• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Same-sex marriage is wrong because

  • It will set a bad example for Christian youth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    83
Yes, but the reason that the legal marriage is the same is because the state decided that it is much easier to allow clergy and other people who will perform the ceremony to sign the marriage license, rather than forcing all those couples who choose to have their ceremony done by someone other than the JotP to have to say their "I do"'s twice. It isn't because the ceremonies are the same or that a person has to have a religion to even get married or that religion is involved in anyone's marriage.

Right.. I wasn't refering to the ceremony.. That is really just a technicality.. When someone talks about marriage.. They aren't usually talking about the where and how they got married.. But marriage in general.. I might have misread what Centrist was saying.. Ceremonially, yes the two marriages are different.. Legally they are the same.. So when he says that a legal marriage and a religious one are different.. He is wrong.. Both are legally the same... The ceremony is different..

It is true to say that you can take the religion out of marriage.. You don't need a church or religion to get married.. But all marriages are legal.. Or they aren't marriages.. Hence the debate about SSM.. Which should be legal in all states.. Constitutional it already is..
 
Right.. I wasn't refering to the ceremony.. That is really just a technicality.. When someone talks about marriage.. They aren't usually talking about the where and how they got married.. But marriage in general.. I might have misread what Centrist was saying.. Ceremonially, yes the two marriages are different.. Legally they are the same.. So when he says that a legal marriage and a religious one are different.. He is wrong.. Both are legally the same... The ceremony is different..

It is true to say that you can take the religion out of marriage.. You don't need a church or religion to get married.. But all marriages are legal.. Or they aren't marriages.. Hence the debate about SSM.. Which should be legal in all states.. Constitutional it already is..

No you are wrong. Legally they are NOT the same a religious marriage does not give you a legal marriage UNLESS the people do the required LEGAL steps.

A preacher, minister, pastor etc etc etc can conduct all the religious marriages he wants, if he doesnt have the power granted by the state and the people he is marrying dont do the required LEGAL steps they will only be RELIGIOUSLY married lol

Right now many people in the US have RELIGIOUS marriages that arent legal and thats a fact.
As a matter of fact there are GAYS who have a religious marriage that arent legally married.

Religious marriage is not legal marriage nor are they the same.
 
Right.. I wasn't refering to the ceremony.. That is really just a technicality.. When someone talks about marriage.. They aren't usually talking about the where and how they got married.. But marriage in general.. I might have misread what Centrist was saying.. Ceremonially, yes the two marriages are different.. Legally they are the same.. So when he says that a legal marriage and a religious one are different.. He is wrong.. Both are legally the same... The ceremony is different..

It is true to say that you can take the religion out of marriage.. You don't need a church or religion to get married.. But all marriages are legal.. Or they aren't marriages.. Hence the debate about SSM.. Which should be legal in all states.. Constitutional it already is..

Sort of.

I believe he is saying what a lot of those on the pro-SSM side have been saying for a while now, including myself. Most marriages include two parts, the personal part (which generally includes love and commitment and intimacy and other things that are hard to actually quantify, depending on the couple involved in the marriage) and the legal part (which includes any joint tax, bennies from being married, marriage license, etc.). And marriage existed prior to marriage licenses of any kind.

Most people have both. Depending on who you talk to, either alone could exclude a couple from someone's definition of being in a "real marriage". Just as you claim it isn't a "real marriage" unless it is legally recognized, some on the anti-SSM side like to claim that no marriage is a "real marriage" without the personal part, no matter if they have the marriage license or not. The truth is that either or the combo of the two can be considered a real marriage, because that should be left up to the couple, not outsiders. Same sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal marriages if they want, but they, nor opposite sex couples should be forced to enter into the contract if they don't wish to do so but still wish to be known as "married" to their family, friends, church, as long as they aren't trying to claim a legal marriage on paperwork.
 
NO they are not because civil unions have been over turned or ruled over in case of death by family members etc etc
That may be in the US in states where they were allowed, but speaking of civil unions in general, they can be whatever the law outlines them out to be as they currently do in other countries.

Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage they do not carry the weight nor come with the same legal benefits / protections
Again, are you speaking of just the US, because there are other countries where civil unions are equal to marriage. And, since me and the other poster were not specifically speaking of civil unions as they are defined "currently" in some states, but rather a hypothetical one that hasn't been defined, but could be if the demand for SSM continues to grow. States that allow SSM, although legal in that state, may not be legal in another state that does not recognize SSM. So, in that case, a "legal" marriage is just as ineffective as a "civil union".

The terms used to designate civil unions are not standardized, and vary widely from country to country. Government-sanctioned relationships that may be similar or equivalent to civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, significant relationships, reciprocal beneficiary relationships, common-law marriage, adult interdependent relationships, life partnerships, stable unions, civil solidarity pacts, and so on. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities also varies, depending on the laws of a particular country. Some jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt, while others forbid them to do so, or allow adoption only in specified circumstances.
Wiki

It seems there may be quite a bit you dont understand about legal marrage.
There may be quite a bit you don't understand about what me and the other poster were talking about. I know enough about legal marriage as any informed person does, but am wondering what it is you know about it that makes you think you know so much more?

People that get married in church are NOT considered married by the state unless they and the church choose it to be.
In order to be legally married you need to get a marriage license from the state, you cannot get legally married without one, so a church or reputable place that is going to marry you will require you to have a license, which they will then sign and submit to the state to confirm you are legally married. I don't know of any reason why anyone would consider being married in a church and choose not to make it legal unless they planned a separate ceremony that would make it legal, or they are just doing a "performance-for show" type of wedding where a church is willing to go along with the charade, of performing a ceremony that is fake. But, I'm sure the people involved know it is not legal. The only other reason it would not be legal would be if the preacher/minister failed to return the signed/dated license indicating the ceremony took place back to the state.

Most churches have the power to marry just like a magistrate or ANYBODY that applies for the power but a religious marriage does NOT guarantee a legal marriage.
It it involves a license that is turned over to the state, it does, unless the preacher/magistrate forgets to turn it in. You would find out rather quickly as the state sends you a certificate of marriage once they receive the license back and register the marriage. A religious marriage that is not a legal marriage is no marriage at all, so I don't even know why you are considering it a marriage.

Notice the part of the vows where the preacher, pastor, minister, Rabi etc etc will say "by the power invested in my by the state of blah blah blah, I know pronounce you husband and wife"
FYI, it isn't "the power invested in me" - it is "the power vested in me".

vest·ed   
[ves-tid] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
held completely, permanently, and inalienably: vested rights.
2.
protected or established by law, commitment, tradition, ownership, etc.: vested contributions to a fund.
3.
clothed or robed, especially in ecclesiastical vestments: a vested priest.

With out that power given by the state and people applying for a marriage license religious marriage have NOTHING to do with legal marriages unless the for mentioned is done.
Without power given by the state and no license, there is no legal marriage whether performed in the church or elsewhere.

SO no simply getting a religious marriage does NOT give you legal marriage, there are churches that marry gay couples right now and they are not LEGALLY married because that state currently discriminates against them.
Any marriage that does not involve a license or an authorized person performing the ceremony are not even marriages, they are just performances. Most reputable churches would not have anything to do with such a charade.

