I don’t think a Biblical argument is neccessarily a good argument when it comes to constitutional rights. A better argument is the one Michael Medved uses which is the fact that homosexuals aren’t barred from getting married whatsoever. They may marry one person of the opposite sex who is of age, just like anyone else can. The real question is where we draw the line of regulating marriage. Homosexuals seek to draw it in a different place, problem is if we do that, where does it stop. Even their own “marriages” will become meaningless at some point.
I agree. The constitutional arguments are very strong based upon our country's history and traditions and the intent of the Founding Fathers.
I was making the point that the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality is destructive to the morals of a society and has never been accepted in any civilized society in the history of the world.
Their own “marriages” already are meaningless. Figures show that they last less than 3 years and are practically never monogamous anyway.