Gays CANNOT consummate their marriage.
Consummation of a marriage is the first act of sexual intercourse between a married couple.
Sexual intercourse is defined as the penetration of the vagina by the penis.
Consummation traditionally, is what validates the marriage contract. Any marriage not consummated, can be broken off without a divorce.
Any "marriage" contract between the homosexual parties, is legally unenforceable, it is null and void because the contract can not be "signed," so to speak.
All credit for that argument goes to: http://www.createdebate.com/user/viewprofile/unownmew
It can be referenced here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/What_would_consummation_of_a_marriage_mean_in_relation_to_gay_marriage/debate
Side Score: 52
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 40
It looks like gays have to change the definition of "consummate" or the definition of "intercourse" in order to make their "marriage" valid.
I propose they just force the government to stop using the word "marriage" (because it is archaic) and start using "Civil Union" for both hetero and homosexual unions.
But hey, that's just me trying to stir the pot and move up the Weekly Leader Board ;)
Vag on vag sex
It doesn't seem like it's really a very complicated connection to make.
Anyways, mainly I just wanted to say I don't think you'd be bringing this issue up if some war vet paralyzed from the waist down (including his penis) got married after his tour.
Haha actually what am I saying... you of all people just might do that.
Very well put, that goes hand in hand with my point quite nicely I think. The way people use the word sex and sexual intercourse is nearly synonymous and people usually consider all those other things sex, so to say sexual intercourse is only vag/penis like Joe said would only complicate things more than it needs to be.
Oral sex is Felatio.
Anal sex is sodomy.
Panis/vag action is intercourse.
Felatio is a very specific form of sex.
Sodomy is a very specific form of sex.
Intercourse is a very specific form of sex.
The word "consummate" concerns itself with the very specific form of sex called "intercourse." The word "consummate" does NOT deal with the specific forms of sex called "felatio" nor does it deal with the specific form of sex called "sodomy."
The definitions are very clear. I don't see a reason to obfuscate the meaning of those words. Unless, of course, it is being driven by an agenda ;)
Cheeky, taking credit for my knowledge. :P
Actually, I'd like to refine my definition.
Consummation is sexual intercourse, but a more appropriate word to use which carries the same meaning, one which does not carry any social baggage or have a history of being definition warped:
Consummation is the first act of "coitus" between a man and a woman who have become married, and it is this act, which must be done in such a manner that procreation is possible, that validates the marriage contract.
Technically, no they don't. The law says that if anyone is physically incapable of consummation than the other can ask for an annulment, so it doesn't actually have to be done, it just has to be possible. Plus, there is a limit. If you are married for 4 years and the other doesn't complain, you can't get an annulment.
That part of the law can probably be changed because of the overall acceptance of gay marriage.
The idea of consummation can be redefined on a whim however. A pro gay judge can easily expand consummation to include gay sex.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
I heard otherwise. I looked it up, you are right. Sorry, my bad. It currently says that if they are not physically able to then it can be annulled. Maybe I heard that it changed to that from the couple had to actually consummate. Either way, you view that not being able to consummate is grounds for annulment is correct.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Sexual intercourse between two men or two women is still considered sex. There is no official definition for any word, pie could mean carrot, and carrot could mean pie. The important thing I think in taking into account with language are what the words typically mean, or imply, their history is somewhat relevant to however words change, and consistency of our language's workings. Dictionaries try to define words taking into account practicality and its typical meanings so dictionaries are good, but they aren't language law since they are always changing and tend to disagree with each other. Nobody denies that homosexuals have sex, majority of people I know considers sex between two men or women sexual intercourse, if not what should we call sex between two men? Should we stop using the term "anal sex" and call it something else? It's just not consistent with how we use our language, however if you ask any random heterosexual guy to explain sexual intercourse, they will most likely explain heterosexual intercourse as that is the first thing that pops to mind. I'd suspect that is what happened with that dictionary, but I disagree, homosexuals do have sexual intercourse and therefore whether or not marriages need to consummate, homosexuals marriages do.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
What good is it to have dictionaries if we are not going to abide by their definition?
I'm just saying their definitions aren't 100% law, they are good, because they do a pretty good job at defining words.
What good is it to have a language if we can't decide on a definition?
Well just in America there is about 300,000 people, I think it is is unrealistic to expect people across the world of any language to be on the same page about what means what, especially one of the biggest languages in the world. We are all on the sane page for the most part making the language beneficial, but the fact that we have semantics is because language can get debatable.
Sexual intercourse is NOT anal sex. Sexual intercourse if penis/vagina action ;)
Sexual intercourse is sex, therefore if we accept your definition of sexual intercourse and therefore sex, and sex can't involve the anus, then the term "anal sex" contradicts itself.