Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision

Full story: Fox News 1,568
Big change is coming to the lives of the lesbian couple at the center of the fight for same-sex marriage in California no matter how the Supreme Court decides their case. Full Story

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1280 May 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You are not terra firma, you are full of it.
Now an ad hominem attack? I'm sure the authors of the article are sincerely flattered you've stooped to their level of employing logical fallacies to make points.
KiMare wrote:
What is the point of saying the publication is edited by students if you aren't trying to demean it?
The website itself made that observation; I merely copied it and provided a link as means of citation. Do you think the students themselves demean the journal by stating they edit it?
KiMare wrote:
The bottom line is you have no valid response to the points made, except to attack the writers.
On the contrary, literary criticism of the authors' logic is quite a valid response.
KiMare wrote:
Those points are being argued in court, but more important, they simply state irrefutable facts.
Simply proclaiming them "irrefutable facts" because you agree with them doesn't make them such any more than when the authors themselves did so. Apparently that's a failing you share with them. If they were "irrefutable facts" there would be no opposing opinions and those arguments would be prevailing in courts of law.
KiMare wrote:
The bottom line is this. A ss couple will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage.
You're certainly entitled, like the authors of the article, to exercise your freedom of speech and state your personal opinions. That hardly makes them "irrefutable facts". And, unfortunately for you, they have no bearing on or relevance to the law except to the extent they can influence lawmakers, jurists, or voters. And the tide is turning or has turned on all three fronts, and not to your benefit.
KiMare wrote:
Kin by paper
No, kin by law. Which trumps your uninformed opinion.
KiMare wrote:
and never by blood. A barren stub on any family tree.
Hate to break it to you, but opposite sex couples aren't kin by blood either unless they're committing incest or otherwise violating consanguinity restrictions within a state's marriage laws.
KiMare wrote:
Smile.
Indeed. It's quite amusing to watch your cyber equivalent of foot stomping.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1281 May 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A simple solution would be for you to post the definition of consummate, instead of giving your opinion.
Why don't you?
Smirk.
No problem.

con·sum·mate

con·sum·mat·ed, con·sum·mat·ing, adjective
verb (used with object)

1. to bring to a state of perfection; fulfill.
2. to complete (an arrangement, agreement, or the like) by a pledge or the signing of a contract: The company consummated its deal to buy a smaller firm.
3. to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse.

>>>> I believe definition 3 is the one of interest to you.

~~~~~~~~~~
sexual intercourse
noun

genital contact, especially the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation

>>>> Note the definition does not state exclusively by penile/vaginal penetration.

~~~~~~~~~~
co·i·tus
noun

sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman.

>>>> Again note the definition does not state exclusively between a man and a woman.

As I indicated in a previous post, the English language and the law have already evolved; sadly, you haven't.

Links:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consum...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coitus...

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1282 May 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A ss couple will never be or have kin in reality.
You can kick and scream all you want, but no one can change those facts.
Moreover, your partner and you will never be the same as marriage. It is simply a fact of reality.
Opinions of an aging, senile troll. These are not "irrefutable facts".

