| Actually, the greater danger comes from your method of argumentation. Legal discrimination must have a rational basis that recognizable within a framework of religious neutrality. If I say that the state has a compelling interest against normalization, to avoid the further erosion of sexual norms, with more obvious harmful social consequences, that is the sort of rationale that is kosher. Even supposing homosexuality is a perversion, we do not outlaw all perversions, so long as they are socially harmless. If the marriage contract is indistinguishably a means of establishing a household, we have, in fact, no basis for discrimination merely on the assertion of perversion, any more than we make intimate inquiries into the habits of heterosexual couples. I want to set aside that purely "secular" aspect, and raise marriage to a higher level, affirming the privileged status of heterosexual union as encouraging the foundation and maintenance of families, particularly those originating from the original union. |