Also the reverse is also true, I can get married by singing elvis or a magistrate or anybody that has the power to do marriages and it will have nothing to do with religion unless I chose it to.
And, if you don't have a license and the person is not authorized to perform the ceremony, you are not legally married either. Most people consider a "religious" ceremony one that is performed in a "church" or "sanctuary". Just because God is mentioned, unless it is held in a church or place of worship (not necessarily a church but used as a place to worship) doesn't make it a religious ceremony.
Hopefully you understand now.
Hopeful you understand that you didn't say anything that I didn't already know, and hopefully you won't make the mistake of saying "by the power invested in me" - and hopefully you won't assume that people don't know something and proceed to tell them what they already know and then act as if you informed them.
 
That may be in the US in states where they were allowed, but speaking of civil unions in general, they can be whatever the law outlines them out to be as they currently do in other countries.
No offense but everything I have referred to I am talking about the US so Im not interested in other countries Im talking about here.


Again, are you speaking of just the US, because there are other countries where civil unions are equal to marriage. And, since me and the other poster were not specifically speaking of civil unions as they are defined "currently" in some states, but rather a hypothetical one that hasn't been defined, but could be if the demand for SSM continues to grow. States that allow SSM, although legal in that state, may not be legal in another state that does not recognize SSM. So, in that case, a "legal" marriage is just as ineffective as a "civil union".

The terms used to designate civil unions are not standardized, and vary widely from country to country. Government-sanctioned relationships that may be similar or equivalent to civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, significant relationships, reciprocal beneficiary relationships, common-law marriage, adult interdependent relationships, life partnerships, stable unions, civil solidarity pacts, and so on. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities also varies, depending on the laws of a particular country. Some jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt, while others forbid them to do so, or allow adoption only in specified circumstances.
Wiki

See above

There may be quite a bit you don't understand about what me and the other poster were talking about. I know enough about legal marriage as any informed person does, but am wondering what it is you know about it that makes you think you know so much more?

I know everything I need to know to debate my statements and how they work in the US, he doesnt and you didnt because you made two inaccurate ones.

I dont know how my statements stand outside the US nor do I care as I wasnt debating that.


In order to be legally married you need to get a marriage license from the state, you cannot get legally married without one, so a church or reputable place that is going to marry you will require you to have a license, which they will then sign and submit to the state to confirm you are legally married. I don't know of any reason why anyone would consider being married in a church and choose not to make it legal unless they planned a separate ceremony that would make it legal, or they are just doing a "performance-for show" type of wedding where a church is willing to go along with the charade, of performing a ceremony that is fake. But, I'm sure the people involved know it is not legal. The only other reason it would not be legal would be if the preacher/minister failed to return the signed/dated license indicating the ceremony took place back to the state.

Thanks for repeating all the stuff I already said and YEAAAA you dont know people that would do that but the fact remains they do.

Also there are many people that hold their religion true and dear and the religious marriage without the legal part is just a valuable to THEM!, Its not your decision "if its real or not"

Its not legally recognized but its real to THEM, you dont get to decide what is important or matter to them LOL Calling it a charade is pompous and ignorant.



It it involves a license that is turned over to the state, it does, unless the preacher/magistrate forgets to turn it in. You would find out rather quickly as the state sends you a certificate of marriage once they receive the license back and register the marriage. A religious marriage that is not a legal marriage is no marriage at all, so I don't even know why you are considering it a marriage.

Again repeating stuff I said I agree the religious body or any body must do the LEGAL steps with out them there is no LEGAL marriage.
I consider religious marriage to be exactly what it is, a RELIGIOUS marriage. Here in the US there are people that are in fact religiously married and not legally married.



FYI, it isn't "the power invested in me" - it is "the power vested in me".

vest·ed   
[ves-tid] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
held completely, permanently, and inalienably: vested rights.
2.
protected or established by law, commitment, tradition, ownership, etc.: vested contributions to a fund.
3.
clothed or robed, especially in ecclesiastical vestments: a vested priest.

this typo/mistakes changes what about the facts I posted again? lol nothing, good catch, funny but has no impact.


Without power given by the state and no license, there is no legal marriage whether performed in the church or elsewhere.

thanks again for repeating things I have already said in the thread LOL


Any marriage that does not involve a license or an authorized person performing the ceremony are not even marriages, they are just performances. Most reputable churches would not have anything to do with such a charade.

Thats your OPINION but religious only marriages can be and are already performed here in the US


And, if you don't have a license and the person is not authorized to perform the ceremony, you are not legally married either. Most people consider a "religious" ceremony one that is performed in a "church" or "sanctuary". Just because God is mentioned, unless it is held in a church or place of worship (not necessarily a church but used as a place to worship) doesn't make it a religious ceremony..





uhm who said mention god makes it a religious ceremony alone? not me nor is it me that is capable of answering that for ALL people. Maybe thats all some people need, its not my decision how they view their ceremony.

Hopeful you understand that you didn't say anything that I didn't already know, and hopefully you won't make the mistake of saying "by the power invested in me" - and hopefully you won't assume that people don't know something and proceed to tell them what they already know and then act as if you informed them.

If you say so but the fact remains you made false inaccurate statements when you said:

"In certain states, a civil union provides the same benefits as a legal marriage."
wrong, not in any united states because civil unions are not as concrete.

and

"People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state"
wrong unless they do the LEGAL part they are in fact not.

So next time maybe you will say stuff that is correct and I wont have to inform you that its false ;)
 
FYI for anybody who cares...

"Informal Marriage" (some states - Common Law) is legal in many states and is legally recognized the same as "formal marriages" performed by Civil authorities or Clergy.

:shrug: Just sayin...
 
FYI for anybody who cares...

"Informal Marriage" (some states - Common Law) is legal in many states and is legally recognized the same as "formal marriages" performed by Civil authorities or Clergy.

:shrug: Just sayin...
Thanks Rm!

Yep that is very true, my parents were actually married this way (Common Law) but PA stop doing it.
But also another FYI related to that

when my dad got sick and was on his death bed every Lawyer and HR person and insurance person recommended they get married again to protect my mom from being screwed. Legal marriage holds the most weight law wise and is the most concrete.

Thats why civil unions, power of attorney, common law all lose vs real legal marriage.
 
Thanks Rm!

Yep that is very true, my parents were actually married this way (Common Law) but PA stop doing it.
But also another FYI related to that

when my dad got sick and was on his death bed every Lawyer and HR person and insurance person recommended they get married again to protect my mom from being screwed. Legal marriage holds the most weight law wise and is the most concrete.

Thats why civil unions, power of attorney, common law all lose vs real legal marriage.

I hear ya...but again, various states have different statutes that dictate the legalities involved, including death related issues.

The real key to departing without hassles...Have an air-tight will whether or not in a "formal marriage or informal marriage".
 
I hear ya...but again, various states have different statutes that dictate the legalities involved, including death related issues.

The real key to departing without hassles...Have an air-tight will whether or not in a "formal marriage or informal marriage".

I agree my dad tripled down once everyone told him that he needs to get remarried the formal way. He got paranoid because theres also some cases on the books where if the formal marriage is recent to time of death that scum bag insurance companies, and retirement fund agencies etc try to fight them.

