Okay. And even though, technically, anti-Semitic refers to all Semitic people, it actually - in terms of context and basic usage - only refers to Jews. This is neither here or there and neither is that.



Currently, the government does not express an interest in this purpose such that it is necessary to exclude non-procreative couples. In fact, in some instances, the couple must prove that they are incapable of procreating. At one point, the government did express a stronger interest in procreation, but that is no longer the case.

The government has some leeway. It could argue that such a procedure was unnecessarily invasive and continue with the presumption that most people will choose to procreate and the remainder is a simple matter of over-inclusion. That's fine. But, if it's going to over-include, it needs to over-include similarly situated people - i.e: same-sex couples.

If you were holding this piece of evidence with the same weight you are holding it in regards to it proving sex necessary to marriage, than the debate would be over. You would acknowledge that coitus sex is needed to consummate a marriage, and that a union that is same gender can not be married.



Can you back this up???




Entspeak you have provided nothing in law or statute to back up this claim of your that the laws are the contract terms of marriage. You've said the obvious... We have to follow laws that apply to married people... if we are married, so lets stop acting like your theory... is fact.

As to them not doing their homework... well is there any thing on mariage application or certificates that tell us in super small writing:

_{**all terms and conditions of marriage are found in State Code that deals with State Licensed Marriage**}

I don't think so. First someone has to be told that for that. I mean if they did do their homework would they find some law stating what you are stating?? Could you show us that??



Actually, I think it puts the shaky marriage-is-all-implied-terms theory on shakier ground. I mean it doesn't strike you as strange that a term in a civil contract would be applied through criminal law.



Not when you are yourself only admitting to the possibility that such a contract exists. The existence of other such contracts will not prove your point, but at least it adds some credence to this theory. All you've shown is that the verbal agreements made during a legal ceremony aren't truly enforce to any large degree, and that laws are enforce. But someone like me would see that and say well that's what's happening. Someone like you finds a totally unsubstantiated reason like... laws are the terms of marriage between a couple.... and the reason we don't see or hear or agree to any of them is because they are ALL implied.



Entspeak, it NEVER was the case, you could have not have sex... you could pull out and let the sperm drop on the floor... and realistically speaking, you could still have other forms of sex with out fear of persecution since sodomy laws were not prosecuted against married couples when both parties were willing.

In another debate Grendal made a comment about people who are oppssed to gay marriage don't debate honestly.... i wonder if he's read any of your posts

No, I acknowledge that coitus sex was necessary to consummate a marriage and that a union that is same gender could not be married under those circumstances. This is what I have been arguing the entire time. It is evidence that sex was a requirement for marriage - something that you said was never the case.



You actually need me to prove to you that interracial marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment?

Wow. Ignorance.



Nope. Sodomy laws were criminal code. Contraception bans were criminal code. Not strange at all.



To say that it is possible for such a contract to exist, doesn't mean that I am only admitting to the possibility that marriage is such a contract. Another manipulation... or more examples of your ignorance regarding rhetorical construction. At this point, I'm willing to wager it's both.



And here is another statement of an absolute. Never? Really? Not having sex never put one's marriage at risk? Was there never a risk that such a marriage could be anulled? Never? Please.



This illustrates a severe ignorance regarding sexual reproduction... not surprising considering your ignorance regarding other simple things... like signing a marriage license.



Show me evidence of a married couple caught having illegal sex that wasn't prosecuted.

Your accusations regarding me lying have grown tiresome, droop. Again, your ignorance, as astounding as it is, is your own. Enjoi.

Entspeak


Entspeak are hand marriages in some obscure colonies that existed prior to our Constitution example of civil marriage in the U.S.???

When we are talking about marriage are we talking about civil marriage???

Who cares what is happening in a few colonies of America? If you want to introduce it as evidence that is relevant today, then all of the evidence presented should be considered as relevant today. Otherwise... yeah you guessed it... it all irrelevant.

Try and be consistant.



No, I need you to show me and other members reading why you say there was a ban on interracial marriage. How did they ban interracial marriage??



So to refute what i am saying you find more examples of the example I gave you of criminal code applying to a civil marriage contract. Let me ask this question anther way... Entspeak is criminal code commonly used as implied terms in other civil contracts? Do you have any other examples??



Entspeak can you show us in State or Federal statute where marriage terms consist only of laws that pertain to marriage?? What difinitive source have you produced to show us that , indeed marriage is a contract completely made up by implied terms.



How so??



The fact that you harp on me using an absolute shows just how petty you have become.. Have to take a victory where you can, huh. Unless a member wants their marriage annulled no it could not be. And if someone does want their marriage annulled, then why should we care?? Two people can have no sex and have a valid marriage since the beginning of California State law... why didn't they??


No sir. That's why I prefaced my statement that dealt with "realistically". I guess you are able to meet this criteria.




Lying... is Dean Koontz, Rober Jordan, Stephen Ki8ng etc good example of liars?? No they are creators...

Finish later

I see... so, when you say never, you were only referring to a space of time between the creation of our Constitution and today. I see. Perhaps you should clarify the limitations of never before you make such statements.



I introduced it as evidence about history that is relevant to your statement regarding sex in marriage.



I am. It is your memory that is inconsistent.



You don't need me to show you anything. My statement regarding interracial marriage bans served only to indicate that perceptions and traditions do not change overnight regardless of how the laws change. That was my only reason for mentioning it.



Nope.

Are the vows written on the license to marry? No. Yes, you verbally agree to do the things specified in the vows, but even you admit that these are not legally binding. So, what terms are you agreeing to when you sign the license (which is necessary in order to be legally married)? It is you who are basically arguing that there are, in effect, no terms. If the implied statutory terms aren't there, then there is nothing legally that you are bound to adhere to in the contract... essentially, no legal contract.



No, droop. Are you saying the terms can't be implied by law unless there is another law that expressly states that these laws are implied terms in the contract? Can you point to the law that states that the UCC imposes implied terms in contracts regarding the sale of goods? When you can't, hopefully you will see that you don't need a law specifically declaring that a set of laws impose implied terms in a contract.

Can you show me the legally binding terms of the marriage contract? It isn't the vows. So, what is it? I've shown you that a contract can have implied terms. That those terms can be laws. We've established that there is no legal requirement for vows. We've established that vows are not legally binding. So, what's left? It's either implied terms or nothing, mate.



Pulling out early still allows - rather significantly - for the possibility of procreation.



How petty I've become? You keep claiming these things never happen, they never existed... then you are forced to back down from those absolutes. It's not petty to indicate that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. It's just a statement of fact. You don't do your homework. Your only argument here is... "no it isn't, neener-neener."



Oh, I see... and does realistically mean something else on your planet?

Show me evidence that a married couple caught having sex wasn't prosecuted. Otherwise, realistically, you are talking about getting away with breaking the law by simply not being caught. If that's your criteria for realistically being able to do something without fear of prosecution, then we need not fear to murder... just don't get caught.