If homosexual marriage is good, does it preceed that homosexual promiscuity is bad?
If marriage is a man-made institution, then man has the right to define it however he wants. If marriage is a Divine institution, the homosexual agenda, by necessity, is an attack on religious freedom and even marriage itself.
That this latter is the case is manifest by the following link:
http://www.annoy.com/features/doc.html?DocumentID=100722
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Activists would have us believe that the issue of marriage is about the “rights” and “equality” of homosexuals. But in reality, the push to redefine marriage is about demanding public approval and celebration of homosexuality. There is a difference. Slot machines are legal in some areas, but if the COO of Chick-fil-a had expressed a personal disapproval of gambling, would slot-machine supporters have demanded a boycott of his restaurants? What about smokers? Would they have lambasted Dan Cathy for expressing that he personally does not approve of smoking?
No. Because at the end...
Proponents of gay marriage propose to amend the LEGAL definition of marriage, not the religious ones. If they simply wanted a divine blessing for their unions they can already do that in MANY churches. What they CANNOT do is enjoy the rights, privileges and financial benefits that are contained in more than a thousand federal laws and hundreds of state laws.
I assume you're referring to the New Jersey church that lost its property tax exemption for not allowing gay marriages in its own facility, The facts of the case have been wildly distorted. The facility in question was a boardwalk pavilion, for which the church had applied for the exemption on the basis that it was available for public use. When the church refused to allow gay couples to hold marriage ceremonies there, the tax exemption was revoked -- not for the church itself, but only for the pavilion.