I do not argue against the concept of moral absolutes. What I argue against is the notion that the state may be used as a tool for me to impose my presonal opinions of what a moral absolute is on you. I argue that the same-sex marriage movement is just such an initiative. After all, such activists liken themselves to abolitionists during the civil war. Anyone can claim to have moral superiority. The way to judge laws is how they protect us from mob rule or from the government. This isn't to say that legal contracts aren't binding or anything else like that. Those are related issues. The bottom line is that government isn't my moral tool of righteousness to lord over you. It's there to protect you from me.
More tomorrow, after I read your comment above. But note your inconsistency; on the one hand you say:
"I do not argue against the concept of moral absolutes."
But then you state:
"What I argue against is the notion that the state may be used as a tool for me to impose my presonal opinions of what a moral absolute is on you."
So on one hand you say you agree that moral absolutes exist (and I assume you consider them valuable or important) but on the other hand you infer that anyone's opinion about their "personal ideas" of moral absolutes are as valid as someone else's idea of moral absolutes.
Which negates the entire meaning of moral absolutes.
Which is why we are being lowered into the cesspool as we speak. Taking the position that moral absolutes exist and are necessary to human civilization is NOT equivalent to claiming moral superiority. There is no relationship between those two things. Like apples and rutabagas, except those are related because they are both round.
Once moral absolutes are rejected as the necessary basis and unchangeable foundation of human civilization, the only thing left is each individual's mental desires. Which can change every moment, and which can (and do, witness the homo-cannibals in Germany, and the push to promote child/adult sex or "inter-generational sex" among psychologists and NAMBLA supporters) lead to the most horrible and destructive acts being normalized by defining deviancy down.
If a tiny group of people says that consensual cannibalism is good, who are we to say it's wrong? There's no such thing as "wrong". But the problem is that moral relativists still have absolutes. They absolutely condemn traditional moral absolutes as being absolutely wrong, so their entire philosophy is built on a lie and an internal inconsistency that can never be overcome.