So even after the remarriage he redid his will, made her executor, and gave my mom power of attorney to make sure we were all protected.

This is why I tried to tell people there's no replacement for formal legal marriage. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't know.
Civil unions and any other various paperwork will never give you the ease and concrete protection of marriage. And I agree it doesnt hurt to double up just in case. (IE will etc.)

This is why I will always be for equal rights of gays.
 
Last edited:
No offense but everything I have referred to I am talking about the US so Im not interested in other countries Im talking about here.
Civil union is not unique to the United States, and even in the US, it means different things in different states, so you cannot make a broad statement about what it is in the US. And, I did state that they were only recognized in the state which the license is issued.

In Vermont:
On December 20, 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Vermont that same-sex couples are “entitled under Chapter I, Article 7, of the Vermont Constitution to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples”.



I know everything I need to know to debate my statements and how they work in the US, he doesnt and you didnt because you made two inaccurate ones.
Apparently you think you do, but "see above" and it appears you don't, or "see below" in NJ, and it is obvious you don't.

I dont know how my statements stand outside the US nor do I care as I wasnt debating that.
Well, even in the US, they don't mean the same thing in every state. And your statement that they are not the same as a marriage is a big "FAIL" in NJ and Vt, because in NJ and Vt it affords the same rights as a marriage, even though just in that state.

The legislation was passed in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Lewis vs. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006). That Court unanimously held that "committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples." The subsequent Act, as stated in section 4, gives partners in civil union couples "all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under the law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage." Section 5n of the Act provides that "legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses shall apply in like manner to civil union couples" to "laws relating to taxes imposed by the State or a municipality including but not limited to homestead rebate tax allowances, tax deductions based on marital status or exemptions from realty transfer tax based on marital status."
NJ Division of Taxation - Civil Union Act

Thanks for repeating all the stuff I already said and YEAAAA you dont know people that would do that but the fact remains they do.
No, you didn't say all the stuff that I said. And, people that are doing the "for-show" ceremonies, those are not marriages, so even if they are doing it, they know it's not real, and it is not real, so comparing them to "marriage" is a misnomer on your part.

Also there are many people that hold their religion true and dear and the religious marriage without the legal part is just a valuable to THEM!, Its not your decision "if its real or not"
It doesn't matter whether I think it is real, or whether the couple thinks it is real, the STATE, which is what we are talking about, does not recognize it as real, and that is what really matters because if the STATE doesn't recognize your marriage, you are not married, no matter how "real" it is to you.

Its not legally recognized but its real to THEM, you dont get to decide what is important or matter to them LOL Calling it a charade is pompous and ignorant.
It may be real to them, but in the eyes of the law, it isn't. And, FYI, I'm not deciding what is important and what isn't, I'm telling you it is not legal, and therefore, not real, no matter how important it may be to "them". And, it is a charade, because they are only fooling themselves, nobody else considers them married. (Unless they fool people into thinking it is a legal ceremony, which then makes them dishonest on top of being foolish).

Again repeating stuff I said I agree the religious body or any body must do the LEGAL steps with out them there is no LEGAL marriage.
I consider religious marriage to be exactly what it is, a RELIGIOUS marriage. Here in the US there are people that are in fact religiously married and not legally married.
I don't know what religion allows that, but in the Christian religion, you are not "religiously married" if you are not legally married because God (of the Christians) does not recognize a marriage if it is not legal. In Malaki, God says marriage is a covenant, witnessed and sealed by HIM, and being that a covenant is religious by nature it should be presided over by a religious official. A true "religious official" would not participate in a fake ceremony. Marriage is an institution not to be taken lightly, a union of the highest honor (Heb 13:4), and since God tells us to obey the laws of the land, we are to obey and respect the customs associated with Biblical marriage.

Our laws recognize the holy union of marriage (point number 1), require it to be between a man and a woman (point number 2), recognizes the covenant nature of marriage by sanctioning clergy to perform marriage ceremonies (point number 3), and requires witnesses (point number 4). Therefore, in order to give marriage proper honor and to render the proper respect to the governing authorities, legal marriage is both required and appropriate. It does not follow that legal marriage is not necessary in today's society.

Read more: Must Marriage be Legal to be Blessed by God? - Come Reason Ministries


this typo/mistakes changes what about the facts I posted again? lol nothing, good catch, funny but has no impact.
A typo is typing the wrong letter or omitting one, you actually added "in" - but go ahead and pretend you knew all along.

thanks again for repeating things I have already said in the thread LOL
I added the necessary words to make it correct, so, no, I wasn't repeating what you said, because your statements were short on all the facts.

Thats your OPINION but religious only marriages can be and are already performed here in the US
Like I pointed out, if it is not a legal marriage, it is not a marriage at all. You can call it that, but it isn't. And, God does not recognize "fake" marriages. He doesn't approve of "fornication" and that is exactly what a "fake" marriage leads to. And, I repeat, if it is not a "legal" marriage, even if done in a church, it is not a marriage at all. The church ceremony does not have to be legal at the time it is performed, but it must be made legal soon after in order for God and STATE to recognize it.



uhm who said mention god makes it a religious ceremony alone? not me nor is it me that is capable of answering that for ALL people. Maybe thats all some people need, its not my decision how they view their ceremony.
I'm speaking for Christian marriages, and in order for them to be "religious" they have to follow the rules of the Christian church. I really don't care what Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus and whatever other religion you are talking about do or believe.

If you say so but the fact remains you made false inaccurate statements when you said:

"In certain states, a civil union provides the same benefits as a legal marriage."
wrong, not in any united states because civil unions are not as concrete.
The fact remains that you are making an inaccurate statement when you claim that my statement was inaccurate. I stated that they were only apply in that state, and in Vt and NJ, they do. That they are not recognized by the Fed Gov or other states is a fact, but they could make them so, if that is what the nation wanted to do.



P.L. 2006, Chapter 103, the Civil Union Act, was signed into law on December 21, 2006, and takes effect on February 19, 2007. The Act establishes "civil unions" for couples of the same sex.

The legislation was passed in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Lewis vs. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006). That Court unanimously held that "committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples." The subsequent Act, as stated in section 4, gives partners in civil union couples "all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under the law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage." Section 5n of the Act provides that "legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses shall apply in like manner to civil union couples" to "laws relating to taxes imposed by the State or a municipality including but not limited to homestead rebate tax allowances, tax deductions based on marital status or exemptions from realty transfer tax based on marital status."

Section 92 of the Act provides that "Whenever in any law, rule, regulation, judicial or administrative proceeding or otherwise, reference is made to "marriage," "husband," "wife," "spouse," "family," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "widow," "widower," "widowed" or another word which in a specific context denotes a marital or spousal relationship, the same shall include a civil union pursuant to the provisions of this act."



On December 20, 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Vermont that same-sex couples are “entitled under Chapter I, Article 7, of the Vermont Constitution to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples”.

and

"People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state"
wrong unless they do the LEGAL part they are in fact not.
Er, I didn't say that, so quit making crap up. Here is what I said, so thanks for twisting it into something else.

