So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.A lot of the gay marriage debate, I think, shows shades of the interracial marriage debate that came before it. This argument could have been made at that time like so:
In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.
Blacks are not deprived of any civil rights pertaining to marriage because they can still marry other black people.The civil right we're talking about is the right for people to marry someone who wants to marry them, regardless of who that is.
The author claims this requires that we redefine marriage. Perhaps that's the case. As I said before, I think churches are well within their rights to do that, if they so choose. If holy matrimony is based on the Bible and Jesus says gay marriage is good, who are we to argue? I'm sure some churches also got into hot water allowing both blacks and whites in the same sanctuary at one time.
Some would say that allowing people to marry who they want would require that we justify also bans on "polygamy, bestiality, incest and perhaps even pedophilia." Minors and pets are not considered legally able to give consent to marriage, so I don't expect marriages to them to be legal any more than they are already. Polygamy and incest have their own arguments against them, and they have not been legalized in other nations that allow gays to marry. I don't see any reason to believe America will be different in this regard.
Traditional marriage is exactly that: traditional. Traditions don't always wear well over time. Interracial marriage went against tradition, but the sky did not fall. I know that doesn't mean the sky can't fall this time, but I do think it's reason to believe it won't.