quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
This proves her point. The state will not recognize a polygamous marriage as a legally binding marriage, but it DOES NOT restrict someone from being in a polygamous RELIGIOUS marriage. It simply can't. Again, seperation of Church and State.
I don't think it proves her point (asserting that gay marriage would NOT restrict and warp the practice of Christianity, and the practice of others who recognize only traditional marriage between a man and a woman.)
And I don't think it's true that there is not a restriction on religious polygamous marriage. To my knowledge, polygamy, despite whatever justification, is a jailable offense.

Thanks for your answers to the other questions I raised as well, Wednesday. Your answers are logical, although not 100% aligned with my own perspective.

My point is that, however absurd my examples are, the notion of gay marriage is equally absurd to what the established definition of marriage is, in Christian scripture, as well as human law as it has existed for virtually all of the last 6,000 years, until recent times.
It's similar to having cats for the last 6,000 years, and then suddenly saying that dogs are cats too. No, they're not. Dogs are dogs, and cats are cats.

And my point again is that changing the established definition is not going to sit well with a vast percentage of the population, and that a separate term for gay union should be coined, so as not to contradict the traditional definition of marriage.