Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

My brain doesn't define what it means. You already know the definition.

 

which is the only kind of marriage in the US. Marriage is a legal institution here.

 

no, that is the legal reality of it.

correct. It's why polygamists in Utah are only married to 1 person, and not 5.

 

No it has not been established. It is still your claim with no actually quoted wording to show otherwise.

 

You are fully aware that it has.

you are also fully aware that it isn't a claim and that it has been proven to be the legal reality in the US.

 

No it hasn't, nor do I think you comprehend what is needed to establish such, or even the basic concepts involved.

First off the ceremony is the wedding, not the marriage. A marriage is a union, a joining of two or more things, in this case people. They can be joined religiously, socially or legally, or in any combination thereof. The law, especially in the US, cannot say otherwise, due to the first amendment. The law can only establish its own requirements, not those of any given religion. Thus the law cannot be used to render religious marriage non existent. Not that it ever could.

Legal marriage is for legal purposes. Religious marriage is for religious purposes. Social marriage is for social purposes. Those purposes can vary from grouping to grouping. Thus the purposes of legal marriage in the US, might be different than the legal purposes of marriage in Egypt. The religious purposes of marriage within Baptist Christianity, might be different than the religious purposes of marriage within a given Wiccan Coven.

You have provided exactly one link and can't even manage to show what section of the law from that link specifically renders religious marriage non existent. You constantly confuse the concept of what is used for legal purposes for that of other purposes.

And you will once again, only quote the first part of this post, make a feble retort that in no way reflects reality, and ignore all of the other evidence, per your SOP, because you know that you have no real evidence. The law factually CANNOT render religious or social marriage non existent.

 

yes it has, as you are fully aware. I comprehend it just fine. I've provided you with an example of what is required to be a marriage. Your agreement with that, no matter how loudly or hard you stomp your feet, will not change reality. You can have anyone in the country perform whatever ceremony you wish between you and 13 other women. You can be and are only married to 1 of them.

 

You have provided me with an example of what is required to be a legal marriage, not with what about a legal marriage causes a religious marriage to be non existent. The existence of legal marriage does not automatically make religious marriage non existent. You fail to provide any explanation, supported by actual linked and quoted evidence, as to what mechanism causes religious marriage to be non existent. No law ever can cause anything, save another law of the same source, to become non existent.

Once again, you will not read beyond the fist line, and will fail to address the subsequent points, further demonstrating to all, your inability to either grasp reality, or to debate with proper citation and quote. In essence, it is you who are stomping your feet over your inability to provide evidence.

 

Of course marriage is a legal institution there. This doesn't mean that it isn't also a religious institution. Your denial of this reality is no different to someone denying the reality of the existence of same sex marriage, maybe even saying that religious marriage is the only form of marriage - which nobody that I know of has been stupid enough to say.

 

I don’t believe anyone is denying religious rituals and unions exist. They are just irrelevant in US law as they have zero weight in anything outside of that specific institution and the people involved.

When discussing same sex marriage, most people are speaking about the federally and state recognized union.

 

No, @rahl is outright denying they exist.

Except when their arguments against SSM are religiously based, then the issues of religious and even social marriage are in play.

 

Very few people are wanting the state to force or even be involved in religious marriage, arguments that cite religious belief in arguments against same sex marriage are outright flawed and should be immediately dismissed.

 

A good point in and of itself. And it would be very applicable if the thread was only about legal marriage in the US. But the OP does not limit the topic to either the US nor to legal marriage.

And then we have rahl, who wants to claim that religious marriage does not even exist at all.

 

@rahl hasn't denied that religious rituals and unions exist, but they are saying that there is no other form of marriage other than civil marriage, which of course you totally disagree with because you have a functioning brain.

 

You give me too much credit, especially before my morning coffee...

 

I'm sure that you could go YEARS without coffee and still know that there is more than one form of marriage.

 

I am not. I've repeatedly pointed out they are simply ceremony's, not that they don't exist.

 

which is the only type of marriage in the US, as you are aware.

 

Same sex marriage did not exist 30 years ago, no matter the ceremony they participated in. That is reality. If a marriage is not legally recognized in the US, it is not a marriage. That is reality.

 

The wedding is the ceremony that initiates the marriage. While a common beginning to a marriage, the wedding is not always required for a given religious marriage. Similarly, while not required by most laws, the government official required by law to sign the document, often holds a ceremony as well. The ceremony is irrelevant to the marriage, except as maybe proscribed by religious, civil, or social rules. The marriage is the long term union. The wedding is the ceremony. The reason behind the long term union determines the type of marriage it is, with the ability of several types able to exist simultaneously.

 

proven false

 

Where? You've not proven a thing as you well know, for all your foot stomping and pouting and failure to provide quoted and documented evidence, as well as your failure to respond to all point given

 

repeatedly in this thread

 

First off nowhere in this thread have you made any distinction between the wedding and the marriage itself. The fact that you cannot seem to comprehend that these are distinct and separate from each other and occur in both the religious and civil realms is further evidence that you have no true comprehension on the subject.

Now this will be the paragraph that you will ignore because it shows your position is false. Marriage has existed since before the law and will continue to exist after the law. This shows that marriage, in its most basic form is separate from the law. Yes a legal version can be made ,but you repeatedly fail to show how it can be the only version. The law stating it has a version does not render other versions non existent.