If procreation and marraige are mutual....

I really think it is assumed since marriage and all the regulations that went with it was put up to the government when that is when couples started to have babies. It was a lack of forward thinking I guess you can say that there was no specific language in there that made the attempt of having children a requirement, but then you want an actual child in a marriage to make the marraige "legit"? Is that what you are asking for?

 

Find a regulation that:

a. Requires child birth
b. Requires a couple have intentions of having children

Until then, your arguments are moot.

 

If gays can be denied marriage due to procreation, then procreation would be a requirement.

Couples who did not or could not procreate would be excluded from marriage.

I know plenty of couples who are married and without children.

That is the argument.

It isn't that hard to figure out.

 

Silly, fool logic.

 

People are not required to produce children.

Your argument is moot.

 

So you dont answer my question but just repeat something I was trying to get some clarification on. At what point would there need to be a child in a marraige before the marriage became null in void if that is what you are looking for?

As far as "B" is concerned, having sex is assumed by the government that shows your intent of having children in the marriage. That is why without sex, the marriage can be annuled (sp).

 

LOL!!! (I know... right?) Hee-hee!!

 

old court decisions refuted by new court decisions.

 

no state requires consumation. it's as moot as your procreation argument.

 

... then a fertility test and binding agreement (with temporal and geographic limitations, making it all legal and such) to pop out some little miracles would be required before anyone could get a marriage license.

But of course, that's just nonsense. Why folks get married is their own darn business, and not the business of big guvmint, jack-booted thugs, the Conservative Christos are so fond of while saying they hate big guvmint, ironically ... or not so ironically, since they're dimwits.

 

Sex is not a requirement. It not an assumption. Consummation is not required to be married.

Do you have anything else to add, or are you simply going to make the same arguments dismissed in the OP....?

 

It is if you're both 75 (males may still retain potency but not females at that age). Also in states where 1st cousin marriages are permitted, the couples often need to PROVE infertility before being granted a license.

 

You keep acting like I am against gay marriage here. I am actually for the government getting out of the marriage business and letting two adults do what they want as long as it affects no one else. That being said, its NOT a requirement to have kids in a marriage, but as well all know, sex doesnt always lead to pregnancies and all pregnancies dont lead to births. So, if the law was to say "you must have a baby if you marry", at what point would the marriage become null-in-void for not having kids? There doesnt NEED to be consumation to have a marriage, but you can get out of your marriage pretty "easily" if you never do consumate. The act of sex is looked upon by the state as trying to procreate, hence if you dont consumate, than you can render your marriage null.

Please be a little more civil in you responses, I am answering the OPs hypothetical question with something more that "because the bible said..." and I am not against gay marriage.

 

As I showed, it is assumed there is consumation. Without consumation, the marriage can be null-in-void.

 

I think that is covered under the 14th where age is not a discriminating factor. Just saying cause other wise, where is it the states job to find out if granny is still fertile or not. As far as the cousins are concerned, that is just sad and I got nothing.

 

Wait a darn minute!!!! Let's say the church I'm starting the nanosecond BIG GOVMINT gets its jack-boot off the neck of my religion, which for a modest fee, I'll marry folks to their kids, their vegetables, or their favorite TV show if that's what them liberty-loving red-blood Americans want and ain't bothering nobody, except possibly their immediate family members, which of course, we Libertarian suckers of liberty picker -- or YOU DIE at the business end of my M16 -- think is our family business and no oppressive guvmint has any right whatsoever to sneak up and take our liberty to marry the chillins away from us, praise babyronpaul.

But now, you want GOVMINT tellin' us we MUST marry adults???? What are you, boy; some kind a commie????

 

Consummation is not required by any state.

Go and play along.

 

But your question wasn't "is it the states job to find out whether granny is sterile" your question was "is it known to the govt if granny is sterile" and the answer, if she's 75 or 80, is yes it's known.

 

my posts are in no way uncivil.

You are repeating the same arguments which have already been refuted. abilty to procreate or consumation is not a requirement or assumption in any state for any marriage. it is irrelevant to the topic, so you need to find something that is relevant.

 

it is not assumed.

the only way the marriage can be annuled is if sex was an expectation and only then if one of the parties seeks the annulment.

in the case of 2 paralyzed people who marry, sex is not an expectation. the marriage can not be annuled on those grounds.

 

Bingo! Operative word: assumed. What that means is, govmint has oversight and enforcement mechanisms of exactly zero. Why it is, is: govmint figures folks oughta manage their own relationships, until some laws are broken, like the chick beating the heck outta the guy.

To date, no 9-1-1 calls I am aware of were for an emergency she ain't givin' it up call. However, some calls indeed are happening everyday where the spouse says no and the other just forces him or herself, thinking horizontal refreshment is a right of marriage, which it ain't.

So once again, seems individual choice and not govmint wantin' folks doing the hanky-panky would be the case, for all who look around the world, and try to understand it and such.

 

It is grounds for annulment in FL.

 

Yet not a requirement for marriage.

*yawns

 

Probably like in many states, it's an excuse folks can use to get out of the contract, as if it never happened in the first place, within some limited amount of time. Annulment is kinda nice, since it avoids the family law hassles, however, it has to happen pretty soon after, and has all manner of excuses that can be applied.

Try not to think it's guvmint making sure folks are doing the hanky-panky, which no state government does. It's merely a handy excuse for folks who learn pretty quickly that marriage was not really what they wanted to do.

 

Just seemed a little condocending.

It is assumed that there will be consumation of the marriage, that is why if shown later that there was never any consumation, the marriage is nullified. Is there something about my statements that isnt quite clear? I am truly trying to spell it out the easiest way I can, but I dont see what is being lost in the traslation here.