[Paloma_55]

I find it interesting that there is a need to keep religion out of it, or a perceived value there.

In the same way, morality is considered to be an invalid justification for argument. As if morality is religious in nature when in fact, many atheists (if not all) have some basis of moral thinking.

"Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have to come from the Bible to be justified.

"Homosexual behavior is a deviant sexual practice" doesn't either.

All that said, I think it is nice to see someone put it in the secular context because it does force the opposition to acknowledge that the case against gay marriage is not simply based upon religious or moral grounds.

[Dalan]

I didn't mean to devalue the religious and/or moral perspectives of homosexual "marriage". I was merely pointing out that the fact that the argument against it can be put in a secular context does have value, when dealing with the forces of social decay.

Indeed, I do believe that modern moral and social values stand quite well on their own outside of the writings in any particular ancient book; this is the only way to pose an argument that the militant secularists cannot simply pass off as "religious fundamentalism".

[ArGee]

In the same way, morality is considered to be an invalid justification for argument.

I think SCOTUS actually codified that sentiment in their Lawrence vs. Texas argument.

Correcions welcome.

Shalom.