Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafemud

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]


BS: 'Gay marriage' question

McGrath of Harlow 20 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM
Ebbie 20 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 12 - 04:06 PM
gnu 20 Sep 12 - 04:10 PM
GUEST 20 Sep 12 - 04:17 PM
Wesley S 20 Sep 12 - 04:20 PM
gnu 20 Sep 12 - 04:22 PM
McGrath of Harlow 20 Sep 12 - 04:23 PM
Jeri 20 Sep 12 - 04:28 PM
Bill D 20 Sep 12 - 04:32 PM
Amos 20 Sep 12 - 04:34 PM
Henry Krinkle 20 Sep 12 - 04:37 PM
Don Firth 20 Sep 12 - 04:40 PM
GUEST,Jack Sprocket (for 'twas he) 20 Sep 12 - 04:43 PM
Bill D 20 Sep 12 - 04:51 PM
McGrath of Harlow 20 Sep 12 - 04:54 PM
artbrooks 20 Sep 12 - 05:58 PM
gnu 20 Sep 12 - 06:24 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 20 Sep 12 - 07:34 PM
gnu 20 Sep 12 - 07:55 PM
GUEST,olddude 20 Sep 12 - 08:41 PM
Jack Campin 20 Sep 12 - 08:53 PM
Bill D 20 Sep 12 - 10:27 PM
John P 20 Sep 12 - 10:58 PM
GUEST,Frank 20 Sep 12 - 11:20 PM
GUEST,olddude 20 Sep 12 - 11:22 PM
Amos 20 Sep 12 - 11:47 PM
Jack the Sailor 21 Sep 12 - 01:56 AM
GUEST,olddude 21 Sep 12 - 01:57 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 02:33 AM
Don Firth 21 Sep 12 - 02:41 AM
JohnInKansas 21 Sep 12 - 03:30 AM
Musket 21 Sep 12 - 04:12 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 04:14 AM
MtheGM 21 Sep 12 - 04:20 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 04:34 AM
MtheGM 21 Sep 12 - 04:47 AM
Musket 21 Sep 12 - 05:06 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 05:34 AM
Jack the Sailor 21 Sep 12 - 05:43 AM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 12 - 06:06 AM
Henry Krinkle 21 Sep 12 - 06:19 AM
kendall 21 Sep 12 - 07:41 AM
bobad 21 Sep 12 - 08:13 AM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 12 - 08:19 AM
Amos 21 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM
kendall 21 Sep 12 - 10:47 AM
McGrath of Harlow 21 Sep 12 - 11:01 AM
Smedley 21 Sep 12 - 11:10 AM
frogprince 21 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM

I'd have thought one way and another this topic has been talked to death - but a letter in today's Independent newspaper (London) raises a point I haven't seen discussed anywhere before:

"A marriage comes into existence when it is consummated. How do you propose to define consummation for same-sex "marriages"? If it can't be done then failure to consummate as a ground for annulment must be removed. If that happens marriage will not be redefined and extended – it will be abolished. (S P Rouse,Ashtead, Surrey)

The point at issue being, what counts as "consummation" in the case of gay relationships, male and female? And what doesn't? And have the legislators in various places where marriage has been redefined reached a common definition?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM

That was Bill Clinton's defense. Kind of.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:06 PM

Its like that judge said about pornography. You will know it when you see it.

As for myself, I'd rather have them just sign a certificate or something saying that they have consummated rather than have them describe what they did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:10 PM

Nah... if one partner makes another come, it's all good.

Maybe not a good joke but a stab.

In actuality, "consummation" occurs when they sign the papers. When you sign the contract you are truly fucked.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:17 PM

"A marriage comes into existence when it is consummated. "

Not in British law. Nor is it putting on the ring, or saying I Do, or kissing the bride, or cutting the cake. Signing the register by both parties commences a legal marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:20 PM

I'll start the popcorn........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:22 PM

Wesley... hahahahahaha!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:23 PM

Not strictly true GUEST - signing the register commences a potentially legal marriage - if it doesn't get consummated, it is subject to annulment, which means the court has determined that there never was a marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:28 PM

Wesley, I'll take one.
Popcorn, I mean.

The consummation inspector for marriages presumably would check all of them, not just the heterosexual couples.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:32 PM

"... if it doesn't get consummated, it is subject to annulment.."

