ClumsyMonkey.net

that is the stupidest question ever

Axtech wrote:LOL

Well what if both people getting married are completely devoid of sexual organs? Like... they got into a car accident, and lost everything below their torso. Everything. They're hooked up to machines for bowl evacuation and all that. Are they not legally married?

In this case I doubt they'd actually be able to meet one another...I have my doubts that they'd even be alive. But in answer to question, no they could not be legally married.

Jen's pooor thread

Axtech wrote:Or some guy who got his junk blown off (and not in the good way) while in the army?

Not in the good way!!!

Dr. Hobo wrote:that is the stupidest question ever

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.

...

ANYWAY, i have started writing a letter back to jenny!!!

Rusty wrote:

Axtech wrote:LOL

Well what if both people getting married are completely devoid of sexual organs? Like... they got into a car accident, and lost everything below their torso. Everything. They're hooked up to machines for bowl evacuation and all that. Are they not legally married?

In this case I doubt they'd actually be able to meet one another...I have my doubts that they'd even be alive. But in answer to question, no they could not be legally married.

Wouldn't that violate their right to be married? Why should someone without the ability to have sex be unable to get married.

Or, for that matter, a couple who meet, fall in love, but neither member has any interest in sex (for whatever reason)? Should they be denied their legal right to marriage just because they choose not to sleep together?

I have a feeling that this is one of those laws thats there...but not really enforced. Who goes to court over lack of sex?

Sexually frustrated men?

Rusty?

Soozy wrote:Jen's pooor thread

I have this feeling the textbook is really over-simplifying the law, or only taking part of it or out of context or something. I mean, in order for a marriage to be legal, you have to be living as married people.

Taking Sinead's example, she couldn't get Soozy into Canada by 'marrying' her, because there would be nothing in their relationship that would be like a marriage. Of course, bringing a spouse from another country would be the only reason this law would even exist, me thinks. However, I'm pretty sure you have to live with each other for two years after the marriage, so I don't think just having sex once is good enough.

Axtech wrote:

Rusty wrote:

Axtech wrote:LOL

Well what if both people getting married are completely devoid of sexual organs? Like... they got into a car accident, and lost everything below their torso. Everything. They're hooked up to machines for bowl evacuation and all that. Are they not legally married?

In this case I doubt they'd actually be able to meet one another...I have my doubts that they'd even be alive. But in answer to question, no they could not be legally married.

Wouldn't that violate their right to be married? Why should someone without the ability to have sex be unable to get married.

Or, for that matter, a couple who meet, fall in love, but neither member has any interest in sex (for whatever reason)? Should they be denied their legal right to marriage just because they choose not to sleep together?

Well they could always live common law I guess. Or they could lie and say that they did have sex. I don't really think that anyone is gonna challenge it.

thirdhour wrote:I have this feeling the textbook is really over-simplifying the law, or only taking part of it or out of context or something. I mean, in order for a marriage to be legal, you have to be living as married people.

Taking Sinead's example, she couldn't get Soozy into Canada by 'marrying' her, because there would be nothing in their relationship that would be like a marriage. Of course, bringing a spouse from another country would be the only reason this law would even exist, me thinks. However, I'm pretty sure you have to live with each other for two years after the marriage, so I don't think just having sex once is good enough.

It only said that the marriage must be consummated at least once to be legal. It's like the reason the courts can offer annulments, as well as the church. If you never consummated the marriage then it can be annulled.

OH BOY I CAN'T WAIT FOR MY LETTER TO ARRIVE

STOP RUINING OUR MARRIAGE TALK!





















Sorry to commandeer your thread Jen, it just spiralled out of control.

that's right.

I LIKE STAMPS, I HOPE MY LETTER HAS AT LEAST ONE ON IT

YOU SUCK!

i try.

You try to suck?

Rusty wrote:It only said that the marriage must be consummated at least once to be legal. It's like the reason the courts can offer annulments, as well as the church. If you never consummated the marriage then it can be annulled.

as if britney spears didn't have sex with whats-his-face in that 55 hours.