Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

I think what Chris is trying to do is see if you comprehend that rahl is claiming that the bold is false in the US

Furthermore, Chris is also trying to determine if you comprehend that rahl's claim goes beyond legally recognized, to absolute existence. Rahl's claim is not that there is only one legally recognized form in the US, but that no other form factually exists, legally recognized or otherwise.

 

I’m not going to keep answering the same question or refuting your claims over and over again. Marriage in the US is a legal institution, and there are certain requirements to be married. I’ve linked you to them.

 

Irrelevant to what it is now

 

You've not refuted anything because you've not quoted anything that shows how the law makes religious marriage non existent. Religion says it will only recognize A. The law says it will only recognize B. Show how A and B are mutually exclusive without using the circular reasoning you've employed this far.

 

Repeatedly refuted you. Sorry.

 

Since you can't quote the words you claim your links have that no one else can find you haven't refuted a thing. Debating 101. Reality remains that religious and legal and social all factually exist simultaneously.

 

Repeatedly pointed you to and waited from the law in all 50 states showing what a marriage is. You remain refuted.

 

I am assuming that you meant quoted here, and you have been factually shown to not have a single post with an external quote, and only 3 links that you can manage to quote from. You can't refute without such.

 

Already refuted it. Gave you the link with the law showing what is required. You remain refuted.

 

There are days I hate my phone. You have only three links that you can't manage to quote from.

 

And yet you can't manage to quote anything from it.

 

If you choose not to read it I can’t help you. You remain refuted. Sorry.

 

I guess you mean this part:

Nope not seeing anything prohibiting religious marriage or rendering it non existent there.

 

The link shows what is required for a marriage to be a marriage. If you don’t follow what is required, you aren’t married. That is reality. You remain refuted

 

But you haven't shown what that was or how it renders religious marriage non existent. I tried to guess at what you meant, but you're not accepting what your own links says, and I actually quoted it. So quote what you are claiming says what it says. You won't because it destroys your position.

 

I’ve showed you what is required for a marriage to be a marriage. You can certainly go to your preferred church with your German Shepard and have a marriage ceremony, but you won’t be married.

 

I know that, but what do you think marriage was before?

 

If for some reason that particular religion included such in their marriage definitions, then yes they would still have a religious marriage. That marriage would be recognized by that religion and its deity. No, there is no claim that said religious marriage requires the law to recognize it or even society at large, nor for those who do not recognize to provide or act as if there was a marriage they would otherwise recognize. As long as one groups recognizes the marriage of its type than that marriage exists.

 

If you went to a foreign country that did not recognize US legal marriages, would your marriage no longer exist during your stay in that country?

 

I’ve shown you otherwise.

 

No, we would not be married in that country.

 

And yet your marriage would still factually exist in the US, even while you were physically present in that country, correct?

 

Yes, you would still be married in the US. Not in the other country

 

So the US legal marriage's existence is not dependant upon the recognition of the other country's recognition, correct?

 

Also, if you had sex with another person while in that other country then it wouldn't count as adultry?