|
Well, I think you missed the point. I could be wrong, but I think the post was trying to point out that not all religious thought is in uniform opposition to gay marriage and that this pastors opinion is that religious tradition probably shouldn't have much to do with peoples opinion about it. He's trying to say that marriage is not a tradition set in stone, that the definition has changed over time, so why shouldn't it change again? In that way, the history of marriage IS relevant to the current state of marriage here in this country right now.
And you deride the pastor for not listing concrete facts, being idealistic and endorsing his own religious views, but isn't that what you're doing? There are no facts here, only idealism and opinions.
|