Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

The point is that just because 99.9% agree, it doesn't automatically make something true.

 

I would say yes, unless I am missing something in your question. Anything within US law that uses physical sex as a limiter in anyway in unconstitutional.

Yes. The fraud is a serious thing, but we also cannot require love, sex (activity) or children as a requirement for immigration/naturalization when we don't require of our citizens within marriage.

 

So is it A: discrimination against women, or B: discrimination against men? (As in the case of the First Amendment only applying to one sex.)

Isn't there an inherent link between love and making a household together?

 

Kind of depends on how the law is written. If we're talking about OSM, then both because it simultaneously prevents a woman from marrying a woman and a man from marrying a man.

No. I am assuming that you are looking at romantic live as opposed to any other type. I had an aunt and uncle, siblings, who made a household together. Both were widowed, and didn't want to get remarried. So they moved in together and make a household.

 

As you know, it isn’t a claim. It’s legal fact.

 

Except I am demonstrably correct and have proven as much. Insults like the one you used are a sign of a weak mind, and a losing argument.

Which is why agreement had no bearing on reality, as I pointed out.

 

Other that just simply stating that if a marriage is not legally recognize it is not a marriage, explain to me why. What is the basis for saying that only a legally recognized marriage can be a marriage when we had marriages exist before legal marriage came into existence? What is the basis that causes the existence of legal marriage to destroy the existence of all other marriages?

 

lol

 

I already have. I have no desire or obligation to keep addressing the exact same question you keep asking, after I’ve repeatedly answered it.

 

Yes, you are correct that the law only recognises Civil Marriage. Which I have always agreed with.

 

No you haven't. You keep making some claim about ceremony and not a marriage. But there has been nothing to show why religious marriage does not exist. What eliminated it and HOW? The simple fact of religious marriage not being the factor that provides legal benefits is not enough. That doesn't eliminate religious marriage. What about having legal benefits makes it a marriage? And you continually fail to answer all the questions from my posts (multiple post), indicating either you don't read the whole post, or you know they can't be answered in support of your position.

 

Accidental duplication

 

You are fully aware that I have.

 

And once again you avoid all questions. You have no support. You only have circular reasoning. Show how religious marriage does not exist in the US. Saying it is only a ceremony is a claim. Saying it is legal fact is only a claim. You've not backed a thing up.

Here is one of the key questions that you keep avoiding, and won't even answer now. Marriage existed in the US prior to the existence of legal marriage and legal benefits, which did not become wide spread until the mid 19th century. What about legal marriage causes religious marriage to no longer exist? Noting anything about legal benefits as a reason is a strawman since no claim is being made that religious marriage qualifies one for legal benefits.

 

I’ve avoided nothing. I’ve repeatedly shown you that without legal recognition you don’t have a marriage. You simply participated in a ceremony.

 

Let me try here. 'Marriage' really involves a social and cultural acceptance of this family union outside the involved and self interested parties who directly and personally know the parties, and that acceptance is normally founded on one of two social institutions large enough to extend that umbrella of acceptance and support beyond an extended family or a group of friends, namely religion or govt so that the recognition can travel as the couple travel beyond its intimate support group. Now historically those two institutions have been more bedfellows than isolated interests in a mutualistic relationship when one faith predominates. Govt tended to get a lot of its validation and moral legitimacy from religious clerics and the religious institutions including its leaders, its wars and its laws. Those institutions got their moral guidelines codified and licensed through statutes and more than the occasional financial breaks for its treasure. (tax breaks, anyone?)

Well thanks to an invigorated and more stringent re-interpretation of the first amendment in the twentieth century, the co-dependency here, is sorely strained. So there are disparities in how to define marriage and who regulates it. Govt does not recognize the authority of the majority religion in this realm, and it does not feel inherently constrained by Govt's authority to duplicate. Considering that this government is a republic, and has taken steps towards a more democratic power base during the last two centuries, its no surprise that the religious voters were able to keep the continental drift very slow with few earthquakes. But from the second half of the twentieth century onward the hold of religion over those voters has slowly decreased, as church attendance and clerical moral authority has diminished some, and the tremors are getting wee bit more volatile.

As long as either the religious or secular institution provides support and recognition for that union, beyond the scope of intimates and acquaintances involved, that 'marriage' matters beyond those who attended the ceremony, or those sees the license. Govt does not annul a marriage it did not create, and neither can religion . these institutions simply work in slightly different, but mostly overlapping spheres of social and cultural influence.

In short, I agree with maquiscat. rahl simply does not recognize any legitimacy to one of those spheres and notes that neither does our govt.

 

And right there is the avoidance. You still did not state what causes such to be true. And simply saying it's a legal fact, with nothing to support it is meaningless. What makes it legal fact?

 

What's so funny?

 

It's not the same though, because just as the First Amendment applies to both men and women, so too has marriage for all of time.

Then why is making a household together important to the law?

 

No, but it would be pretty convincing. The sun example is extreme. How could people have NOT thought that the sun evolved around the world without science to say otherwise?

 

Not sure what you mean by marriage has for all time. Marriage across history has always included SSM, OSM, mono, poly, and other forms. Not always together in a given single culture and/or era, but they have all existed for all time. And even if they haven't, the law can still make it's own definition that sits aside from others. I noted that with the incest laws. Actual incest is between blood related, but many legal definitions include legally but not blood related.

With the marriage law, by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, a man can't marry another man because of physical sex, which is not supposed to be allowed under law. The same applies to a woman. Thus the one legal definition is discriminatory to both.

Multiperson households are typically more stable and efficient that bunches of single people. That is why the government wants to encourage them and provides advantages to form such. Technically, the government is not required to provide the institution of legal marriage, but it's not prohibited either, as long as it is not based upon any given religious tenents.

 

But it still shows why appeal to populism is a logical fallacy. You need to show why that agreement is logically valid for the fallacy not to apply.

 

Directly addressing and refuting your premise is not an avoidance.

 

What makes it legal fact? That is what you keep avoiding. All your arguments point to why religious marriage is not used for determining legal benefits. Nothing about that proves that religious marriage doesn't exist. If marriage is only that piece of government paper, then how did people get married before? Here is another I'm betting you won't answer, as you have not answered any from the last several posts.

And why not? Let's try one more for you to avoid. Did people in the US get married prior to the advent of legal marriage in the US, outside of Massachusetts?

 

marriage law