Yes, as civil marriage is really the only marriage that matters to everyone. Religious marriage is between people and their god.
Well I was referring to Christian marriage which you don't believe in. So you can neither agree nor disagree with me on it. Exactly, so I agree with you. Civil marriage in non-religious states has nothing to do with God and in countries with same-sex marriage, it has nothing to do with being between a man and a woman.
Can you support that Biblically? Do you also believe that God "honors" a romantic relationship between a man and a women? It may help to understand your argument if you say what you mean by God honouring marriage among unbelievers. Absolutely.
So just to be absolutely clear - if they put their faith in God, one man and one women are married in the eyes of God. Also, if they DO NOT put their faith in God, one man and one women are married in the eyes of God? Are you actually being serious here?
I have always been serious. My God is a redemptive God. Marriage is an eternal pledge. If the marriage is between one man and one women they are on the road, by their pledge, to repent and receive the Grace God offers as a free gift. If that pledge is a same sex union, then they are in rebellion to God's precepts and until they turn, they cannot receive that gift. I believe most Christians understand that. It is a matter of faith. You of course are entitled to what appears your secular view point.
In this post, you specify "IF they put their faith in God." Why bother specifying if you think that it also applies to those who DO NOT put their faith in God?
I'll stand corrected on that one misstatement. You got me there!! You should be an attorney! I should have said "when" instead of "if". That would have been more encompassing.
Okay, so WHEN they put their faith in God, one man and one woman are married in the eyes of God. So what about BEFORE they put their faith in God? Are they married in the eyes of God?
No I don't care what other people believe I'm not a social justice warrior. if you want to go have your little wedding ceremony and the covenant of the Church of the onion sandwich be my guest. It's not in my interest to stop you from doing that. the thing I don't understand is why is it in your interest to stop other people from doing something that doesn't involve you in the slightest? I may feel that your church of the onion sandwich is not a real religion I don't think that discredits what I would consider a real religion. You're free to practice whatever hogwash you want. all anybody else is asking for is the same courtesy. I think it's kind of crummy that they had to go to the Supreme Court because people refused.
I'm sorry but it's you that is pro incest pro bestiality and pro polygamy because those relationships can procreate. If you say that polygamy incestuous marriages and bestiality marriages should be illegal you are entering a paradox because you said they were about procreation.
repeating the same argument is addressing your argument. All you're doing is repeating the same argument marriage is based on procreation I'm sorry your pro incest bestiality and polygamy I'm just not. ANIMAL SO So we're at an impasse. I do not think you were right nothing you said has rationalized your position. We can agree to disagree. or you can continue squawking at me to the end of time. You are not correct your opinion is yours feel free to keep it I don't care.
so if a man and a gorilla can procreate that's a legitimate marriage in your opinion. if a 45 year old man and a 13 year old girl can procreate that's a legitimate marriage in your opinion. I'm sorry but your criteria is fud because it allows a man to marry a gorilla as long as they can procreate.
so it went from being about procreation in principal to being about one man and one woman. I think you need to rethink you're procreation and principal argument because you seem to deny that when it's convenient. You're just presenting the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. It's about procreation until I mention incestuous coupled then it's not. all that talk about my paradoxes and you've just opened a giant paradox in your own argument.