If procreation and marraige are mutual....

This is repeating what has already been refuted. Come up with something new and we can continue

 

I understand your point. It is very valid. I am seriously going off the grounds that whomever made these rules didnt have the fore thought that these issues you guys are bringing up would ever be in play, that is all.

 

Ok, lets see what is missing here. You get married and the state assumes you consumate. You bring it to the states attention that there was never a consumation of the marriage and want to render the marriage nullified. How is that not a requirment for marriage if the marriage can be nullified for not doing it?

- - - Updated - - -

The person I knew who did this was "married" for 4 years when it was annuled.

 

FL is unique in not having a temporal limit for annulment. And here's the law in FL, which is kinda vague and gives circuit courts a fair amount of leeway in granting an annulment:

"Annulment is an appropriate method of termination of the marriage where one of the parties lacked the capacity to contract; either because of a prior existing marriage, extreme intoxication or lack of the requisite mental capacity.

A lack of physical capacity to consummate the marriage may also be sufficient grounds for annulment, although impotency should not be confused with sterility."

Note that "consummation" is the "also ran" item, and not the central consideration.

 

Because no requirement exists. There has to be an expectation of sex in order to seek the annulment on those grounds.

 

Are you incapable of understanding the argument?

 

I never said homosexuality was not part of nature, like I said, there are always aberrations.

I presented facts not claims for which no one has provided the least bit of logical rebuttal. Only a male and female can create new life.

 

You claimed earlier that same sex couples could not raise children as well as opposite sex couples. I presented you with evidence that refuted your claim. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you ignored what I posted. Now, prove your claim that same sex couples cannot raise children just as well as opposite sex couples, or admit you were wrong.

 

I am incapable of understanding what you don't understand about my posts. Archie got it I am good. Either way, in no way do I feel the need to have a baby to make a marriage to be valid.

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/media-still-lying-about-mark-regnerus-report/

A year ago Dr. Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas published a 15,000-person study showing that children do best in a household with their married mother and father. He further found that no other family structure works this well and by contrast often did worse.

 

You really think I haven't heard of this? Do your research:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolat...is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

And from Regnerus himself:

http://www.queerty.com/regnurus-adm...ily-study-touted-by-fundamentalists-20121030/

 

Your links do not constitute research. They are from biased sources. Moreover I noted that a Google search yielded link after link by biased gay sources supposedly debunking the study. Repetition on the Internet does not constitute proof.

Given two stable equal devoted relationships...One gay couple and one heterosexual couple, why would a child be placed with the gay couple?

 

You should do some research. Or at least click on your own links. The paper you criticize
"The New Family Structures Study collected data from nearly 3000 adults."
while the other poster is clearly referring to
" Dr. Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas published a 15,000-person study"

 

Seems the more relevant question would be why in the world would we give equal preference to biological parents and gay parents? AS IF rubbing genitals makes homosexual couples equally preferrable to biological parents who also rubbed genitals. Freakin crazy! All this to avoid offending homosexuals.

 

If you'd bother to look at the links, you find that they link to other sources as well.

 

Making a fool of yourself. You are referring to a DIFFERENT study than what RPA1 is referring to.

 

Because marriage was created for and in honor of the one sexual orientation to which we owe our existence which is quite obviously heterosexuality. But even heterosexuals who can't have children does not disrespect that marriage was created for and in honor of heterosexuality. Direct enough for you?

love

/ David

 

Marriage was probably not created for that reason actually, in fact marriage has evolved a lot through every century and with every culture. There are many theories on the purpose of marriage back in ancient times and it's not even close to 'honoring one sexual orientation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Myths_and_practices

 

Please show me the rule where it is written that marriage was created in honor of heterosexuality.

 

Oh well that explain why for thousands of years (until marriage was temporarily for now made a mockery of these last couple of years by homosexual activists) that only heterosexual unions were honored with marriage. (sarcasm)

love

/ David

 

- - - Updated - - -

Thousands of years of only heterosexual unions being honored with marriage is what reveals the fact and I wrote that fact myself.

love

/ David

 

What is so terrifying to you about two people of the same sex getting married?

 

Why are you scrambling to make your delusions the issue? Where did I ever claim that homosexuals temporarily making a mockery of marriage thus disrespecting marriage was terrifying? It is quite fixable as it will be restored to a respectable state fully in due time and that certainly is not terrifying.

love

/ David

 

wanna bet?

 

No, the tide is turning against you and will continue to. More and more countries are recognizing the rights of same sex couples to wed. That takes nothing away from you, and does not affect you in any way. But the issue obviously bothers you. Why?