[PLUG-TALK] Defense of marriage...

Michael Robinson plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Fri Feb 27 21:01:53 UTC 2009


On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 11:36 -0800, Michael M. Moore wrote:
> Michael Robinson wrote:
> > 
> > Separation of church and state 
> > means that that which is of a religious nature, marriage for 
> > example, should not be defined by secular government.
> 
> That, at least, is something we can agree on.  Marriage ought to be a 
> purely religious function, not licensed or endorsed by the state.  Those 
> who care about such things are free to marry in whatever church or 
> religious organization to which they feel attached, including but not 
> limited to Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Unitarian, etc. churches, Jewish, 
> Muslim, Buddhist temples, and so on.  There are plenty of Christian, 
> Jewish, and other religious groups that will cater to all comers, 
> without the bigotry and exclusionary behavior exhibited by other 
> religious groups.
> 
Marriage can not be religiously defined by one faith in a way that is
a direct contradiction to how it is defined in another and still be 1
thing that is universally recognizeable.  It is absurd to say that
religions are all equal even if they are diametrically opposed.  At
some point, the state has to accept a definition of marriage that
fits with what the majority in the religious community can agree with.
I can not agree with same sex sexual unions under any circumstances.
I can not agree with calling same couples married.  I can not agree
with calling purposefully childless couples married and I am not
alone.




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list