Originally Posted by mertex
Without power given by the state and no license, there is no legal marriage whether performed in the church or elsewhere.
So next time maybe you will say stuff that is correct and I wont have to inform you that its false ;)

Considering that I have proved you wrong in New Jersey and Vt - and the fact that you twist what I say and turn it into something else, and you don't even know what the preacher/clergy say when marrying people, I don't think you need to be informing me of anything. Next time try to find out what the context of a debate between two posters is, so you don't make assumptions and quote stuff that you think is "meant" when it wasn't said at all.
 
Heres the FACTS, not my opinion, that you can not change:
"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate" Fact
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage." Fact
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage" Fact
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage." Fact

I hate to burst your bubble, but you are wrong in all cases!

1. Legal marriage can take place in a religious ceremony, ergo, not separate at all. (I got married in the church and my marriage was very legal, as soon as the clergy signed and returned the license to the state).
2. Religion was the basis for "marriage" to begin with, so it has everything to do with marriage, and God only recognizes legal marriages (unless you are talking of some religion other than Christianity, if so, state what religion you are talking about).
3. Legal marriage has everything to do with religion if done in a religious ceremony.
4. Religious marriages (to be considered marriages) must be legal, and God has everything to do with them, ergo, your statement that God is meaningless in a legal marriage is laughable.
 
I hate to burst your bubble, but you are wrong in all cases!

1. Legal marriage can take place in a religious ceremony, ergo, not separate at all. (I got married in the church and my marriage was very legal, as soon as the clergy signed and returned the license to the state).
2. Religion was the basis for "marriage" to begin with, so it has everything to do with marriage, and God only recognizes legal marriages (unless you are talking of some religion other than Christianity, if so, state what religion you are talking about).
3. Legal marriage has everything to do with religion if done in a religious ceremony.
4. Religious marriages (to be considered marriages) must be legal, and God has everything to do with them, ergo, your statement that God is meaningless in a legal marriage is laughable.

You are, for the most part, wrong. While I wouldn't say that they are totally separate, they are much more separate than they are joined. It is more like they are running parallel to each other in a married couple's life, those that have a personal marriage at all that is. Either could exist without the other one.

Legal marriage is only about the legal rights and responsibilities that the government bestows upon anyone who enters into a legal marriage with a marriage license. With or without a ceremony, God, clergy, religion, the marriage license has to be signed by someone authorized by the government to do so. There are some exceptions to this, depending on the state, but generally it is expected that people obtain a marriage license before they get the ceremonial marriage if they expect to be considered legally married from that point.

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most historical records show that some form of marriage existed prior to all modern religions, including Christianity. And even in Christianity, marriage was between a couple and God alone early on. It did not involve a clergy, or anyone else for that matter, to bless a couple's union.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of Marriage
Marriage, a History | Psychology Today

Having a religious ceremony or not does not change any of the legal aspects, responsibilities, benefits, or rights that are granted to a couple through the marriage license. As I said before, it is more like they are running parallel to one another, rather than actually connected.

And there are definitely churches, even in the US, that consider a couple to be married even if they do not have a legal marriage license. There are a lot of same sex couples who have already been through a religious ceremony so that they are considered married by the eyes of their church and/or family and friends. There are also polygamous groups who may legally marry one wife, but also marry other wives in a religious ceremony only. They too are seen as married in the eyes of their church, and family and friends.
 
I hate to burst your bubble, but you are wrong in all cases!

1. Legal marriage can take place in a religious ceremony, ergo, not separate at all. (I got married in the church and my marriage was very legal, as soon as the clergy signed and returned the license to the state).
2. Religion was the basis for "marriage" to begin with, so it has everything to do with marriage, and God only recognizes legal marriages (unless you are talking of some religion other than Christianity, if so, state what religion you are talking about).
3. Legal marriage has everything to do with religion if done in a religious ceremony.
4. Religious marriages (to be considered marriages) must be legal, and God has everything to do with them, ergo, your statement that God is meaningless in a legal marriage is laughable.

1.) who said they wouldnt be? still means they are separate because you had to do the LEGAL steps also.
2.) your opinion and once it became legal they became separate. Funny theres christians on this very board that have a different OPINION and so does their church.
3.)you cant use the adjective legal then use the adjective religious and then say they are the same LMAO They are in fact separate steps, them may be performed together at times but the separate(individual) steps must be done.
4.) again nothing more than your false opinion but you are right, it is laughable. Also I didnt say god is meaningless to "them" I only said he is meaningless ot legal marriage.

sorry I am 100% right because ONE can NOT grant the OTHER, simple common sense, logic and FACT LMAO

meaning, NO religious marriage grants you LEGAL marriage without doing the LEGAL steps. FACT

and NO Legal marriage grants you religious marriage without doing the religious steps. FACT

i cant get married by a singing Elvis in vegas then come back home and just claim a religious marriage.LOL

I cant only do the religious ceremony and then just claim legal marriage.

this two facts make them separate. Do people MIX them, yes but the fact remains they are separate.



Im not going to respond to your other thread, I basically skimmed through it and giggled. Its all twisted nonsense, babbling, you arguing things nobody said, you repeating things I already said like they support you and most importantly theydo NOTHING to change my stated facts LOL. I do LOVE your back pedals though and how you add qualifiers to everything after it gets proved wrong. Like saying "oh I only meant Christianity I don not care about other religions" LMAO

also that fact remains you absolutely did say "People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state" its a direct quote from you so feel to wipe the egg off your face and apologize or just look more silly.

See your last sentence in post 1399 :lamo

I know its hard to admit you totally misunderstood everything you read cause you got emotional, it happens. Comprehension isnt your strong suit and my facts stand :D

The proof is in this thread and no matter how many meaningless points you try to debate or deflects you make isnt going to work. LOL

Heres the FACTS, not my opinion, that you can not change:
"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate" Fact
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage." Fact
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage" Fact
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage." Fact

Your issues are not seeing the adjectives Legal and Religious and understanding while they may be used together they dont GRANT each other and LEGAL marriage doesnt care about religious marriage or god one bit. Just the facts.

How you and your church view your religion may have a different opinion but the law doesnt care. Neither do other people, their places of worship and how they view their religion.

Let me know when you have anything that changes those facts not just opinion and semantics.:)
 
You are, for the most part, wrong. While I wouldn't say that they are totally separate, they are much more separate than they are joined. It is more like they are running parallel to each other in a married couple's life, those that have a personal marriage at all that is. Either could exist without the other one.

Legal marriage is only about the legal rights and responsibilities that the government bestows upon anyone who enters into a legal marriage with a marriage license. With or without a ceremony, God, clergy, religion, the marriage license has to be signed by someone authorized by the government to do so. There are some exceptions to this, depending on the state, but generally it is expected that people obtain a marriage license before they get the ceremonial marriage if they expect to be considered legally married from that point.

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most historical records show that some form of marriage existed prior to all modern religions, including Christianity. And even in Christianity, marriage was between a couple and God alone early on. It did not involve a clergy, or anyone else for that matter, to bless a couple's union.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of Marriage
Marriage, a History | Psychology Today

Having a religious ceremony or not does not change any of the legal aspects, responsibilities, benefits, or rights that are granted to a couple through the marriage license. As I said before, it is more like they are running parallel to one another, rather than actually connected.

