Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

I've shown both of you otherwise, lol

 

Here you go. The entirety of every post that you have made on this thread. If you think I have missed a post then note the post number. I'm willing to admit missing one if you can cite the post number. Due to size this will be done in multiple posts.

 

And thus the lie that you have quoted anything has been proven. You have only posted 3 links, one twice, and quoted nothing. Again, if you feel that any post above is edited (save for the two that you screwed up the quote tags on), note the post number for all to see. You can claim a link holds the evidence needed, but unless you can actually quote it, you've not supported your assertions. Nothing above supports your assertions that marriage is only a legal institution in the US. You cannot quote a single law at any level in the US that creates a legal fact that religious marriage does not exist.

 

the link I provided shows you what it required for it to be a marriage. Anything else..............is not a marriage. This is reality. I don't care that you don't agree or don't like that. It does not change it.

 

Wrong. The link shows what is required for a legal marriage. What it does not show is how legal marriage is the only marriage and that religious marriage does not exist. THAT is the point that you have repeatedly failed to support. The existence of the legal marriage does not do that and you have never quoted wording to show it does. QUOTED. Showing the legal wording that specifically renders religious marriage non existent, not legal marriage existent.

 

which is the only marriage in the US. We've been over this. It is a legal institution here. You can have whatever ceremonies or cohabitating relationships you want. If they do not meet the minimum requirements of a marriage, they are not a marriage. I again point you to the Mormon example of polygamy. None of them are married to more than 1 person. this is reality.

 

That does nothing to show it is not also a religious institution. That does nothing to show it is ONLY a legal institution. That is what you continually fail to support. We have been through this, and I have been through this entire thread and presented it all back to you. You have NOT quote even one source to show that marriage does not have multiple forms in the US. You cannot even explain the legal mechanism that supposedly causes what you claim. Simply saying the law does, does nothing to explain the mechanism of your claim.

You have nothing of support. That is reality. Marriage exists in multiple forms. The fact that legal marriage is what counts for legal benefits means nothing and does nothing to render any other form non existent. That is reality. You cannot support otherwise.

 

Y’all are discussing different topics — rahl is arguing the legal aspect: that while people may call their union a marriage it is not one by contract or by state recognition without it meeting the qualifications of such. — Maquiscat is arguing the institutional aspect: which can be formed by religious institutions or even by couples agreeing together that they are in a union.

Both of you are correct as they both exist however the issues with same sex marriage (which is what this thread is about) is primarily centered around the legal aspects of marriage being applied to same sex unions.

 

No, only @Maquiscat is correct. Although @rahl is perfectly correct in reference to legal marriage, you don't seem to grasp that they are LITERALLY saying that it's the only form of marriage.

 

Legally, it is... now spiritually or emotionally that is a different story.

Do you believe we would be having a discussion about why people are opposed to same sex marriage is gay people were only allowed to say they were married but it was not legally recognized? I do not.

 

Rahl is saying otherwise. He is making a claim that religious marriage does not exist period. If he was making the claim that religious marriage is not used for the purposes of legal benefits or recognition, there would not be a disagreement. Indeed, earlier on such were his arguments, or at least seemingly so, since the earlier arguments had a context of legal benefits. But he didn't leave it there. He went on to claim that religious marriage does not factually exist at all in the US, no other context.

As to what this thread is about, the OP did not limit the topic to the legal aspect, nor to the US. Posters such as Ybber and GFM would and have argued (not necessarily limited to this thread) that a same sex Wiccan couple could never be religiously married. Again, had the OP simply specified SSM as being legal in the US the disagreement would not occur.

Religious marriage is indeed irrelevant to legal marriage in the US. That does not render it non existent. But that is rhal's factually wrong claim.

 

Rahl is not limiting himself to legally. I tried that argument, noting that while not used for the recognition of legal benefits, religious marriage still factually exists in the US. He continues to wrongfully insist that religious marriage factually does not exist. He is not limiting himself to the legal context.

Same sex couples have been getting married for quite some time now. Whether they publicly declared it or not is another matter. And some have. Even when not legally married they have introduced their same sex partner as their spouse. They obtained the other forms of marriage.

But the SSM movement was not about the right to use the word "marriage" in the legal context. It was about equal legal rights. While there will always be extreme whackos (yes even among the LBGT community), the over all LBG community would not have cared if the legal institution was renamed to "civil union", so long as they had equal rights. Any argument that such was tried would be disingenuous, because every effort was to make a separate legal institution that was not legally equal to legal marriage.

 

already proven this false

 

Correct, but that's not what @rahl is saying. They are saying that it is the only form of marriage ALTOGETHER. I would be stunned if you haven't grasped that yet.

No, the thread wouldn't exist. Yes, for some reason, people have a problem with the law recognising same sex couples. I don't get it myself.

 

Some people really believe gay people — especially gay men — want to destroy families... by starting their own family...
It doesn’t make sense to me either.

The same groups are trying (and succeeding) in allowing state and federally funded adoption agencies and schools to openly deny gay people.
They are also pushing for the ability to deny medical treatment and psychological treatment to gay people, removing housing and employment protections and all kind of other fun stuff.

In my mind it is just about hate.

 

Do you know if there were gay couples who held off from starting a family because they couldn't marry?

 

I mean they were a family in their eyes but I know a few that held off on children due to it.

My partners uncle was with his partner for 20 some years until his partner got placed on life support and his family stepped in, denied him visitation, pulled the plug and then denied him going to the funeral. Hate is such a horrible disease.

 

Any idea why they thought they required the government to be able to start a family?

Hate on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

Reality shows otherwise. I have shown where you have quoted nothing in support of your assertion. You cannot find and quote any wording that make legal marriage the only form. Again, if you assertion was that religious marriage cannot be used for legal benefits, I would support that AND could show it to be true via the law. But that is not your assertion. Your only is that religious marriage does not exist period. A factually false statement.

 

Hard to adopt children or your partners child, have property together, have legal kinship, or really anything when your union isn’t legal — much more so when your relationship is illegal.

Absolutely.

 

reality shows I've proven it false. I gave you one example from one state what is required for a marriage to be a marriage. It's the same in all 50 states. sorry.

 

You have failed to show the wording, by quoting the specific section of the law, that's shows religious marriage does not factually exist. You claim that law contains the words prove your claim, yet you can't seem to quote those words.