Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Then you should be able to quote it, but you never do.

Not to mention not answering the other questions. My avoidance prediction is intact. And you will avoid the next as well.

If marriage is only that piece of government paper, then how did people get married before?

Did people in the US get married prior to the advent of legal marriage in the US, outside of Massachusetts?

 

Was 'discrimination on the basis of sex' actually a part of Obergefel v Hodges?

Is the term 'sham marriage' actually used in the US?

 

As best as I can interpret such things, yes. Through a combination of the various parts of the Constitution and it's amendments as well as the various Civil Right Acts, that was at least a basis of the majority decision.

Not as a legal term, no. But yes, it is a phrase that is used by many who don't agree with a given marriage or type of marriage.

 

already have. Every marriage law in every state requires the legal recognition of marriage, based on certain qualifications, in order for it to be marriage. You are perfectly aware of this.

 

And now we see what error you are working with. Every marriage law in every state requires the legal recognition of marriage, based on certain qualifications, in order for legal benefits to be applied. That does nothing to eliminate the existence of, nor the qualifications for, religious marriage, which is not used for determination of legal benefits.

And of course my avoidance prediction still reigns supreme. Here is your next avoidance:

If marriage is only that piece of government paper, then how did people get married before?

Did people in the US get married prior to the advent of legal marriage in the US, outside of Massachusetts?

 

no, in order to be married. Without the legal recognition, you just had a ceremony. This will continue being true, no matter how many times you ask the same stupid question, and I answer it the same way each time.

 

You are still avoiding the questions, as predicted.

Here is your next avoidance:

If marriage is only that piece of government paper, then how did people get married before?

Did people in the US get married prior to the advent of legal marriage in the US, outside of Massachusetts?

We'll deal with the other bit after this.

 

Directly addressing and refuting your claims is not avoidance.

 

Avoidance once again.

If marriage is only that piece of government paper, then how did people get married before?

Did people in the US get married prior to the advent of legal marriage in the US, outside of Massachusetts?

 

Do you like only read the first, and give up after that?

 

Directly addressing and refuting your claims is the opposite of avoidance.

 

I address what is relevant.

 

And yet the two questions remain unanswered. Avoidance.


If marriage is only that piece of government paper, then how did people get married before?

Did people in the US get married prior to the advent of legal marriage in the US, outside of Massachusetts?

 

They are irrelevant. What came before is irrelevant. Today, in the US, marriage is a legal institution. If it is not legally recognized, it is not a marriage. This will not stop being true no matter how many times you ask the same irrelevant questions, or repeat the same refuted argument.

 

You can claim that repeatedly, but that doesn't make that true. Answer the questions and you might have a basis for proving true, but doubtful. There is nothing about the law that makes religious marriage non existent especially since the law cannot constitutionally declare such. The law can only create it's own version for which the application of such determines whether the couple gets legal benefits. This is the point that you cannot disprove, yet are deluded into thinking you have.

Try this then. If the US eliminates all laws dealing with legal marriage, at all levels, is it your assertion that no one will be married within the US?

 

Again, it isn’t a claim. It is legal reality. If your marriage isn’t legally recognized, it isn’t a marriage. If you are a Mormon and “married” 5 women, only one of them is a marriage.

 

You are still avoiding the questions, suggesting you know their answers will destroy your argument.

But again, you are not supporting your "legal reality". All the laws show is that legal marriage is for legal benefits. That is the only reality.

But since you brought up multiple wives.... A Muslim from the Mideast who has 5 wives, do you claim he is only married to one?

 

Legally (what we have been discussing) yes, he is only married to one.
Spiritually or through whatever individual metrics he may use he can claim marriage to all five, but they are not legally recognized.

 

And am I right in thinking that it was more of a 'gay rights' based moral argument which American society was talking about in support of same sex marriage?

 

Wrong. In his country he is legally married to all 5. And this is part of my point. The lack of recognition of marriage to all 5 by the US does not eliminate the recognition of the marriage by other sources. Marriages exists in a wide variety of settings, which can be boiled down to legal, religious and social. Even within one category, recognition is not universal. The existence of a legal marriage within a country does not eliminate the existence of a religious marriage within that same country. The religious marriage may not be recognized by the government of said country, but that is different from it's existence, just as the lack of recognition from the US does not eliminate the existence of a marriage from another country.

As to what we are discussing, in neither the OP morning the poll are we limiting the discussion to any given country, nor is religion out of the discussion, especially since the poll specifically mentions religion. Furthermore, @rahl is not making a claim that religious marriage is not used for legal benefits, but that it does not exist at all, a claim I have shown to be not true. His refusal to answer questions no doubt from the knowledge that the answers will show him wrong, and he refuses to explain how the lack of recognition from one source causes the non existence of recognition from another.

 

You are incorrect. It was an equal rights based argument, led by gay right activists, and the distinction is important. What they fought for and what they argued meant that any two people could get married, and love is not part of that determination of whether they can or not. One of the main reasons love cannot be a criteria, is that there is no objective measure of love.

 

So the gay rights activists never once mentioned 'love?'

 

In which aspect? The legal argument was not about love. The anti SSM argument was that a gay man could marry a woman as equally as a straight man could. That ruled out love as a factor in legal marriage. Sure, many were using love on the moral level, both for and against. But in the end, love is not a legal factor for the granting or denying of a legal marriage.

 

you know this is false. Your questions have no bearing on the legal reality of marriage in the US in the 21st century.

 

Your claim didn't limit itself to the legal reality. Your claim moved itself into the religious as well by claiming that a religious marriage does not exist. As I noted, a religious marriage does not have any bearing on legal benefits. Only a legal marriage does. This does nothing to support the non existence of a religious marriage. Furthermore, the thread topic is not limited to the US. Despite that, I presented US limited questions that you refused to answer, under a false claim of irrelevant, because their answer would destroy your own claim. I'm not the one failing to answer questions.