Kindly pick up some douche on your next trip to the K-mart. You vagina is Sandy.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1283 May 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You clearly don't know the definition of 'cosummation'.
By law, any relationship is not considered marriage if it is not consummated. A ss couple can never consummate a marriage. A fact not lost on any lawyer, even if a particular state does not directly address it.
Snicker.
Consummation (with MANY exceptions) is considered, under common law, the point where you have essentially sealed the deal on your happy marriage. Lack thereof remains grounds to have your marriage declared null and void. While we all know that the original thought behind the concept includes a penis, a vagina and hopeful baby making, but what the happy couple was actually doing, really didn't matter, unless one of them brings it up later.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1284 May 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Now an ad hominem attack? I'm sure the authors of the article are sincerely flattered you've stooped to their level of employing logical fallacies to make points.
<quoted text>
The website itself made that observation; I merely copied it and provided a link as means of citation. Do you think the students themselves demean the journal by stating they edit it?
<quoted text>
On the contrary, literary criticism of the authors' logic is quite a valid response.
<quoted text>
Simply proclaiming them "irrefutable facts" because you agree with them doesn't make them such any more than when the authors themselves did so. Apparently that's a failing you share with them. If they were "irrefutable facts" there would be no opposing opinions and those arguments would be prevailing in courts of law.
<quoted text>
You're certainly entitled, like the authors of the article, to exercise your freedom of speech and state your personal opinions. That hardly makes them "irrefutable facts". And, unfortunately for you, they have no bearing on or relevance to the law except to the extent they can influence lawmakers, jurists, or voters. And the tide is turning or has turned on all three fronts, and not to your benefit.
<quoted text>
No, kin by law. Which trumps your uninformed opinion.
<quoted text>
Hate to break it to you, but opposite sex couples aren't kin by blood either unless they're committing incest or otherwise violating consanguinity restrictions within a state's marriage laws.
<quoted text>
Indeed. It's quite amusing to watch your cyber equivalent of foot stomping.
Again, not wasting time with your childish gay twirl, here is just one example of your response;
Terra Firma wrote:
On the contrary, literary criticism of the authors' logic is quite a valid response.
<quoted text>
Reference to who edits the publication is hardly criticism of the authors or their logic.

Your use of that information only showed your inability to address the substance of the argument.

Your deceit about this exposes the weakness of your character. That has nothing to do with your orientation. But it does have something to do with your denial about it's implications.

Smirk.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1285 May 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Think about it XBox. A SSC marry, one decides they want out shortly after they were married, so s/he raises that issue. It would be an interesting situation. Just another reason why an SSM is not the same as an OSM.
You are retarded.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1286 May 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem.
con·sum·mate
con·sum·mat·ed, con·sum·mat·ing, adjective
verb (used with object)
1. to bring to a state of perfection; fulfill.
2. to complete (an arrangement, agreement, or the like) by a pledge or the signing of a contract: The company consummated its deal to buy a smaller firm.
3. to complete
>>>> I believe definition 3 is the one of interest to you.
~~~~~~~~~~
sexual intercourse
noun
genital contact, especially the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation
>>>> Note the definition does not state exclusively by penile/vaginal penetration.
~~~~~~~~~~
co·i·tus
noun
sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman.
>>>> Again note the definition does not state exclusively between a man and a woman.
As I indicated in a previous post, the English language and the law have already evolved; sadly, you haven't.
Links:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consum...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coitus...
Thank you.

Please note;

1. "to bring to a state of perfection"

In marriage, that is the union of a man and woman, two becoming one, that is visibly physically and naturally exposed by intercourse. Not only can a ss couple never express that union of design, they are only ever a duplicated half.

2. "to complete"

The complementary completion of a man and woman is fulfilled in the union of marriage. A same sex couple 'completes' nothing. It is simply duplication.

3. "to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse."

This brings us to the specific use of 'consummate' in regards to sexual intercourse.

Intercourse is sexual contact,'especially' including penis/vagina contact with climax. In other words, specifically including that. You falsely attempt to assert otherwise.

The meaning of consummation in relation to marriage is noted in Wiki;

"Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married."

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1287 May 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

The meaning of consummation in relation to marriage is noted in Wiki;
"Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married."
You've missed the word "or" in the definition. It does not state that penis/vagina penetration must be involved, nor does this definition require penetration for the sole purpose of procreation.

Another sad, pathetic, desperate attempt to back-peddle .

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#1288 May 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
Please note;
1. "to bring to a state of perfection"
In marriage, that is the union of a man and woman, two becoming one, that is visibly physically and naturally exposed by intercourse. Not only can a ss couple never express that union of design, they are only ever a duplicated half.
2. "to complete"
The complementary completion of a man and woman is fulfilled in the union of marriage. A same sex couple 'completes' nothing. It is simply duplication.
3. "to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse."
This brings us to the specific use of 'consummate' in regards to sexual intercourse.
Intercourse is sexual contact,'especially' including penis/vagina contact with climax. In other words, specifically including that. You falsely attempt to assert otherwise.
The meaning of consummation in relation to marriage is noted in Wiki;
"Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married."
two people of the same gender can alos 'become one', or complete.

sad that you had to lie about the definition of sexual intercourse. why do you have to lie in a n attempt to back up you bigotry and prejudices? do the facts not support your shortcomings?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#1289 May 14, 2013
Really, in the 21st century with Marriage Equality just happening in another State and this topic continues to revolve around legalizing polygamy, procreation and CONSUMMATION?

