[quote="sarahraegraham, post:11, topic:182344"]
The problem we've come across in our society is that while marriage was always a religious event, the government (once it began to regulate marriage) has over time transformed it into something that can be entered into on a purely civil level with no religion at all. As I understand it, it's a recent phenomenon.
Of course we can argue our beliefs based upon what the Church believes, but that will do no good when a government bases its laws on no religion but on its own ideals. That's the problem.
If you have to argue from that standpoint alone, it's quite difficult. Some points that can be made are that if marriage is a right, it's at least a restricted one and always has been, i.e., I can only have one spouse, they must be the opposite sex, above a certain age, not a relative, etc. They like to use the argument that one of those restrictions used to be race, and now we all understand that that is discriminatory, so to take any of the other restrictions away is okay once we can say that they are discriminatory as well. For us, the opposite sex restriction is a no-brainer because of our faith, but if you don't have a religious leg to stand on that goes out the window. It's a very slippery slope, because if you can change one you can eventually change them all.
I think in the end it comes down to this: if you change any of the remaining restrictions, you change the very essence of what marriage is. That brings us to who has the right to define what marriage is? My argument has always been that the state did not create marriage, it has always only regulated it; therefore, they cannot change its definition.
Civil law has always been built on a Judao-Christian basis. Only reciently have we been trying to build laws on nothing, which is like trying to build a house in the air. One wonders why the bricks keep falling to the ground?
My question has always been when speaking of Morality is "On what basis?"