[PLUG-TALK] The trouble with different browsers... (Michael Robinson)
Michael Robinson
plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Fri Dec 26 21:48:23 UTC 2008
On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 06:27 -0800, MJang wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 00:21 -0800, Mark Turner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Michael Robinson
> > > <plug_1 at robinson-west.com> wrote:
> > > > As far as the Congress shall not respect religion comment, that isn't
> > > > in the Constitution. Congress shall not impose a national religion
> > > > and it shall not interfere with Christianity or any other establishment
> > > > of religion for the sake of those who aren't religious at all.
> > > > Separation of church and state does NOT mean separation of state from
> > > > church. There isn't a state existing over here that has authority over
> > > > everything that is in the arena of God and religion over there. The
> > > > state should not be in the business of deciding what marriage is,
> > > > marriage is a religious institution. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's
> > > > and to God what is God's.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't mean to poke holes in your thought on the subject, but the
> > > first amendment to the US Constitution does in fact state:
> >
> > The Supreme Court doesn't interpret the constitution to mean that
> > the state can disregard all religions when it comes to religious
> > matters. Marriage is a religious matter.
>
> For legal purposes, marriage is a civil contract. Marriages under
> Justices of the Peace are not blessed under any religion.
>
> > And the two become one flesh. Man and woman are two halves of the
> > same creation. Only 1 man and 1 woman constitute the halves of
> > the human person. Not a man and a man. Not a woman and a woman.
>
> Your opinion. I see no facts or data w/r/t the rest of your argument.
> Even if your hateful argument were true - civil rights, if the US
> applied it to all in marriage, would give gay couples the right to try.
>
Hateful argument? The definition of marriage being between 1 man and 1
woman is hateful? So be it. The existence of justices of the peace
does not make marriage a non religious matter. If marriage were truly
a non religious matter, no religious body would require it's members
to go through a religious ceremony to be married.
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list