Definitions

[Wickabee]

As for the original intent of this thread, it was to point out the meaning of words used in my original discussion on the earleir thread referred to. The resident left wing liberals seem not to grasp the meaning of the words defined. In the discussion of reasons not to allow gay marriage, I pointed out that the consumation of marriage was the sex act which has a specific design, intent and purpose (see those words appear) which is procreation. The wrong way arrogant left wingers attempted to refute this by offeering up suggestions that persons who have physical infirmities should be barred from marriage as they might not be able to procreate as an argument. They arrogantly proclaimed they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is mentally challenged.


As far as why no trades by me. I got involved more for information and have gleaned much information from forums other than religion and pollitics. As a sports fan, I also enjoy seeing the memorabilia and coilections of others.

This is the first time I've seen you mention consummation. I still vehemently disagree with you, but the argument has an aspect of intrigue to it.

[drtom2005]

As for the original intent of this thread, it was to point out the meaning of words used in my original discussion on the earleir thread referred to. The resident left wing liberals seem not to grasp the meaning of the words defined. In the discussion of reasons not to allow gay marriage, I pointed out that the consumation of marriage was the sex act which has a specific design, intent and purpose (see those words appear) which is procreation.

So you are fine with lesbians having kids since in vitro was designed? Gay men can use a surrogate since that also requires in vitro?

[Wickabee]

So you are fine with lesbians having kids since in vitro was designed? Gay men can use a surrogate since that also requires in vitro?

He's saying a marriage between two same sex partners cannot be consummated properly. I disagree but, after a couple weeks, his argument has become something at least interesting and worth seriously considering, if only for a moment.

[mrveggieman]

He's saying a marriage between two same sex partners cannot be consummated properly. I disagree but, after a couple weeks, his argument has become something at least interesting and worth seriously considering, if only for a moment.

He has no consistency to his argument. Otherwise he would be admadnetly against straight couples who cannot or do not want kids.

[Wickabee]

He has no consistency to his argument. Otherwise he would be admadnetly against straight couples who cannot or do not want kids.

No, you`re actually missing his point. I disagree with his point, but you`re having two different arguments.

[mrveggieman]

No, you`re actually missing his point. I disagree with his point, but you`re having two different arguments.

He has no point just like his romney.

[Wickabee]

He has no point just like his romney.

Now you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. You can disagree with his point all you want, I know I do. However, he does have a point worth considering. You're, right now, being insulting to him and yourself, as you seem to misunderstand his point and are just making statements like the one I've quoted.

[ALADOG]

Thank you wikabee (never thought I would say that) It is frustrating when you try to discuss something and get unrelated responses.

[Wickabee]

Thank you wikabee (never thought I would say that) It is frustrating when you try to discuss something and get unrelated responses.

I understand.
I have to say though, if what you say isw correct, then anal sex infidelity shouldn't be considered grounds for divorce. If it can't start a marriage, how can it end one? And Vice Versa.