Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

it is not possible to prove non existence. I proved what does exist, which is the legal institution of marriage, and what is required to be a marriage.

strawman. I've repeatedly shown you what a marriage IS, using the law in all 50 states.

 

While I agree that you cannot prove a negative outright, you can prove such if you can prove a mutually exclusive positive. What you have failed to do is prove legal marriage as mutually exclusive to religious marriage. In other words, your claim the religious marriage doesn't exists fails, factually no less, because you can't prove it is mutually exclusive, in existence as opposed to application, with legal marriage.

 

no I've conclusively proven this.

proven false.

 

Indeed not, since you cannot quote specific wording to back up your claim. There is factually nothing that renders religious marriage non existent in the US. I'm sorry that you are incapable of dealing with this reality. Unless you wish to adjust your context to the purely legal realm, but to date you have not limited your assertions to strictly that area.

Your claim that religious marriage doesn't exists fails, because you can't factually prove it is mutually exclusive, in existence as opposed to application, with legal marriage. In the same manner that both biological gender and legal gender exist independently, so too does religious marriage and legal marriage. By your logic, the existence of one's legal gender renders their biological gender non existent.

On the plus side, you are addressing more than just the first line now.

 

I have repeatedly done so, as you are aware. I gave you the link to what is required in order for a marriage to exist. It's the same in all 50 states.

 

First there is no quote from an external source anywhere in this thread from you. I proved that when I showed every single post you have made in this thread. 3 links and one of them twice. A link is not quoting the evidence to support your claim. And until you do, it remains a claim. Thus it is a lie that for you to claim to have quoted anything. Provide the post number of any external quote you have given.

Secondly the requirements for legal marriage does not render religious marriage non existent, any more than the requirements for legal gender renders biological gender non existent. You have to show how the law makes religious marriage non existent. Otherwise you are engaging in circular reasoning.

 

You are fully aware that is false. I’ve linked you directly to the law outlining what is required for a marriage.

 

A link is not a quote. You have failed to show what wording within that link applies.

The requirements for legal marriage does not render religious marriage non existent, any more than the requirements for legal gender renders biological gender non existent. You have to show how the law makes religious marriage non existent. Otherwise you are engaging in circular reasoning.

 

I provided the law. If you refuse to read it that is not my problem.

 

I have read the law, and found nothing within to support the claim that religious marriage is non existent, nor to support that legal marriage is the only form of marriage. If there is supposedly wording of such quote it. Not that you can since it does not factually exist within that or any other law. The qualifications for legal marriage does not automatically render religious marriage non existent. You must prove the mechanism by which occurs. To claim the simple existence of the law is circular reasoning.

 

then you didn't read it. it's in crystal clear plain English. it clearly spells out what is required to be a marriage.

 

The qualifications for legal marriage does not automatically render religious marriage non existent. You must prove the mechanism by which occurs. To claim the simple existence of the law is circular reasoning.

 

this is a secular nation. marriage is a legal institution here. I'm sorry you don't like that, but that doesn't change reality.

Already proven.

 

I have not argued otherwise, but irrelevant.

The existence of a legal institution does not render other types of the institution non existent.

Correct, reality does not change. People still get married for religious purposes under religious institutions. You can't change that reality. The option to obtain a legal marriage as well, does nothing to change that.

Circular reasoning is not a proof. In the same manner that both biological and legal gender exist simultaneously, which you yourself helped prove, so too does religious and legal marriage. By your logic, biological gender no longer exists because the law allows one to change legal gender.

 

Yes it does

Yes, people have religious ceremonies all the time. But if they don’t follow the protocol of what a legal marriage is, all they did was have a ceremony.

 

How? To claim because the law exists is circular reasoning. What mechanism does the law use? You have never said. If so then give the post number.

They follow the protocol of the religious marriage, which is separate and different than the legal. What is the basis of law that causes religious marriage to be non existent?

 

Why would adoption of partners child be required?

 

Have you grasped it yet?

 

No, I've always accepted the reality that if it isn't a legal marriage then it isn't a legal marriage. Again, we are in agreement.

 

.Are they coming from a particular denomination?

 

@cd8ed, you are hesitant to come out and say that you agree.

 

So what type of marriage existed prior to it being part of the law?

 

Yeah, that's called INTERPRETATION. Specifically your LUDICROUS interpretation.

 

Not at all, there are numerous forms of marriage and unions depending on the definitions of the words as well as the location — spiritual marriage is one example — but there is only one form of legally recognized marriage in the United States.

 

Okay, and have you grasped that @rahl disagrees?