Alabama supreme court tells SC to take a hike on marriage opinion

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Name a state where your civil marriage, and all that comes with it legally, has to proven to have been consummated before it is valid.

And tell us how you prove to authorities that it was consummated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Lets get specific. Show us a state that requires 'consummation with sexual intercourse' for a marriage to be valid.

We'll look at the actual law. Not your paraphrases of it.

And how does the couple provide proof? lol

 

[Skylar]

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.

Lets get specific. Show us a state that requires 'consummation with sexual intercourse' for a marriage to be valid.

We'll look at the actual law. Not your paraphrases of it.

And how does the couple provide proof? lol

"And look....here's where she switches to reverse cowgirl. And there, right *there*. See? We did the close up for a reason."

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So the Supreme Court has made same sex marriage an equal right, and you still get to call it 'sodomy' if that gets you off.

See? Now everyone's happy.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

 

[Skylar]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

sexual intercourse
n.
1: heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus

2: intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

Definition of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

So sexual intercourse doesn't include anal?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

 

[rdean]

You forget how much Republicans hate the gays among others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

Not when it comes to marriage or other locally regulated privileges. If it did, automatically polygamy and incest marriage would also today be legal between consenting adults. You can't pick and choose which repugnant sexual orientation gets to marry and which don't while simultaneously citing "equal rights in the constitution"...

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

 

[Syriusly]

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

Not when it comes to marriage or other locally regulated privileges. If it did, automatically polygamy and incest marriage would also today be legal between consenting adults. You can't pick and choose which repugnant sexual orientation gets to marry and which don't while simultaneously citing "equal rights in the constitution"...

Silhouette- are you for incestuous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Words are how we describe reality- and words change.

The repressive Conservatives and Christians who have tried to persecute homosexuals for centuries are just pissed off that they can't get away with it anymore- and are pissing and moaning.

 

[OKTexas]

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Sexual Intercourse Law & Legal Definition

Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

I guess gay men can't have sexual intercourse- but of course lesbians can........lol...according to the legal dictionary-

But the Medical Dictionary has a different definition
sexual intercourse
sexual intercourse
n.
1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]

• Word Origin

noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def 4).

the definition of sodomy

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Words are how we describe reality- and words change.

The repressive Conservatives and Christians who have tried to persecute homosexuals for centuries are just pissed off that they can't get away with it anymore- and are pissing and moaning.

Of course you regressives are the only ones capable of describing reality or changing definitions, right? That's just a tad bit arrogant and narcissistic, don't you think?

 

[Seawytch]

So there is a nexus between 'sodomy' and 'sexual intercourse'

No, nothing in reality has changed, it's just regressive moral relativism. If they don't like the implications of a term, they just redefine it, kind of like they're doing to the Constitution.

Nothing is being 'redefined'. The Constitution clearly protects equal treatment under the law,

which means that same sex marriage is entitled to the same treatment as opposite sex marriage.

BS, the 14th didn't protect faghadist marriage for 147 years, the only thing that changed was the number of regressive judges on the court that were willing to invent a right that never existed in history.

The 14th Amendment didn't protect what you would call "n*gger lover" marriage for 100 years. People like you are still upset about those 'repressive judges that suddenly 'invented' the right of a mixed race couple to marry.

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

No one said you did. He said your opposition to gays civilly marrying is EXACTLY like bigots that opposed interracial marriage.

How are the NOT equatable?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I got some news for you hero, I have never thought the decision to allow mixed race marriages was wrong, I've never agreed with discrimination base on race. To attempt to equate mixed race marriages with faghadist marriages is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Most people found interracial marriage perverted and immoral in the 1960's.


>>>>