Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

I didn't make any claims. I pointed out marriage is a legal institution in the US, and if it's not legally recognized, it isn't a marriage. I have consistently pointed this out. That is reality.

 

@chris155au found this while doing other research:

 

As part of the moral argument, not the legal argument.

 

I addressed that further down in the post.

 

What do you mean by "aspect?"

 

You answered that yourself in your previous response, as well as I when first responding. Legal or moral or otherwise.

 

SSM is a crime against nature....Why?...because same sex cannot reproduce the species...regardless of faith or gender,it takes male and female to procreate.....Natural Order!...I'm sure there always be skeptics, but its facts...

 

If legal marriage is the only type of marriage that is an actual marriage, how did people in the US get married in the US prior to legal marriage being instituted, which didn't start happening until the mid 19th century, excepting Massachusetts. Somehow I doubt that all were going to that colony/state to get married.

 

Show how marriage is required for procreation, and/or procreation is required for marriage.

 

prior is irrelevant. now is what matters.

 

procreation is irrelevant to marriage. This argument also fails as a justification to ban same sex couples from marriage because the ability to procreate is not a requirement of marriage. And infertile opposite sex couples can marry.

 

Avoidance again. You know the answer will destroy your position, so you refuse to answer.

 

directly addressing and refuting your position is not avoidance. You keep trying to deflect to something we aren't discussing, and I won't let you. The facts remain. If your marriage is not legally recognized, it isn't a marriage. If you marry 5 women in Utah, only 1 is recognized. This is reality.

 

It's not deflection and you know it. I am showing how there are different types.of marriages; legal, religious and social. And even within those categories, a type from one source is not required to be recognized by another. For example, a marriage in the US is not required to be recognized in say China. The lack of legal recognition in China does nothing to eliminate the legal recognition in the US. Likewise, the legal recognition in the US does nothing to eliminate the religious recognition.

 

So does that mean that it is a crime against nature when a man and a woman get married but never have children?

 

Of course it is, and you know that. We don’t live 200 years ago. We live today, in the 21st century. The facts remain. Marriage is a legal institution in the US. If it isn’t a legal marriage, it doesn’t exist. This is reality.

 

The bold is the only true thing you have asserted. Other forms of marriage factually exist. Religious Marriage factually exists. It exists in many forms. Forms of one type are not necessarily recognized by other forms or even by other sources of the same form. The law cannot dictate whether or not other forms of marriage exist. It can only dictate what it will use for allowing legal benefits.

 

From :https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2015/09/religious-marriage-v-legal-marriage.html
Numerous legal academics have discussed the distinctions between religious marriage and legal marriage, so these categories are not my invention, although I did formulate them independently and without prior knowledge of the academic literature. See, e.g., Sonia Bychkov Green, Currency Of Love: Customary International Law And The Battle For Same-Sex Marriage In The United States, 14 U. Pa. J. L. & Soc. Change 53 (2011); Lynn D. Wardle, Marriage And Religious Liberty: Comparative Law Problems And Conflict Of Laws Solutions, 12 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 315 (2010). This distinction was also critical to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).


When even the courts themselves recognize that other than legal forms exist, they factually exist.

 

Not in the US. If it isn’t recognized legally, it isn’t a marriage. It does not matter how many times you try and deflect to something else, reality remains the same.

 

That is not the reality no matter how much you wish it. How is a religious marriage that's not a legal not a marriage? It's not a legal fact because the law does not claim or state religious marriage doesn't exist. To be a legal fact it must be explicitly stated in law. There is NOTHING in the law to render religious marriage non existent. You can't point to it. The issues of whether or not benefits are received are irrelevant to religious marriage since religious marriage does not count for legal benefits. It only counts for religious purposes. Even the Massachusetts Supreme Court has noted the existence of both legal and religious marriages as two separate but real things, as referenced. I do believe that they are more savy of the law than you are. Face it, I have brought the facts and linked references. You have only circular reasoning. And avoidance. If you think my other points are irrelevant, you'd be able to explain how, other than claiming them simply irrelevant.

 

You're wasting your time. I'd be surprised if you hadn't considered that you might be.

 

Doesn't mean it's not fun. I particularly enjoy that he can't cite a single source, outside of a claim, while I have provided multiple links.

 

The fact that his only 'source' is his brain isn't going to help him much.

 

it quite demonstrably is. You can have as many marriage ceremonies to as many different women as you want. Only 1 of them would be an actual marriage. That is reality.

 

uh, my source is the law in all 50 states, lol.