A Case Against Homosexual Marriage

"Only a religious morality can be consistent, and the Christian position meets that criteria."

I disagree but give you some credit for, at least, posing an honest argument.

It actually makes perfect sense as dogma - when acceptance is voluntary. While the mullahs in Iran might be perfectly comfortable in merging scripture and civil law, we are not a theocracy. Moreover, that logic could apply if my great uncle, Rabbi Shlomo Eisenberg, decides that you shouldn't eat pork or mix meat and dairy - by force of law. Maybe you should have to close your business at sundown today (Friday).

In point of fact, the US Supreme Court has decided, in Loving, that marriage is a basic civil right. It is ironic that the trial judge in the original criminal case leading to this decision made the same flawed argument that you are essentially making:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

There is no coherent argument that same-sex marriage affects anyone's "traditional" marriage. There is no excuse for the false and misleading arguments made in the alternative.

David Hart
http://tips-q.com

... it does affect the character of every marriage and the liberty of marriage. It changes the definition from a civil arrangement to a contract with the government. And that is contrary to the principle of common law.