Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Demonstrably false, as my links and your lack thereof have proven. Only 1 would be an actual legal marriage. The remainder would be actual marriages of other types. You're not managing to show how other types can't exist simultaneously. Only that only the legal type is used for legal benefits. Hell you can't even address an entire post. All you can do is quote a single aspect, and then make a claim to which you have presented no external evidence. You can even cite a single piece of law that created the non existence of other types of marriage. You claim, but never back up.

 

Yet you never cite a single one. LOL

 

I've cited all 50. Pick any state and any marriage law, and you will see the requirements to be a marriage.

 

No you claimed, you never cited. You provided no link or other evidence other that shows the existence of legal negates the existence of religious. What wording specifically does that? Again, the lack of ability for religious marriage to be used for legal benefits does not automatically negate the existence of religious. It is your weird conflating of these two separate things that is the problem.

 

False. I’ve pointed you to (cited) marriage law in all 50 states.

 

Ironically enough your own logic is failing you. In many, if not most or even all, you can now legally be a woman, even if born male. Thus your legal gender exists separately and independently of your physical gender. It's the exact same thing as I have been noting, the religious marriage exist separately and independently of the legal marriage.

 

I have yet to see such evidence, as you have yet to show it. With out specific reference to specific laws, not generalities, all you have is a claim as to what the law means. What specific section of, say Maryland marriage law, renders religious marriage non existent? Again, I am not asking what makes religious marriage irrelevant to legal benefits. That is not under disagreement.

 

Concerning a pronoun, that is correct. You remain a biological male regardless.

 

I've done so no less than 3 times now. Your refusal to look at any of the marriage laws in any state is not my problem.

 

Separate and distinct statuses, neither of which renders the other non existent. Exactly as with the two types of marriage.

 

It's your assertion. It is up to you to support it with specific laws and wording that shows your assertion is true. You have not show where any law specifically says it renders religious marriage non existent. What specific wording makes such so. Just because you say the law supports such, doesn't mean it does. You have to provide the section and article and such.

 

incorrect

 

it isn't an assertion, it is legal fact. That you refuse to look at a single marriage law in a single state is not my problem, and doesn't make you any less wrong.

 

Prove it.

 

biology

 

You have done nothing to prove it's legal fact. You have only claimed what the law says with no linked support to the actual wording to prove it. Until you use actually words and links to prove it, it remains an assertion. And as the one making the claim, it is on you to support it with provided evidence. I made my claims and provided the support, links and all.

 

Edited: got post mixed up.

Biology is irrelevant to legal status. In many states, the transgender are factually, legally male, while biologically they are factually, physically female. Two factual separate statuses, based upon two separate criteria. Likewise with marriage. One is based upon religious criteria, the other based upon legal criteria. Both factually exist. Prove otherwise with linked evidence. All other is a claim.

 

you are fully aware that I have. I've repeatedly cited any of the 50 state laws regarding marriage.

 

I am unaware of any state statute that allows the legal sex of a person to be changed from male to female, or vice versa.

 

Citing would include links and verbage to back up your claim. Or at the very least a publication title, location and verbage. Without showing the documentation, you have a claim. You have not shown that the law actually says what you claim it says.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_States

This, BTW, is what proper citing of source material is. There is the relevant information, plus a link to the source, which also holds other supporting sources. This is what you are failing to do. Until you do, all you have is a claim/assertion.

 

No, the law in NONE of the states says that there is no such thing as religious marriage.

 

Only one of them would be recognised by LAW. Are you actually saying that a church wouldn't recognise a marriage if it was performed under it?

 

Define, "actual."