Please......not all heterosexual couples can or want to procreate.......ANY couple regardless of gender make-up can CONSUMMATE the marriage and polygamist could have long ago fought to have multiple wives/husbands before now.........the bottom line is this.......those who are against marriage for Gays and Lesbians do so because they just don't like Gays and Lesbians!!!

Well, get the flip over it because Marriage Equality is happening and those Queers and Dykes are going to get married WITHOUT the need for your acceptance or approval!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1290 May 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, not wasting time with your childish gay twirl
It's becoming clear these are simply your code words for "unable to address the points made".
KiMare wrote:
here is just one example of your response;
Reference to who edits the publication is hardly criticism of the authors or their logic.
I never asserted that was criticism of the authors or their logic; that's your erroneous inference. My criticism of the article itself was actually in post #1258, which preceded the one you're whining about here. My post (#1264) quoting the journal's website regarding the nature of the journal and its submission policies was in response to your question (in post # 1261):

"How do you think it got into the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Review?"

You really need to get your facts and timeline straight before embarking on a faulty line of attack.
KiMare wrote:
Your use of that information only showed your inability to address the substance of the argument.
Actually, I've addressed the points/assertions made in your posts. You cited an opinion article apparently as a proxy representing your position and I pointed out the article was riddled with logical fallacies. Your rebuttal was the article was comprised of "irrefutable facts" while I noted asserting personal opinion as fact doesn't make it so.

And the reality is It's you that's demonstrated an inability to address the substance of my posts, twice now failing to do so and instead offering your weak and pathetic "gay twirl" epithet.
KiMare wrote:
Your deceit about this exposes the weakness of your character.
As I've just demonstrated, that's a more fitting assessment of you.
KiMare wrote:
That has nothing to do with your orientation. But it does have something to do with your denial about it's implications.
Smirk.
And if your posting behavior here is an accurate representation of who you are, it's becoming clear why you're a former minister.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1291 May 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
Please note;
1. "to bring to a state of perfection"
In marriage, that is the union of a man and woman, two becoming one, that is visibly physically and naturally exposed by intercourse. Not only can a ss couple never express that union of design, they are only ever a duplicated half.
2. "to complete"
The complementary completion of a man and woman is fulfilled in the union of marriage. A same sex couple 'completes' nothing. It is simply duplication.
Those are nice philosophical and/or religious sentiments but have no relevance to consummation from a legal standpoint, which is definition 3 below.
KiMare wrote:
3. "to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse."
This brings us to the specific use of 'consummate' in regards to sexual intercourse.
Intercourse is sexual contact,'especially' including penis/vagina contact with climax. In other words, specifically including that. You falsely attempt to assert otherwise.
No, that's simply a lie on your part. I noted the definition was not >> exclusively << penile/vaginal penetration. Which is quite true. I did not assert the definition excluded penile/vaginal penetration. Nor does "especially" mean "exclusively".

Your poor grasp of the English language is not my problem.
KiMare wrote:
The meaning of consummation in relation to marriage is noted in Wiki;
"Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married."
This is certainly a nice, concise explanation of the concept consummation but it by no means details how or even whether it's applied to marriage law in any given state or country. The fact remains, consummation is no longer a universal requirement of marriage laws in the US, in part to allow marriages between consenting sterile and/or impotent heterosexual couples for which you've demonstrated so much contempt (along with couples who adopt).

