nor can you cite a single example where the court recognized a right....and then took it back.
You *want* Obergefell to be overturned. And you're allowing your desire to confuse your thinking mind on what is likely. Nothing you've described is likely.
Face it: Texas is a gay marriage state. From Austin to El Paso. Your clerks issue marriage certificates to same sex couples, your law protects their marriage as much as it does the marriages of opposite sex couples.
Why do you keep saying from Austin to El Paso is only half the State included? Or are you just that ignorant about TX geography.
Nope, I'll keep fighting either to get an amendment or change the make up of the court. Several of the regressive judges will soon be following Scalia, hopefully sooner rather than later, it can all change.
If you could pass an amendment all by yourself, that might be relevant. But you just don't have the numbers or the public support:
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Texas is a gay marriage state. Every day, gay men and lesbian women marry, have receptions, dance, celebrate with friend and families. And then start families of their own. And Texas recognizes their marriages as being as legally valid and legitimate as those of straight couples.
And there's really not a damn thing you can do about it.
Wrong, all I need is 37 State legislatures or a good president that will appoint judges that will follow the Constitution and not try to change it.
You don't have 37 states. And the leading proponent for your way of thinking is dead. With the courts currently 5-3 in favor of same sex marriage. Nor can you cite a single example where the court recognized a right....and then took it back.
You *want* Obergefell to be overturned. And you're allowing your desire to confuse your thinking mind on what is likely. Nothing you've described is likely.
Face it: Texas is a gay marriage state. From Austin to El Paso. Your clerks issue marriage certificates to same sex couples, your law protects their marriage as much as it does the marriages of opposite sex couples.
Why do you keep saying from Austin to El Paso is only half the State included? Or are you just that ignorant about TX geography.
Why do you keep ignoring that the *whole* State of Texas....is a gay marriage state?
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.
Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?
And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
Up until 50 years ago it was not allowed between races...and?
And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
If you could pass an amendment all by yourself, that might be relevant. But you just don't have the numbers or the public support:
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Texas is a gay marriage state. Every day, gay men and lesbian women marry, have receptions, dance, celebrate with friend and families. And then start families of their own. And Texas recognizes their marriages as being as legally valid and legitimate as those of straight couples.
And there's really not a damn thing you can do about it.
Wrong, all I need is 37 State legislatures or a good president that will appoint judges that will follow the Constitution and not try to change it.
You don't have 37 states. And the leading proponent for your way of thinking is dead. With the courts currently 5-3 in favor of same sex marriage. Nor can you cite a single example where the court recognized a right....and then took it back.
You *want* Obergefell to be overturned. And you're allowing your desire to confuse your thinking mind on what is likely. Nothing you've described is likely.
Face it: Texas is a gay marriage state. From Austin to El Paso. Your clerks issue marriage certificates to same sex couples, your law protects their marriage as much as it does the marriages of opposite sex couples.
Why do you keep saying from Austin to El Paso is only half the State included? Or are you just that ignorant about TX geography.
Why do you keep ignoring that the *whole* State of Texas....is a gay marriage state?
Still can't answer a simple question, fuck off. I'm done.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
Civil marriage has no sexual component to it, so your insane rambling is irrelevant.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex.
'Biological compatibility' has never been a requirement of marriage.
Infertile couples can marry just as easily as fertile ones. Nor does any State (including the Great State of Texas) require anyone getting married to have kids or be able to have kids.
Making 'biological compatibility' irrelevant to marriage....long before Obergefell.
That's a lie, biological comparability has always been a component of marriage, that's why only opposite sex couples could do it, there was just no requirement for procreation. So keep dancing with your deflections and semantics, it doesn't alter biology or the purpose for which marriage was established in the first place.History is my witness all you have is 5 unelected regressive judges.
Show me one state that required that a couple have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. Or one that even mentioned 'biological compatibility' in their marriage laws.
You can't. As you're just making shit up.
I stated that the sex was not required to be productive, you having problems reading this late?
If State laws limit marriage to one man and one woman, would they be biologically compatible to engage in sexual intercourse? Yes or No.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
And? Was it legal after that decision for a man to marry a man, nope. Nothing in the Constitution has changed, why would it be legal now?
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
Civil marriage has no sexual component to it, so your insane rambling is irrelevant.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
It has been legal for a man to marry a man in Masssachusetts for over 10 years.
What you want to ignore- and understandably so- is that you are no different from the bigots who whined and moaned after Loving v. Virginia.
In both Obergefell and Loving the Supreme Court reviewed state marriage laws and found them to be unconstitutional.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
And what civil marriage law in this country requires a couple to have a certain sort of sexual intercourse?
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
And what civil marriage law in this country requires a couple to have a certain sort of sexual intercourse?
You can say black is red, but that doesn't make is so, there is only one form of human sexual intercourse, the kind that can procreate, though procreation is not required. All else is defined as sodomy.
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
Civil marriage has no sexual component to it, so your insane rambling is irrelevant.
Really, then why did many States allow for an annulment, instead of divorce, if the marriage hadn't been consummated?
Oh, and its obvious you completely abandoned your 'biological reality' horseshit.
Good. It was foolish nonsense.
But...nothing in the constitution changed before Loving. Thus per OK.....Texas laws forbidding interracial marriage should still be in effect.
Actually I abandon nothing, two men/women are biologically incompatible and incapable of having sex. That's a fact. Sex has always been a part of marriage, in many places a marriage isn't complete until it's consummated by having sex.
Really? So if you bent some guy over a changing table in the Minneapolis airport bathroom and shoved your dick in his ass, that's not sex? You need some remedial sex ed...
Nope, that would be sodomy, not sex. You freaks can try to redefine the terms, but it doesn't change the facts. Only a man and a woman are physically capable of having sex.
And what civil marriage law in this country requires a couple to have a certain sort of sexual intercourse?
You can say black is red, but that doesn't make is so, there is only one form of human sexual intercourse, the kind that can procreate, though procreation is not required. All else is defined as sodomy. Many states require a marriage be consummated with sexual intercourse to be valid.