Presumably this becomes relevant upon a 'complaint' by one party.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:34 PM

You guys are back in the tarpit confusing civil rights with religious significances. WHen I perform a wedding, and send in the legal forms to the County office and it gets registered, that is the civil marriage, signed and sealed. Legal marriage in the eyes of the civic community under civil law.

Consummation or any other form of voodoo such as blood on the sheets or the arrival of holy spirits or the crowing of a cock is all foderol belonging to the various religious organizations who thought it would be a good idea to grab people by the shorts so as to control their lives--a very successful tactic, but not honorable, ethical, or necessary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:37 PM

This is gross. Will our troops be consumating in foxholes on the
battlefield?
(:-( D)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:40 PM

I would say the marriage is "consummated" when a minister or judge utters the words, "By the authority vested in me by (whatever legal office), I now pronounce you man and wife." Or "husband and wife."

But under the circumstances of a same-sex marriage, in one church I am acquainted with, when marrying a same-sex couple, the minister said, "I now pronounce you duly married."

This church has married four same-sex couples, three male, one female (and whether the state recognizes it or not, in the eyes of this particular church, they are married), and as much as fifteen years later, all four couples are still together.

Something took.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket (for 'twas he)
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:43 PM

You are confusing a marriage which is null and void ab initio (e.g. because the parties may not legally marry*) with one which is voidable, e.g. as a result of a complaint that one party is unable or unwilling to consummate the marriage. In this second case the marriage has legal force until nullified by a court. It is to be doubted that such complaints will arise (I nearly left that 'i' out) significantly more often in the case of same- sex marriages than they have done hithertofore.

* where one party is underage, in cases of bigamy, where a person has misrepresented themself as the opposite sex, or between United and City supporters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:51 PM

"between United and City supporters."

For 'mericans, he means M&M...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 04:54 PM

I think you miss the point Amos - there is nothing religious about a determination by a court that a marriage did not exist on the basis of a failure to consummate. More likely to be a matter about disputes regarding property.

From a legal point of view it would be analogous to any other contract where it is allegedthat the conditions have not been observed, for example the cheque bounced.

In the case of a heterosexual couple the legal situation is that some kinds of sexual activity count in this context, and others do not. It's not at all clear what the analogous situation is in the case of gay couples.

I can envisage that court cases will arise which will centre on disagreements between partners about this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 05:58 PM

A situation in which UK and US laws differ, I think. The law almost certainly varies between states, but failure to consummate isn't grounds for annulment in the 3 different jurisdictions I looked at. Impotency is, however.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 06:24 PM

Sprocket... hahahahahaa!

Um... I dunno if anyone that has posted so far really gets it? Am I remiss in this assumption? Perhaps it's best for me to ask a simple question. I was just making jokes but it seems to me that some people here don't even understand the true meaning of consummation, soooo...

What is "consummation"? And, don't look it up in the dictionary... the dictionary is wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 07:34 PM

Annulment on the grounds of failure to consummate a marriage is based on the idea that sex is an implicit part of the marriage contract. If either party refuses to put out, an annulment may be sought by the aggrieved party without having to go through divorce proceedings. But an annulment must be sought by one of the people in the marriage. It can't be foisted upon a couple by some third party. If a couple is happy living chastely, or if they just prefer mutual masturbation and oral sex to coitus, it's nobody's business but their own.

Also, if the nonconsummation argument relative to gay marriage is based on the idea that sex between two people of the same sex cannot create children, then any heterosexual marriage in which either party uses birth control 100% of the time could be said to be unconsummated. If that's the case, then my current marriage was unconsummated for well over ten years, until my wife reached menopause and threw her diaphragm away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 07:55 PM

BWL... yer ALMOST there. Soooo close. I think you just explained it at about 99.99%.

Sorry... I don't mean to sound condscending even tho I do. I really wanna know if many posters actually get the concept of non-consummation and how it applies to annulment over time. Maybe there is another question... how long can annulment be sought? Is frigidity acceptable grounds for divorce under law (British Law)? How far can a spouse take that in proceedings? How do these two ineract in... maybe this is tooo much? After all, the OP asked about same sex marriages so discussing something that has little to do with sex other than procreation may be too much thread drift???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 08:41 PM

Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means LOL

not tonight dear, I gotta headache :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 08:53 PM

We have kinda been here before with civil partnerships.

