Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

you know this is false. I have repeatedly done so. I've shown you what is required in order to be a marriage. And I don't ignore anything. The rest of your post is completely irrelevant. The facts remain, if a marriage is not a legal marriage, it is a ceremony or union, nothing more.

 

You have not proven as fact that the term "marriage" applies only to the legal union. There is no law that can make such fact. Quote the words that prove otherwise. You have not made a single quote of an external source. You will dodge this as well, and claim irrelevance because anything else proves you wrong. Marriage factually exist outside the legal realm as well as within.

 

I have repeatedly done so. I gave you a link to a single marriage law in a single state outlining what is required to be a marriage. It is the same in all 50 states (with varying age of consent laws). If you have a ceremony involving you, 5 women, and 2 sheep, you are only married to 1 of the women. This is reality.

 

That does nothing to show that the law has sole use and definition of a word or concept. Legal fact: the law cannot claim sole use and definition of a word. That is why they need to make legal definitions in laws; to show how it will be used within that context. There is no law that claims its use of and definition of "marriage" is the only one. There is no wording in your link that says to the effect of "no other use of the word 'marriage' exists outside of this law." Quote it if you can find it.

 

of course it does

 

Yep. @rahl ignored it! I think we both knew that this was always going to be the case!

 

Does anyone want the state to force or be involved in religious marriage? I've never heard of that.

 

That is false as you well.know. It is a legal fact that a law cannot take sole use of a word, term or concepts. Show me what allows the law to do so, if you disagree.

 

He ignore everything beyond the first line because he can provide no wording to support his assertions. He managed to provide a single link after much asking, yet he still cannot point to and quote the words that say what he claims.

 

Yes. There are actually people here in the US that believe that the force of law should be used to force compliance with what they believe the Bible, despite the fact it diametrically opposite of the WWJD principle.

 

So they think that non-Christians should be forced to marry under God?

 

Yep. There is a reason I tend to call such people Uber-Christians

 

It was irrelevant. The facts remain. Marriage is a legal institution in the US. If it isn’t a legal marriage, it’s just a ceremony. Sorry.

 

Except you are fully aware that it is true.

 

Except you are fully aware that it is false. Which is why you won't ever quote a single source. You know the words don't exist. Until you do all you have is an assertion, and you know it.

 

I’ve proven otherwise.

 

If it isn't a legal marriage then it isn't a legal marriage. We are in agreement. So I don't know why you are saying "sorry."

 

You haven't as you are well aware. Without being able to quote the words to prove it, not just link to something without the words, you have an assertion not proof. Legal fact: the law cannot claim sole use of any word, phrase or concept.

 

We could be here till next century.

 

True, but it still won't change the reality of the existence of marriage in multiple forms, not that he can actually make a quote.

 

"Reality?" Yeah, @rahl has nothing to do with reality.

 

I'm sorry that you are having such a hard time accepting reality.

 

It's a matter of historical written record on this thread that I have, as you know.

 

Because I'm shattering your ideology with reality? lol, ok

 

@Maquiscat's and my ideology are PERFECTLY in tact. You are no threat to it.