A question about the opponents of gay marriage

[DC Al Fine]

We all know that there are still people in America that don't want gay marriage to be legal.

If people are opposing gay marriage just because the Bible says that it's wrong, how come they aren't trying to shut down Red Lobster for serving shellfish (Leviticus says shellfish is unclean) or trying to stop retailers from selling clothes made from more than one type of fabric?

The Mosaic Law was repealed in Paul's epistles with the exception of the moral law which Paul affirms. As TJ noted, this issue was settled within the apostles' lifetime.

And how does two guys or two gals being married even affect other people's marriages?

Your problem here is that you are taking a secular moral framework and asking Christianity to justify itself according to the framework. Christianity rejects the framework altogether.

[DC Al Fine]

This is a silly argument that comes up over and over from people who aren't familiar with the Bible.  That's not to pick on you Arizonan as you aren't being a jerk about this and seem to be asking in good faith.

The claim that Christians are picking and choosing from the Bible because they eat shellfish but oppose gay marriage doesn't make any sense because the prohibition on shellfish was explicitly repealed in Acts 10. Actually, this argument is a pretty good test to see if a critic has no idea what the hell they are talking about.

[DC Al Fine]

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.

I think that basing policy beliefs on things that actually exist for sure - that we can see, touch, smell, hear, and/or objectively measure - is inherently superior to basing them off of an old text that may or may not be true.  

You can touch and smell secular humanism?