{"id":31485,"date":"2015-05-13T00:30:59","date_gmt":"2015-05-13T03:30:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=31485"},"modified":"2016-11-25T00:22:31","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T03:22:31","slug":"us-court-on-homosexuality-and-polygamy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2015\/05\/13\/us-court-on-homosexuality-and-polygamy\/","title":{"rendered":"US Court on Homosexuality…and Polygamy"},"content":{"rendered":"

“If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage<\/strong>, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage<\/strong>…”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The attorneys arguing in support of same-sex marriage could not explain why marriage was still justifiably monogamous, because\u00a0 <\/p>\n

the only argument they could advance was moral tradition<\/strong>. They could not cite moral tradition as the authority for monogamy because they argued that moral tradition was not a rational basis for law<\/strong> when it came to limiting marriage to a man-woman union.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This argument was made in a majority decision in the US Court of Appeals. It has also been made by religious leaders, politicians, and average American citizens.<\/p>\n

Notably, it does not equate<\/em> the practices of polygamy (or any other proposed familial relationship) and homosexuality, as activists like to claim. Rather, it demonstrates a simple reality:<\/p>\n

Based on the arguments of those who support same-sex marriage, there is no logical or moral — or apparently constitutional — reason to restrict the expansion of marriage to just<\/em> homosexuals.<\/p>\n

For some reason, some homosexual activists find that observation offensive.<\/p>\n

Via Dr. Al Mohler<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n