And there are definitely churches, even in the US, that consider a couple to be married even if they do not have a legal marriage license. There are a lot of same sex couples who have already been through a religious ceremony so that they are considered married by the eyes of their church and/or family and friends. There are also polygamous groups who may legally marry one wife, but also marry other wives in a religious ceremony only. They too are seen as married in the eyes of their church, and family and friends.

Common sense and facts at its finest.:thumbs:
 
1.) who said they wouldnt be? still means they are separate because you had to do the LEGAL steps also.
No, there are no extra steps, you get the license, the preacher marries you, he signs it, returns it and "Voila" you are married. No other steps necessary. If you marry outside the church, the JOP performs the marriage, signs the license and returns it - same as the religious ceremony.
2.) your opinion and once it became legal they became separate. Funny theres christians on this very board that have a different OPINION and so does their church.
Your opinion, once it became legal that was it! No other steps necessary.
3.)you cant use the adjective legal then use the adjective religious and then say they are the same LMAO They are in fact separate steps, them may be performed together at times but the separate(individual) steps must be done.
The religious ceremonies are all legal at the time they are being performed, unless they are fake ceremonies like the ones that you mention and those don't count, they are neither religious nor legal, they are a farce.
4.) again nothing more than your false opinion but you are right, it is laughable. Also I didnt say god is meaningless to "them" I only said he is meaningless ot legal marriage.
You are the one pushing a false opinion, trying to make farce marriage compare to real marriages. The only difference between a religious ceremony and a non-religious ceremony is where they take place, if there is a license involved, they are both legal at the time they are being performed, considering that both signed licenses have to be turned back in, for the marriage to be recorded in the court, which makes them legal.

sorry I am 100% right because ONE can NOT grant the OTHER, simple common sense, logic and FACT LMAO
You are wrong, but obviously you are going to hold on to your wrong opinion, LOL is right!
meaning, NO religious marriage grants you LEGAL marriage without doing the LEGAL steps. FACT
And what are the legal steps that you speak of? All licenses have to be signed and returned to be legal - no different a religious ceremony from a non-religious ceremony.

and NO Legal marriage grants you religious marriage without doing the religious steps. FACT
You are confusing the word "legal" with non-religious. Both religious and non-religious are legal if done right, and your opinion is worthless, you don't know what you are talking about.

i cant get married by a singing Elvis in vegas then come back home and just claim a religious marriage.LOL
What you have if married by singing Elvis is a non-religious ceremony, unless the license is returned signed by Elvis, you are not married, religious or not.

I cant only do the religious ceremony and then just claim legal marriage.
Obviously you don't know anything about marriages. The religious ceremony is legal if there is a license and it is signed by the preacher/priest and returned to the county courthouse. A marriage that takes place in a church is a legal marriage, and we're not talking about those fake ones done in psuedo churches.
this two facts make them separate. Do people MIX them, yes but the fact remains they are separate.
They are separate only in your head. You are confusing a non-religious ceremony with "legal" - when both religious and non-religious are legal if done right, getting a license, having the official sign it and return it to the courthouse. You're confused!


Im not going to respond to your other thread, I basically skimmed through it and giggled. Its all twisted nonsense, babbling, you arguing things nobody said, you repeating things I already said like they support you and most importantly theydo NOTHING to change my stated facts LOL. I do LOVE your back pedals though and how you add qualifiers to everything after it gets proved wrong. Like saying "oh I only meant Christianity I don not care about other religions" LMAO
You don't answer because you don't have a leg to stand on. You've confused the whole issue of religious and non-religious with "legal" marriage, when a legal marriage can be done in a church or outside the church - as long as they follow the rules of the state, either one is a "legal" marriage. Sorry - go look it up, I know I am right and you are totally confused.

also that fact remains you absolutely did say "People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state" its a direct quote from you so feel to wipe the egg off your face and apologize or just look more silly.
The one needing to wipe egg off their face is you, because obviously you also have comprehension problems, as some other poster already pointed out. I said people getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state, if they do what is required. There is nothing wrong with my statement, just that you didn't comprehend it and that is your problem not mine.

And, your acting like a child is further proof that you have a problem comprehending what is being said. You twist things and make false statements and then attribute them to others. I quoted what I said, so shame on you for making crap up.

See your last sentence in post 1399 :lamo
I don't have to go back and look, I know what I've been saying all along, and you aren't going to confuse religious with non-religious and call the non-religious legal, because it is no more legal than a religious ceremony if the proper steps aren't taken.


I know its hard to admit you totally misunderstood everything you read cause you got emotional, it happens. Comprehension isnt your strong suit and my facts stand :D
Like the other poster already pointed out - your whole basis for arguing is to flamebait. Unfortunately for you, I'm not immature and act like a child, who doesn't comprehend and then acts like they did and the other person didn't. You need to own up to your behavior.

The proof is in this thread and no matter how many meaningless points you try to debate or deflects you make isnt going to work. LOL
The proof that I'm right and that you have taken the whole issue and confused it.
All marriages that are recorded in the courthouse are "legal" - whether they were performed in a church or outside the church. Get that through your head.

Heres the FACTS, not my opinion, that you can not change:
"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate" Fact
"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage." Fact
"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage" Fact
"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected, God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage." Fact
Repeating them doesn't make them change into fact. You are wrong and are too immature to accept it.

Your issues are not seeing the adjectives Legal and Religious and understanding while they may be used together they dont GRANT each other and LEGAL marriage doesnt care about religious marriage or god one bit. Just the facts.
Well, you got the facts wrong. A religious ceremony and a non-religious ceremony can both produce a "legal marriage" if the steps of the state are followed. So, you are totally off-base saying religious ceremonies don't produce legal marriages, I'm laughing my head off at your inane statements.

How you and your church view your religion may have a different opinion but the law doesnt care. Neither do other people, their places of worship and how they view their religion.
All religions have to follow the same steps, it isn't a matter of my religion or someone else's, it is the "state's" rules, not the churches. Another fail for you!

Let me know when you have anything that changes those facts not just opinion and semantics.:)

I don't want to confuse you even further with facts. You just don't get it!
Religious ceremonies produce legal marriages just like non-religious ceremonies do, if done according to the state rules. That you are making them into two separate items is laughable.

Let me know when you get someone that has no comprehension problems explain it to you, because then you may be able to figure out that what you are saying is totally insane.
 
1.)No, there are no extra steps, you get the license, the preacher marries you, he signs it, returns it and "Voila" you are married. No other steps necessary. If you marry outside the church, the JOP performs the marriage, signs the license and returns it - same as the religious ceremony.

2.)Your opinion, once it became legal that was it! No other steps necessary.

3.)The religious ceremonies are all legal at the time they are being performed, unless they are fake ceremonies like the ones that you mention and those don't count, they are neither religious nor legal, they are a farce.

4.)You are the one pushing a false opinion, trying to make farce marriage compare to real marriages. The only difference between a religious ceremony and a non-religious ceremony is where they take place, if there is a license involved, they are both legal at the time they are being performed, considering that both signed licenses have to be turned back in, for the marriage to be recorded in the court, which makes them legal.