In Scotland, a civil partnership is MORE binding than a marriage. Adultery is grounds for divorce but it is NOT grounds for dissolving a civil partnership. Too late to look this up now, but I suspect absence of solatium (Scots-law concept resembling "consummation") doesn't feature as a ground for breakup of a civil partnership either.

We don't have gay marriage here yet. It seems odd that it would imply *looser* standards than the arrangements gays can make at present, but if that's the way the family moralists want it...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 10:27 PM

"Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means.."

nonsense... ;>)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 10:58 PM

"Consummation" in this context refers to having sex. Gay people definitely have sex. If they have sex after they get married, they have consummated the marriage. This all assumes that the whole idea of consummation and annulment are in any way important. I've never actually known anyone for whom it was, though. If your spouse won't screw you, and that's the basis for your marriage, you can always just get a divorce.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 11:20 PM

"not tonight dear, I gotta headache :-)"

If Women are supposed to be able to do two things at once,
how come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 11:22 PM

Good point Frank I gotta ask next time :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 11:47 PM

Encoded in law or not the consummation issue is an absurd parody of sensible legal structures. Marriage and divorce are voluntary subscriptions by free individuals. Their sexuality, their religious convictions, their skins, ethnicities, or tax status have no bloody thing to do with it. These are arbitraries injected into the pattern, and the fate of all arbitraries is to give birth to more and more complexity. Get back to the simplicities. All the rest is persiflage and furbelows and absurdity. Two people wish to commit to being married; the state records and recognizes same. Two married people feel they cannot maintain the state of being married. The state records and acknowledges same. How complex do you have tio make it before your vast appetite for endless, ridiculous complications is satiated?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:56 AM

Well every heterosexual man who has been married for more that 5 years knows very well what "failure to consummate" means LOL

I think I know what you are talking about. Rodney Dangerfield?   Hennie Youngman? But we'll be married 10 years Oct 10 and I don't know it from experience.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:57 AM

well Amos for a bunch of movie stars the engagement ring has to be more that 7 ct and the wedding has to cost more than 3 million


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 02:33 AM

Gay people engage in sexual activity, but they DON'T have sex. There is a difference.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 02:41 AM

Henry, would you care to enlighten us--IN GREAT DETAIL--as to what the difference is?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 03:30 AM

In the half dozen states where I've spent sufficient time to be curious about the marriage statutes, the civil marriage - the thing for which you get a license - does not mention any requirement that the couple have sex, or place any limitation on what kind(s) of sex they may have.

I haven't done any particularly detailed search/study, but it appears that "annulments" are seldom granted in civil courts, and only if it is found that there was legal impediment to the marriage, which rendered it null and void from the outset.

While an inability to perform expected acts, sexual or otherwise, that one party concealed or lied about prior to the marriage might be cited as an evidence to be considered by the court/judge any decision that simple "inability or failure to f*ck" was a sufficient cause to declare the marriage void would have to be based on the judge's belief that it was "an egregious violation of common (common law?) expectations" extensive enough to violate the agreement. In most cases I would expect that a decision would rely more on the presumption that the ability or proclivity was concealed from the other party before the marriage, and "he/she knew I wouldn't" would probably be an adequate defense.

The most common reason for a civil annulment probably is one of the parties being under the legal age to marry (and lacking parental consent) at the time of the marriage. A second reason that appears fairly often would be evidence that one of the parties was coerced or not mentally competent at the time of the marriage (but if one of you goes berserk later - even on the honeymoon - a divorce would likely be required).

I have known at least a half dozen heterosexually married couples who have said their marriage was based on agreement before the ceremony that there would be no sex of any kind between them during the marriage. Their reasons were apparently rather varied - and not my concern. Those marriages were perfectly valid, under the laws of all states for which I have any specific knowledge. At least one of these couples did divorce (not annul) the marriage while I knew them.

I have known at least an equal number who obtained a civil divorce that their religion did not recognize. All parties to those marriages, except one, did not remarry so far as I knew, citing the strictures of their religion; but a primary reason for the civil divorce in all cases was that the civil court can order and enforce support for the dependant party while the churches have no legal standing to do so.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:12 AM

As part of my "interfering in health and social care" role these days, I was at a nursing home the other day. I was delighted to speak with a couple who had met when he was admitted last year and sat at the same table as her. They married last month.

Does anybody wish to ask, as she is in her '90s and he in his late '80s, if they are married or not? My own mother married again in late old age and he was her husband. Don't try telling me anything else.

