I'm not talking about the legal argument. I'm talking about the moral argument. And when the argument DID become a legal one, it was based on equal rights - the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against.
Well you still came to a conclusion didn't you? Even though you didn't know what type of marriage I was referring to. So these people who you refer to, who "attribute to a god what they don't want to question" - those people are idiots if they are talking to a non-religious person. However, I assume that you don't have a problem with it if they are talking to a fellow religious person.
So if the law still said that marriage is only between a man and a woman, would this be akin to a right which only applies to men or a law which only applies to women? (meaning discrimination on the basis of sex.) Well maybe it's not written in law, but I assume that you acknowledge that marriage not made in good faith and for purposes of immigration fraud ('marriage fraud') is a felony offense.
Correct, assuming again that I have understood your question correctly, AND we are looking at US law. While I do think this type of equality should be universal, I readily admit that such discrimination could well be legal and "constitutional" under other law systems. Indeed, and I do find such fraud wrong. It is a fine line that is not easy to navigate. But love still is not a legal requirement of marriage, and as long as the couple in question are making a household together, they should be subject to the same scrutiny, or lack thereof, of marriages where both are citizens.
No, I'm asking, would it: A. be akin to a right which only applies to men, OR B. be akin to a right which only applies to women? What if they're not making a household together?
If they are contrary to reality? of course not. At one time, 99.9% of the population thought the earth was flat, and after discovered it was round 99% believed it was the center of the universe.
I think I need you to restate the original question. That would constitute grounds for an investigation, but not automatically a finding of fraud. After all, many citizen couples end up spending most of their time in separate physical locations.
How? Support your claim of the fallacy. If the law makes religious marriage no longer exist, then it has to be written somewhere.
Actually the flat Earth idea was a rare one it turns out. Few actually believed that. However the geocentric universe/system was widely believed.
The more it's publicly perceived as a throwaway item, the more it will manifest itself as such in the public sphere. That dynamic was evident long before anybody gave a damn about "SSM".
you made up an argument and attributed it to me. I never once claimed there is a statute or law banning religious marriage.
Let's look. All that implies that somehow the law make religious marriage not exist. After all it can only be a legal fact if it is written in the law. What in the law makes religious marriage not exist?
Now you have the strawman. I have never claimed that a religious marriage is a legal one. Only that they exist. You haven't proved they don't.
you don’t seem to know what a strawman is. I just showed you they don’t. If it isn’t legally recognized, it is a ceremony.