5.)You are wrong, but obviously you are going to hold on to your wrong opinion, LOL is right!

6.) And what are the legal steps that you speak of? All licenses have to be signed and returned to be legal - no different a religious ceremony from a non-religious ceremony.


7.)You are confusing the word "legal" with non-religious. Both religious and non-religious are legal if done right, and your opinion is worthless, you don't know what you are talking about.


8.)What you have if married by singing Elvis is a non-religious ceremony, unless the license is returned signed by Elvis, you are not married, religious or not.


9.) Obviously you don't know anything about marriages. The religious ceremony is legal if there is a license and it is signed by the preacher/priest and returned to the county courthouse. A marriage that takes place in a church is a legal marriage, and we're not talking about those fake ones done in psuedo churches.

10.) They are separate only in your head. You are confusing a non-religious ceremony with "legal" - when both religious and non-religious are legal if done right, getting a license, having the official sign it and return it to the courthouse. You're confused!



11.)You don't answer because you don't have a leg to stand on. You've confused the whole issue of religious and non-religious with "legal" marriage, when a legal marriage can be done in a church or outside the church - as long as they follow the rules of the state, either one is a "legal" marriage. Sorry - go look it up, I know I am right and you are totally confused.


12.)The one needing to wipe egg off their face is you, because obviously you also have comprehension problems, as some other poster already pointed out. I said people getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state, if they do what is required. There is nothing wrong with my statement, just that you didn't comprehend it and that is your problem not mine.

13.) And, your acting like a child is further proof that you have a problem comprehending what is being said. You twist things and make false statements and then attribute them to others. I quoted what I said, so shame on you for making crap up.


14.) I don't have to go back and look, I know what I've been saying all along, and you aren't going to confuse religious with non-religious and call the non-religious legal, because it is no more legal than a religious ceremony if the proper steps aren't taken.



15.)Like the other poster already pointed out - your whole basis for arguing is to flamebait. Unfortunately for you, I'm not immature and act like a child, who doesn't comprehend and then acts like they did and the other person didn't. You need to own up to your behavior.


16.)The proof that I'm right and that you have taken the whole issue and confused it.
All marriages that are recorded in the courthouse are "legal" - whether they were performed in a church or outside the church. Get that through your head.


17.)Repeating them doesn't make them change into fact. You are wrong and are too immature to accept it.


18.)Well, you got the facts wrong. A religious ceremony and a non-religious ceremony can both produce a "legal marriage" if the steps of the state are followed. So, you are totally off-base saying religious ceremonies don't produce legal marriages, I'm laughing my head off at your inane statements.


19.)All religions have to follow the same steps, it isn't a matter of my religion or someone else's, it is the "state's" rules, not the churches. Another fail for you!



20.)I don't want to confuse you even further with facts. You just don't get it!
Religious ceremonies produce legal marriages just like non-religious ceremonies do, if done according to the state rules. That you are making them into two separate items is laughable.

21.)Let me know when you get someone that has no comprehension problems explain it to you, because then you may be able to figure out that what you are saying is totally insane.

Do you live in america? Its like you have no sense of reality at all. Lets go through these lies and total misunderstanding you have.

1.) WRONG legal steps MUST be done, this is a fact. Sorry no matter how you spin it LEGAL step have to be done to get LEGAL marriage. You even mention the LICENSE, thats is a LEGAL extra step LMAO

2.) You have comprehension issues, you admit it took a license to become legal because the church was granted power by the state(another LEGAL step) and then try to say no other steps are need????? do you even read what you are typing?

the license? LEGAL STEP
the power granted to the church? LEGAL STEP
what arent YOU understanding? LOL

3.) again Im starting to think you arent from America. The churches have a constitutional right to marry anybody they want to religiously. This is a fact you can not change and your opinion on whether they are a farce or not also doesnt matter. The people getting religiously married and the church doing doesnt care what YOU think LOL and NO not all religious ceremonies are also LEGAL marriages, sorry you are misinformed again no matter what YOUR church does.

4.) Wrong again. Im am talking about FACTS and reality you are talking about some fantasy land. NEWS FLASH, the license is a LEGAL process. LEEEEEEGAAAAAAL lol and marriages are in fact performed with out them. Wow. Again your opinion that these religious ceremonies dont matter if they dont do the legal steps is meaningless and quite frankly ignorant.

5.) No matter what you believe what I said is a fact, id LOVE to hear proof that its not, back it up like I did, so far you have offered nothing. One can exist without the other, that makes it a fact. Ill state this fact again. "ONE can NOT grant the OTHER, simple common sense, logic and FACT"

argue against it, ill be waiting

6.) how do you not understand the LICENSE is the LEGAL part? You keep saying it like its not the Legal part? LOL

7.) Im not confusing anything you obviously aren't from here and dont understand that the license is the legal part.
Religious marriages can happen without a license
Legal marriage can not.

8.) Yes am I aware its a non-religious marriage and thats my whole point LMAO that doesn't grant me a religious marriage making them SEPARATE. And yes I know I need to do the LEGAL steps to be LEGALLY married NOBODY is arguing that so stop saying common sense things to make yourself look right it wont work.

9.) Did you just mention the county court house (something LEGAL) in argument that religious marriage and legal marriage are NOT separate? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA thanks for once again putting egg on you face. Like I said LEGAL steps need made. But you are right "im" the one confused LMAO Oh brother. You just admitted without the court house (legal step) there is no LEGAL marriage. and this is why they are separate. Fact all marriages performed in churches are NOT legal marriages without the LEGAL steps. FACT :D

also your opinion of what is a church and what isnt is meaningless, ignorant and bigoted. You have no right to call another church a pseudo church just cause you dont agree with them. Another reason I dont believe you are american.

10.) Im not confused one bit I understand the reality fine and you just repeated it for me and dont even know it. LEGAL marriage needs LEGAL steps, without them there is no LEGAL marriage. This is a fact and what makes them separate. There is no religious step that is out there that grants me a LEGAL marriage.

11.) No i didnt answer because it was pure nonsensical babbling.
you just again said stuff that supports me that doesnt hurt me. You said they must follow the rules of the state LMOA TADAAAAAA! thats what makes them desperate. ALso no one every argued against this. But the LEGAL steps must be done of there is no LEGAL marriage. This is a GREAT attempt to save face but it wont work, you misspoke and said things that werent true just move on or man uo and admit it LOL

12.) THAT IS A BOLD FACE LIE! you are no trying to add your statement to save face and change the debate LMAO

this is your quote "People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state"
no matter what you say its right there in print. You said this and there is not mention of "as long as they follow the rules of the state" HAHAHAH that is something you are trying to add NOW because you know your original statement was WRONG.

If you said that first me educating you on how legal marriage works would have never happened LOL nice try but I quoted you exactly and now you are trying to say you didn't say it. Thats just sad.

