[PLUG-TALK] Defense of marriage...

[Michael Robinson]

On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 14:44 -0800, Michael M. Moore wrote:
> Michael Robinson wrote:
> > 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.

For the good of society, marriage should be closed to close relatives
and same sex couples.  There is no financial reason for gays to have
a marriage license in any state.  The legal system is so favorable
with various legal instruments to same sex relationships that even
civil unions are an absurdity.  Extending the state definition of
marriage to contradict God's law will not change God's law.  It
will not relieve the guilty conscience of a homosexual.  It will
not change the short term nature of homosexual relationships.
It will increase the divorce rate among heterosexuals.  Stripping
procreation away from marriage strips it of one of the reasons to
stay married.  Sex between a man and a woman is unitive, but sex
between people of the same gender is not and never will be.

> > 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
> > all religions are equal even when 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 sex couples married.  I can not 
> > agree with calling purposefully childless couples married and I am 
> > not alone.
> > 
> 
> That's exactly the point.  *You* don't have to call anyone "married" you 
> don't want to.  It's immaterial to the state whether you or anyone else 
> considers any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., ceremony valid; it is 
> also immaterial to anyone who doesn't consider himself Christian, 
> Jewish, Muslim, etc.
> 
> Marriage most certainly can be defined in ways that are in direct 
> contradiction to each other in various religious groups.
> 
You are precisely wrong.  The state has to define marriage one way or
another because marriage deeply impacts the state.  If marriage is
marginalized further by opening it up to same sex couples or to a man
and his dog or a nerd and his computer, more people will divorce.  The
evidence that divorce has negative health impacts and is detrimental to
children is strong.  There is strong evidence that couples who avoid
divorce are both happier and healthier people than couples who don't.
There is strong evidence that the boys of lesbian couples do not learn
self control because self control is learned from the father.  There
is a strong correlation between homosexuality and drug abuse.  It is
well documented what the effects on society of drug abuse are.

Marriage is a religious institution, but it has a profound impact 
on society.  It is in the state's interest to protect children and
that means enacting laws that protect marriage.  These laws include
age limits, prohibitions against marrying one's relative, prohibitions
against marrying when you are already married, etcetera.