...which does nothing to show that it is the only type of marriage. That is where your circular reasoning comes in. Something external from those requirements of a legal marriage is needed to show how it makes religious marriage non existent, especially since the legal requirement make no mention of religious marriage.
Any minister can get a legal state certificate for conducting a marriage. There is no such thing as "straight" or "same-sex" marriage, only marriage.
Something external from those requirements of a legal marriage is needed to show how it makes religious marriage non existent, especially since the legal requirement make no mention of religious marriage.
Of there is, because nothing in the law makes the religious marriage non existent, save your circular reasoning. Since religious marriage does not affect or impact upon legal marriage, how does legal marriage make religious marriage non existent?
The law outlines what is required for it to be a marriage. If you don’t follow what is required, you aren’t married.
The law doesn't say anywhere religious marriage doesn't exist. Requirements for legal marriage does not define the existence anor ofnon existencey of any other type. You still haven't managed to QUOTE anything to the contrary.
The law says what’s required for a marriage to exist. If you don’t follow the requirements, you aren’t married. Sorry.
The law does not state that legal is the only form. While true that if you don't follow the legal requirements, you are not legally married, you can still be religiously married if you follow religious requirements. You cannot quote anything that states legal is the only form. Hell, you seem incapable of quoting anything external.
Being a hypothetical, I used the hypothetical country of Hypothetica. I don't think your read far enough back to catch the beginning of the hypothetical.
There is NOTHING in law stating that legal marriage is the only form. The requirements only apply to legal marriage, which still does not state anything of any other form. Only circular reasoning will make one claim that such means legal is the only form. You can't QUOTE otherwise.
You know very well it does not since there is nothing in the law to limit the existence of other forms. You have yet to quote a source that says otherwise or a source outside the law that shows the law creates a new reality. If the law doesn't say religious marriage doesn't exist, then religious marriage still exist.
you know as well as I do that it lists the requirements of what a marriage is. If it doesn't meet the requirements, it's not a marriage.
It's amusing you think personal attacks are a valid form of argument. Your challenge has no relevance to anything being discussed.
Yeah, that's the problem. Although I do recall the mention of the hypothetical country of Hypothetica - your invention?
We're discussing marriage, so yes it is relevant. It's just that if you answer honestly, it will destroy your argument!
no it isn't. what used to be a marriage has no relevance to what IS currently a marriage. proven false.