13.) this is just a deflection by you because you in FACT did say that quote. it in post 1399 and that wont change so the only one lying is you. You quoted what you said and then you ADDED to it to save face. The problem is everybody can go to post 1399 and see your whole second addition is NOT there LMAO

14.) you wont go back because it proves me right and now you are trying to change your argument LOl nice try

15.) more deflection, let me know when you can argue against the facts a posted and own up to your wrong statement.
Or you can side with that ONE other poster while me and the others stick to reality and facts

16.) LMAO this I dont have to get that through my head because, read this slow. NOBODY EVER ARGUED AGAINST WHAT YOU JUST SAID lol

nice try but I never said this wasnt true in any shape way or form. In fact its what Ive been saying and now you are trying to claim you also agree even though you argued against it.

Thanks you fro finally admitting that the LEGAL steps must be made and thats what makes them separate ;)

17.) nope all my facts I stated stand has you havnt disproved one of them. you have only deflected, back pedaled, lied and changed you story. Shall I list them again?

18.) again YOU trying to change the argument LOL nobody said that religious ceremonies CANT produce legal marriages NOBODY. Ive said since the beginning that the LEGAL steps needed to be made, you even asked me sarcastically in this very post what they were like they didn't exist HAHAHAHAHAH Do you think everything you wrote is just going to disappear?

19.) LMAO again more statements like you that nobody every argued. Im glad you finally agree though.
You are right ALL religion must do the LEGAL streps to be LEGALLY married.

THANKS FOR PLAYING THAT BEEN MY ARGUMENT THE ENTIRE TIME lol

20.) yes I know to bad you argued against that earlier and are trying to change your story. :D

21.) let me know when you can argue against my facts that I stated, own up to that what you said was wrong and when you wont back pedal, change you story and LIE about what you actually said even though its in post 1399 LMAO

Ill give you credit for trying to confuse everybody in this thread by first saying:
"People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state"
then saying:
"there are no extra steps needed"
then asking sarcastically:
"what are the legal steps that you speak of? " like they dont exist hahah thats brilliant
then coming back and adding stuff and saying:
"No, there are no extra steps, you get the license, the preacher marries you, he signs it, returns it and "Voila" you are married. No other steps necessary."

WHAT?! did you just squeeeeeze in "get a license" which is a EXTRA(non religious) legal step like no one would notice!!???

Wow that probably would work on stupid people but since your post history is here and Im well aware of what we both said, I even qouted you it failed, big time.

Lmao what a joke. My statements stand and the fact is you made a false one in post 1399 :D
these facts wont change:2wave:
 
Do you live in america? Its like you have no sense of reality at all. Lets go through these lies and total misunderstanding you have.


Blah, blah, blah. Not even going to bother to read your nonsense.
When you learn the difference between religious and non-religious ceremonies and stop calling one of them legal and the other not legal, maybe you'll be able to write something credible, until then, like the other poster said, you are disingenuous and not worth debating with, just major fail!

fail.gif


stop_no_stopping_sign_fail.jpg
 
Blah, blah, blah. Not even going to bother to read your nonsense.
When you learn the difference between religious and non-religious ceremonies and stop calling one of them legal and the other not legal, maybe you'll be able to write something credible, until then, like the other poster said, you are disingenuous and not worth debating with, just major fail!
No one called "them" legal and non legal just another thing you made up to try and save face ;)

Thats what I though, you got NOTHING LMAO

and like about 20 posters said you two just dont understand the law and separate, you cant reply because there's egg all over your face and I wasnt dumb enough to let you back pedal, change the subject or deflect LMAO. Nice try though. Problem is the thread is still here and so are your lies and inaccurate statements for all to see. :D


When you are ready to dispute my facts and admit you said inaccurate claims let me know :laughat:

Religious and non religious have NO BARRING on the subject at hand that LEGAL marriage is separate form everything else.

Religious marriage is NOT legal marriage
Non-religious marriage is NOT legal marriage
ONLY LEGAL MARRIAGE IS LEGAL MARRIAGE.

No other type of marriage is LEGAL without taking the LEGAL steps, this is a fact that you either dont get, choose to ignore or you are simply acting dumb to save face, but again I wont let you:D

Just man up and admit your statement of
"People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state"

is 100% wrong and inaccurate, they will NEVER be legally married without the legal steps.

We will all be waiting for you to man up :cool:
 
Blah, blah, blah. Not even going to bother to read your nonsense.
When you learn the difference between religious and non-religious ceremonies and stop calling one of them legal and the other not legal, maybe you'll be able to write something credible, until then, like the other poster said, you are disingenuous and not worth debating with, just major fail!]

Generally to perform a legal marriage the person needs to be a recognized member of the clergy (minister, priest, rabbi, etc); a judge, a Justice of the Peace and in some states a court clerk can hold that authority.

A religious marriage is generally considered a marriage presided over by a priest and a civil marriage is usually considered one that is presided over by a judge.
 
It isn't. I don't care who someone marries! I only care about who I am married to. Why control others?
 
No one called "them" legal and non legal just another thing you made up to try and save face ;)

Ha,ha, do YOU even read your own posts? You've been calling them that all along, but maybe reading isn't your strong point?

Thats what I though, you got NOTHING LMAO
Seems to me you are the one that has nothing - confusing the ceremonies with the "marriage" as someone else already pointed out to you - guess it went over your head. No surprise.

and like about 20 posters said you two just dont understand the law and separate, you cant reply because there's egg all over your face and I wasnt dumb enough to let you back pedal, change the subject or deflect LMAO. Nice try though. Problem is the thread is still here and so are your lies and inaccurate statements for all to see.
When someone has a comprehension problem, they can say whatever they want, accuse the other of saying whatever they want - but those who read your posts know what you said, and for them it is clear. A wedding ceremony that is not according to the rules of the state is not "legal" whether it is done in a church or on the steps of the courthouse! Your psuedo marriage ceremonies do not produce legal marriages!


When you are ready to dispute my facts and admit you said inaccurate claims let me know
When you post "facts" instead of "babble" - I might even consider reading it, but so far, I just have to dismiss it.

Religious and non religious have NO BARRING on the subject at hand that LEGAL marriage is separate form everything else.
Those are the only two types of wedding ceremonies. If you can name a different type, be sure to post it - otherwise, your claims are laughable!
A_laughing_matter.gif


Religious marriage is NOT legal marriage
There is no such thing as a religious marriage - unless you are talking about a couple that attends church together and they happen to be married! Ha,ha,ha!

There are "religious wedding ceremonies" and "non-religious" (civil) wedding ceremonies. Learn the difference between the two.

Non-religious marriage is NOT legal marriage
What? Are you claiming that a non-religious ceremony does not produce a "legal" marriage? That is another ignorant statement you've made.

First of all, there is no such thing as a non-religious marriage, unless you are talking about an atheist couple who happen to be married. But if you were confusing "marriage" for "ceremony" you are still wrong. A non-religious ceremony "IF DONE ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE" produces a "legal" marriage.
ONLY LEGAL MARRIAGE IS LEGAL MARRIAGE.
Duh! Did you discover that on your own? That's like saying only circles are circles, only women are women, only men are men! Brilliant! Now I realize the level of intelligence I'm dealing with here!