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1292 May 14, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and in increasingly large numbers.
The stats aren't hard to look up.
That doesn't help the children they are creating at all....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1293 May 14, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Really, in the 21st century with Marriage Equality just happening in another State and this topic continues to revolve around legalizing polygamy, procreation and CONSUMMATION?
Please......not all heterosexual couples can or want to procreate.......ANY couple regardless of gender make-up can CONSUMMATE the marriage and polygamist could have long ago fought to have multiple wives/husbands before now.........the bottom line is this.......those who are against marriage for Gays and Lesbians do so because they just don't like Gays and Lesbians!!!
Why would you say it's about gays and lesbians?? Aren't heterosexual ss couples allowed to marry too in some states???
Well, get the flip over it because Marriage Equality is happening and those Queers and Dykes are going to get married WITHOUT the need for your acceptance or approval!!!
They've always been able to do so...
Nobody

Dallas, TX

#1294 May 14, 2013
Terra Firma"How do you think it got into the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Review?"
Who gives a rats butt what kind of ed you got.
This has everything to do about the way of life as it should be. Acording to GODs law.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1295 May 14, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't help the children they are creating at all....
Neither does prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriage.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1296 May 14, 2013
Nobody wrote:
Terra Firma"How do you think it got into the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Review?"
Who gives a rats butt what kind of ed you got.
This has everything to do about the way of life as it should be. Acording to GODs law.
To summarize your vacuous post:

1) You quoted from my post a question that was addressed to me by another poster.
2) I made no statement about my personal education.
3) Your religious beliefs have no relevance to civil law or civil marriage.

I'd say you selection of "Nobody" for your posting ID accurately characterizes you.
Nobody

Dallas, TX

#1297 May 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
To summarize your vacuous post:
1) You quoted from my post a question that was addressed to me by another poster.
2) I made no statement about my personal education.
3) Your religious beliefs have no relevance to civil law or civil marriage.
I'd say you selection of "Nobody" for your posting ID accurately characterizes you.
I hate to burst your bubble, but this is not a religious belief, this is the facts. God made simple laws for humans to live by, we all try but its hard for a lot of people. Even the so called laws man has made people can't live by them either. So everyone trys to bend laws to suit themselves. including you. You and I break Gods laws everyday you just don't see it. Yet I do see it. Thats the differents between me and you.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1298 May 14, 2013
Nobody wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but this is not a religious belief, this is the facts. God made simple laws for humans to live by, we all try but its hard for a lot of people.
You may consider your belief in the Judeo-Christian God "fact", but adherents of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and other religions would likely disagree.
Nobody wrote:
Even the so called laws man has made people can't live by them either. So everyone trys to bend laws to suit themselves. including you. You and I break Gods laws everyday you just don't see it. Yet I do see it. Thats the differents between me and you.
No, the difference between you and me is I recognize freedom of religion as constitutionally guaranteed to all citizens of the US and you apparently think the US is a Judeo-Christian theocracy with all citizens subject to your God and religious beliefs.

You're certainly free to profess and practice your faith as you see fit (within limits, as none of our fundamental rights is totally unrestricted). However, don't presume to tell others they're subject to your religious rules or that your religious rules are the law of the land.
Nobody

Dallas, TX

#1299 May 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You may consider your belief in the Judeo-Christian God "fact", but adherents of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and other religions would likely disagree.
<quoted text>
No, the difference between you and me is I recognize freedom of religion as constitutionally guaranteed to all citizens of the US and you apparently think the US is a Judeo-Christian theocracy with all citizens subject to your God and religious beliefs.
You're certainly free to profess and practice your faith as you see fit (within limits, as none of our fundamental rights is totally unrestricted). However, don't presume to tell others they're subject to your religious rules or that your religious rules are the law of the land.
Well 99.0% of the world got their laws from the Bible, Gods laws if you like it or not.

"difference between you and me is I recognize freedom of religion "
No thats a choice you and others have made. God is not a religion.Terra face the facts your not going to win down this road.(the road your on). What is your goal in life? and what does it mean? Is it to say "hey look at me,,yo,yo"? look what I did dude.?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Teenagers Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sorensons Ranch School helps when teens make ba... (Oct '10) Jan 26 taken-penguin 28
Busty 18 year old nude teens Jan 25 Jjb12 1
Female Teacher, Staffer Victimize Male Students... Jan 23 cruisingaround 1
Grafton Drug Bust: Two Grafton High School stud... (Apr '10) Jan 20 SmartyPants 67
Police use pictures of black teenagers for shoo... Jan 19 Elvis Obama 14
Creative outlet: Simple process brings rich rew... Jan 19 Believer 3
HDSB to study later start times for high school... Jan 16 cold portables too 1
More from around the web