[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