I can't help wonder if this archaic word "consummated" is linked to the Catholic inspired bit about "procreation."   In which case, as I already had two grown up sons when I married the other year, I'm not married either as neither of us want children. After all, I'm to be a Granddad soon.

So we are left with a distinction with which to exhibit bigotry, and especially in the direction of gay people.

It isn't that gay people deserve an equal stake in marriage. It is that they are an equal stakeholder in society so why the fuss? The law must reflect society or it is irrelevant in a democracy.

I look forward to the Tory conference so the TV screens can show the fringe meeting that has been set up by the "pro marriage" brigade. Let us see what a bigot looks like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:14 AM

Sex is between a male and female and can result in reproduction. It involves the penis and vagina. Sexual activity can be with anyone and anything. People,animals, fruits and vegetables, inanimate objects, etc. I have sex,Don. You merely engage in sexual activity, Don. It's the difference between talking the talk, and walking the walk.
No brag, just fact.
(:-( D)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:20 AM

"Sex" is not what you meant there, Henry. What you are clearly referring to is "sexual intercourse". The word 'sex', tout simple, has many other connotations. You merely confuse, and do not advance, your argument by such disingenuous semantic confusion.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:34 AM

Sex is sexual intercourse.
Anything else is just monkey junk.
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MtheGM
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:47 AM

"Sex" is also a distinction of physical gender; and a verb meaning "to determine the gender of"; and a collective term for the members of one or other gender; and an adjective or compound-noun-former used for certain artefacts [e.g. books, films, pictures, &c] concerned with the topic of the distinction between the genders and the physical and intellectual activities thereto concomitant......

You are a confused obscurantist I fear, Mr K. If you would just use the term appropriate to the concept you desire to express, your points would be more firmly asseverated.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:06 AM

Sex is gender distinction.

Sexual intercourse is fucking. Gender distinction is not part of the term of reference....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:34 AM

Yea, I was going to mention the gender distinction angle, but I thought it was too obvious. Soooo, is there a gay sex?
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:43 AM

Oh I think that YOU know that there is. Your bluster is like that of a well known Republican lawmaker with a wide stance in a men's room.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:06 AM

I can see the lawyers having a field day with this.

Marriage involves sharing property in a civil contract that is binding in law. That means that disputes about whether a legal marriage existed is liable to involve lawyers and arguments as to what were the precise conditions of the contract and whether they have been fulfilled. There are of course physical constraints as to precisely what sexual activities could be implied conditions, given the gender of the parties involved.

I think artbrooks was right about there being differences about this kind of thing between laws in various places. Which implies that though we all use the term "marriage" the precise definition of this varies from place to place. Which will continue to be the case even more so, and give the lawyers even more fun in an era of increased globalisation of everything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:19 AM

Bluster?        Pshaw! I'm merely stating my case.
What's your excuse?
(:-( ))=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:41 AM

Would anyone care to explain why marriage was invented in the first place? It had very little to do with sex.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: bobad
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 08:13 AM

"The law must reflect society or it is irrelevant in a democracy."

Very well put, Musket.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 08:19 AM

Primarily as a way of trying to ensure stability of human and other resourcers during childhood. And for property reasons. Without marriage or some equivalent these things get even more complicated than they are to start with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM

It was invented to allow sole claimancy to a female by a male. Simple ownership in fee simple, and an evolutionary advantage (when exercised wisely) in stronger offspring, loyal sources of help, and so on. It evolved into a valued societal institution because it made stronger families to have stable management and a reasonable division of duties.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 10:47 AM

Mostly to protect women an children who had no legal right to own anything. When hubby died she was destitute.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 11:01 AM

I can't see that "invented" is the right word. It rather suggest that sometime back then someone had a Eureka moment, and then set about getting other people to implement it.   

Social patterns aren't invented, they evolve.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 11:10 AM

This question, and the interesting implications it raises, shows how much of our language/thinking about sex takes heterosexuality for granted. It's a bit like asking a gay person when they 'lost their virginity' - what counts as that for us non-hets ??? (I was going to say what yardstick do you use, but realised that might be offering a gift to the inuendo mafia!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM

Intelligence is something demonstrated by most of the Mudcat membership except Henry Krinkle.

Anything else is just monkey junk.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 

Reply to Thread
Subject:  Help
From:
Preview   Automatic Linebreaks   Make a link ("blue clicky")


Mudcat time: 30 July 3:04 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.