But you've again failed to address the topic. The love between two people is not what the state is concerned with.
Well, no, not directly, but that is the prevalent reason that people get married. As far as the state is concerned, all that is required is that the couple intend to be married. With the exception of a small handful of disqualifiers, the most restrictive of which is gender, that's all it takes.
You defined marriage as something that they already have :idunno:
They have the union, but not the legal recognition of it. And lacking the legal recognition, they are forced to live forever tenuous lives.
It makes perfect sense in the exact context we were just in. You're smart enough to figure it out.
And now you can't be bothered to make your case. You're done.
See what the Catholic Church did that you haven't and apparently are unwilling to do? They gave an argument. :idea:
I have been making an argument over the past several pages of this thread. The thing is, the Catholic Church isn't here to plead its case, and I'm not interested in taking it on
in abstentia. Dropping the link I take to be your declaration of intent to abdicate the argument without being seen to have done so, in which case I will merely note the abdication on your part and move on.
...Which is irrelevant to the topic of civil recognition.
It is, in fact, the only arguable reason I know of that the state takes an interest in couples raising children, which you seem to think is the cause for which the state subsidizes marriages.
...situations which also are not recognized as marriage is, for that very reason.
Could you restate that in English please?
Let them contract, I'm not arguing against that.
If we did allow them to contract, it would involve no less than permitting them to marry. So I'd say you've either spent the entirety of this thread arguing against it, or in a deep, deep confusion and misunderstanding.
Eh? That is dubiously lacking in any substance or argument.
And yet, it is a reason.