It was purely religious in nature, which Chicken has declared verboten.
I disagree because it was a thorough definition and explanation of marriage - in relation to the political issue of same sex marriage - from my point of view. How can I participate in the discussion without providing the basis for my arguments?
So it was not "purely religious" (which to me would be to just pick a sermon or quote scripture that is unrelated to politics.)
There are going to be political issues that involve religious issues and we should not be prevented from communicating important aspects of the political debate simply because our basis for a political viewpoint is based on religious beliefs.
I thought the point of Chicken's rule was to prevent those threads we used to have that were simply - "______________ religion sucks, etc." 10 pages of arguing the various points of a specific religions doctrine or the trashing religion in general threads. I fully understand and agree with that policy.
This post was edited on 6/27 at 6:56 am