[PLUG-TALK] [MRC] Re: Defense of marriage...

Michael Robinson plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Sat Feb 28 01:48:56 UTC 2009


On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 17:09 -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.
> 
> --AND--
> 
> > The state has to define marriage one way or
> > another because marriage deeply impacts the state.
> 
> Another flat-out contradiction.  Either "marriage should not be defined 
> by secular government" or "the state has to define marriage."  Not both.
> 
> You are utterly incapable of rational thinking ... you can't stick to a 
> position for more than a day or your whole house of cards falls apart. 
> Whenever anyone points out the implications of one argument you make, 
> you backtrack and make an argument that is the polar opposite.

You are in complete denial.  What comes next, a violent outburst?
Your "gay rights" agenda is being questioned and you can't take 
the criticism.  You are choosing to ignore secular arguments about
public health and child welfare that I have pointed to.  It is only
a matter of time till either a you have a change of heart and 
adopt a more rational position or b you are simply outvoted on 
this issue.

> The only way those two arguments work together is *if* the "state" is 
> not a secular government.  Yet you've claimed on numerous occasions that 
> you aren't arguing for a religious government.  Clearly, that's a lie. 
> Or you don't mean what you say above, or you don't have a clue what 
> you're saying, or some combination of all of the above.
> 
> Michael M.

The problem is that you have no respect for what marriage is and
what its role is in society.  You are the one who has absolutely
no concept of what he is talking about.  Marriage is a religious
institution, but it's definition has major implications in the
secular world.  It comes down to what should the future look like.
Should the family survive intact: mother, father, and children
or should it be replaced with something that is not good for
children and not good for the adults involved either?

The state defining marriage and marriage being a religious institution
is not a contradiction.  If the state marginalizes the meaning of
marriage bending to the pressure of "gay rights" zealots, the divorce
rate will sky rocket again.  That means more disaffected children
needing more services to replace the important work that the family 
used to do.  The definition of marriage should and must come from
sound religious authorities.  Arguing with 2k+ years of religious
tradition on what marriage is is ridiculous.  Religious influence
on secular government does not equal theocracy.  There are plenty
of secular arguments for defining marriage as the union of 1 man,
1 woman, and God.




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list