Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Montmorency]

Gender roles are a case of best fit to role.

Yet you don't think that there remains room for optimization?

Whatever variation has existed along a certain continuum before the 20th century - that's the be-all end-all?

As it turns out, traditions do not persist because they tend to promote maximum possible efficiency, just as mega-corporations do not survive by their ability to deliver the best product at the fairest price.

[Beskar]

Urgh... the House of Lords are trying to pass an amendment to stop the Same Sex marriage bill.

I think the arguments for the positives of having unelected nincompoops past their prime just disappears.

Link

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yet you don't think that there remains room for optimization?

Whatever variation has existed along a certain continuum before the 20th century - that's the be-all end-all?

As it turns out, traditions do not persist because they tend to promote maximum possible efficiency, just as mega-corporations do not survive by their ability to deliver the best product at the fairest price.

You're talking about nuance - I'm talking broad strokes. There's a reason the latter stage of pregnancy is traditionally called "confinement".

People like to bring up cases like American Frontierswomen, who dropped the bairn one day and were back in the fields the next - they neglect the fact that these women were within sight of the house for most if not all of the pregnancy.

Why do female bodybuilders take testosterone?

Because it makes them more like men and therefore more able to build muscle.

Urgh... the House of Lords are trying to pass an amendment to stop the Same Sex marriage bill.

I think the arguments for the positives of having unelected nincompoops past their prime just disappears.

Link

The Bill is badly framed and shouldn't become Law - it's a fudge that basically changes "Civil Partnership" to "Marriage" without acknowledging problem like consummation and adultery.

A marriage isn't legal until its consummated, but there is no legal way for a same-sex couple to consummate.

That's a legal problem that has been blithely ignored, because the only solution is to abolish the practice of consummation and the right to annulment, but that won't happen because it requires a fundamental change to heterosexual marriage that would require actual recognition of the issues at hand.

[Beskar]

A marriage isn't legal until its consummated, but there is no legal way for a same-sex couple to consummate.

Usually involves one man on the bottom and the other behind him. However, there is some issue with lesbian couples in similar context without the aid of artificial means. Also depends on whether or not foreplay is classed as "sexual intercourse" or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Usually involves one man on the bottom and the other behind him. However, there is some issue with lesbian couples in similar context without the aid of artificial means. Also depends on whether or not foreplay is classed as "sexual intercourse" or not.

That's not consummation, legally speaking. Consummation is a specific legally act, not a merely sexual one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

"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. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Edit: The article even notes the discrepancy in the Bill - that same-sex marriage does not admit consummation.

Ergo, my understanding of the Law as it stands is accepted by parliament, yours is not.

[Papewaio]

The bit between the bolds is important:

", or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together,"

[Montmorency]

Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Remove this stricture immediately.

LEGALIZE ASEXUALITY

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The bit between the bolds is important:

", or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together,"

But that's secondary as far as the Law is concerned.

If you disagree with that, then you need to admit the Law needs changing - not just re-labeling.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's not consummation, legally speaking. Consummation is a specific legally act, not a merely sexual one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

"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. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Edit: The article even notes the discrepancy in the Bill - that same-sex marriage does not admit consummation.

Ergo, my understanding of the Law as it stands is accepted by parliament, yours is not.

Interesting. Can you link to the definition of sexual intercourse in English common law? I cannot find it on my phone.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think all this talk about consummating the marriage and other legal technicalities is a bit silly. Ultimately this debate is about whether we view homosexual relationships as being just as natural, moral, and socially valuable as heterosexual ones - in other words, deserving to be brought under the title of 'marriage'. People can take their sides accordingly but this was never about what particular act is needed to consummate things.

TBH I just wish this issue would get resolved because all it is doing is fuelling hate on both sides. Plus, there's hundreds of way in which traditional marriage really is coming under attack, and gay marriage isn't really one of them. It's more an acknowledgement of existing trends, rather than a cause in and of itself.

Which doesn't mean I'm lax about it, I'm still dead against it, but I'm fed up with it, and I know what direction the march of history is heading in anyway.

[Ironside]

You're talking about nuance - I'm talking broad strokes. There's a reason the latter stage of pregnancy is traditionally called "confinement".

People like to bring up cases like American Frontierswomen, who dropped the bairn one day and were back in the fields the next - they neglect the fact that these women were within sight of the house for most if not all of the pregnancy.

Why do female bodybuilders take testosterone?

Because it makes them more like men and therefore more able to build muscle.

The problem with broad strokes are that they are just that, broad strokes. My dad and I got a index-ringfinger length ratio assossiated with females and used to identify gender on children in archeology for example, yet any archeologist draving full conclusions on that wouldn't be worthy his title, since the ratio is about 70-30 at 1:1 fingerlength ratio.

Are such ratios common? Yes. Upper body strength difference is commonly refered to when it comes to gender differences and while it's much larger it's also the largest gender difference tested. That means that exceptions to the roles are quite common, rather than exceptional, meaning that it's much better to focus on the induvidual, rather than the gender average.