No other type of marriage is LEGAL without taking the LEGAL steps, this is a fact that you either dont get, choose to ignore or you are simply acting dumb to save face, but again I wont let you:D
No sh$t Sherlock! Only legal marriages are legal! Ha,ha,ha - you don't even realize what an idiotic statement you are making. Of course only legal marriages are legal.

You are still confusing the "ceremony" with the actual "marriage". The marriage is what results from a "ceremony" - and for the marriage to be legal, the ceremony has to be performed in accordance with the state law in the state which a marriage ceremony takes place.

Just man up and admit your statement of
"People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state"
Well, only the densest of the dense would claim that they are not. I specified that if they were done according to the laws of the state, and I stand behind my statement. For you to claim that they are not legal is just plain ignorant. I was married in a church - and my marriage is legal, so look who's got egg on their face now!
egg.jpg


is 100% wrong and inaccurate, they will NEVER be legally married without the legal steps.
You are insisting that I said something I didn't. Of course the legal steps have to be taken, I have asserted that several times. Whoever was reading the post to you must have overlooked that part.

You were the one that brought up ceremonies that were done without a license in some pseudo church - and nobody is claiming that those "ceremonies" produced a legal marriage. You are so trying to defend your stance, but it is so obvious you are failing terribly.

We will all be waiting for you to man up.

"We"? Oh, I get it, you mean the sock puppets, also! :doh
 
Legal Facts 101
in reality
"Legal marriage and religious marriage are totally separate"
There is no such thing as a religious marriage! There is "religious wedding ceremony" and "non-religious (civil) ceremony. All marriages are legal, whether the ceremony was performed in or out of the church, and even "common-law marriages" are legal if you live in a state that recognizes "common law marriages' - otherwise you are just shacking up.

When you say "religious marriage" - you are talking about a married couple that practices religion as part of their marriage. You don't realize how ignorant it sounds to be calling the "ceremony" the "marriage".

le·gal/ˈlēgəl/Adjective
1. Of, based on, or concerned with the law:

cer·e·mo·ny (sr-mn)
n. pl. cer·e·mo·nies
1. A formal act or set of acts performed as prescribed by ritual or custom: a wedding ceremony;

mar·riage   
[mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.




"Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage."
Ha,ha, churches are filled with couples that practice religion and they are legally married. You may want to learn the definition of all the words you are using.


"Legal marriage has nothing to do with Religious marriage"
Ha,ha, again, there is no such thing as a religious marriage, unless you are talking about a married couple who practices religion in their marriage.

And, religious wedding ceremonies produce "legal" marriages, if done in accordance with the laws of the state in which they are performed.

"God and RELIGIOUS marriage are connected,
Duh! Yeah, we know, only women are women, only men are men, and only children are children! Of course God and a "religious ceremony" are connected. And, you can have a religious marriage after the ceremony, or not. Some couples have a religious wedding ceremony and never step in the church again, ergo, their marriage is not religious at all.


God is MEANINGLESS to LEGAL marriage."

Er, WRONG! My marriage is legal, and God is not meaningless at all to me or my husband - so FAIL big time!
 
You are, for the most part, wrong.
According to you? That is your opinion and you're welcome to it, doesn't make it fact, though.
While I wouldn't say that they are totally separate, they are much more separate than they are joined.
Religious wedding ceremonies produce legal marriages (if done in accordance with state law.) Non-religious wedding ceremonies produce legal marriages (if done in accordance with state law). I don't even understand your concept of "separate" - of course they are separate in that they are done in different locations. They both produce legal marriages (if done in accordance with state law).
It is more like they are running parallel to each other in a married couple's life, those that have a personal marriage at all that is.
The wedding ceremony takes place before there is a marriage, don't really understand your reference to a personal marriage. What do you mean by personal or impersonal? What has that got to do with how/where the ceremony took place?

Either could exist without the other one.
Huh? What "either" could exist without the other one? If you are talking about "religious ceremonies" and "non-religious ceremonies" - yes, they could exist without the other but that is not what the people of America want. There are many that do not want a "religious ceremony" and many that do, so the states provide you the opportunity to choose.

According to you?
According to me, what? You don't break out your response, so I really don't know what you are referring to.

Legal marriage is only about the legal rights and responsibilities that the government bestows upon anyone who enters into a legal marriage with a marriage license.
And who said anything contrary to that? The government doesn't really care where a couple gets married. Only that it is done according to law, so that you can reap the benefits that come with marriage, and that applies to "legal marriages". Ceremonies performed in psuedo churches, without licenses do not produce legal marriages and the couples in these type of marriage are not eligible for the benefits that go with marriages.

With or without a ceremony, God, clergy, religion, the marriage license has to be signed by someone authorized by the government to do so.
Duh! Who said anything different? Even if you don't have a fancy ceremony, the very act of some official/clergy signing the license "before authorized witnesses" can be considered a ceremony.

There are some exceptions to this, depending on the state, but generally it is expected that people obtain a marriage license before they get the ceremonial marriage if they expect to be considered legally married from that point.
The marriage doesn't become legal until it is recorded in the court house. If a state or church allows the wedding before a license is produced, it will not become legal until a license is obtained, signed, witnessed and returned to the court to be recorded.

Most historical records show that some form of marriage existed prior to all modern religions, including Christianity. And even in Christianity, marriage was between a couple and God alone early on. It did not involve a clergy, or anyone else for that matter, to bless a couple's union.

And? We are talking about what makes a marriage legal now, not back when Adam and Eve got together.


Having a religious ceremony or not does not change any of the legal aspects, responsibilities, benefits, or rights that are granted to a couple through the marriage license.
And where did I say it did.

As I said before, it is more like they are running parallel to one another, rather than actually connected.
I didn't say they were connected. Both religious and non-religious ceremonies (if done in accordance with state law) produce legal marriages. That other poster's silly nonsense that religious ceremonies (he calls them marriages) are not legal is nothing but BS. That they produce legal marriages, is a fact (if done in accordance with state law).

And there are definitely churches, even in the US, that consider a couple to be married even if they do not have a legal marriage license.
Big deal, they are not married according to the state, and that is what reaps the government benefits. In the eyes of the state and those that know their marriage is not legal, they are still not married, no matter how much they love each other and how many vows they repeat.

That is why gays are seeking SSM. If all they wanted was to be recognized as being married they would just opt for the psuedo ceremonies, but they want to be able to claim the benefits that only come with "legal" marriages.

There are a lot of same sex couples who have already been through a religious ceremony so that they are considered married by the eyes of their church and/or family and friends.
They may be considered married by everyone in the world, but if they don't have a legal marriage, they cannot claim the government benefits afforded legal married couples.

There are also polygamous groups who may legally marry one wife, but also marry other wives in a religious ceremony only. They too are seen as married in the eyes of their church, and family and friends.
We're not talking about pseudo ceremonies - we are talking about "legal" marriages.

A Christian church who performs "psuedo" ceremonies is not obeying the ordinances of God, who tells us we must obey our government. For a marriage to be legal, it must follow the rules set by the state. So, to call themselves Christian is mockery.

Romans 13:1-2
1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.
 
After 1000's of post on SSM, I still don't understand what the social impact would be. Is homosexuality contagious? If it is, then most people are immune since the gay population is only about 3%.
 
Back
Top Bottom