Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

I will be arguing that religion is not necessarily the best way to decide morals. Considering Pro's resolution, I will be assuming he means to also include under the umbrella of "deciding morals" the writing of legislation to codify that which is unacceptable. Pro, obviously, has the BoP, but in the interests of a spirited debate, and in the absence of rules to the contrary, I will give an opening statement. "Religion" is a nebulous term. After all, there is not one religion in the world, but many. And while they agree on some points, they disagree on others. In such a conflict it is not reason, but rather revelation, which is used to decide "what is moral". Such revelation cannot be proven, and there will always be disagreement. Whose religion wins out in such a situation, if the criteria applied is only "religion"? Both sides meet that criteria. In the case of Gay Marriage, a legislative question, we have competing moralities. There are some Christian denominations which accept gays, and some which do not. Anglicans, for example, allow for gay unions to be blessed. [1] The Community of Christ, or Reorganized Church Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), "Conference delegates. .. [voted]. .. for the extension of the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples in states were same-sex marriages are legal, covenant commitment services for same-sex couples in states were same-sex marriages are not legal, and extending eligibility of the priesthood call (sacrament of to all members regardless of sexual orientation or open same-sex relationship. The changes have yet to be approved by the First Presidency and Council of Twelve, with the likely timeframe to "develop, approve, and implement interim policies" being up to one year after the 2013 Conference. [2] Obviously, however, many other denominations continue to condemn homosexuality wholly. There is a range of "moral" answers to the question, just within the umbrella of "Christian". [3] Which of these competing views is correct? I'm sure Pro has an opinion, but upon what grounds is his opinion more valid than that of other Christian authorities? It's worth reminding that only those gay people who wish to be married will become married. Gay Marriage is a legislative issue. Even if Gay Marriage becomes legal, no one will be required to do it. No one will be required to perform it against their religion's teachings any more than they're currently required to perform interracial marriages if they feel it's against their religion. It should be noted, of course, that interracial marriage was generally condemned on religious grounds. No one will be expected to accept gay marriage any more than they are expected to accept any other marriage of which they might disapprove. It is Catholic Doctrine, for example, that special dispensation must be granted to marry a person of another Christian Faith, and an even more special dispensation is required to marry someone who is not Christian at all. If that is not granted, the marriage is not considered valid by the Church, and is not sacramental. Why is that moral? And further, how would that be different than the Church not recognizing a gay couple? This is not a debate about the existence of God, as Pro stated in his opening. This, in point of fact, weakens his case considerably, as most arguments against gay marriage rest quite nearly entirely on Divine Command theory. Because we will not be assuming that God exists or that he doesn't, or that God is an inherent moral authority, Pro must make his case in the absence of Divine Command Theory. So upon what "moral grounds" would Pro prevent that? What harms are done by the allowance of equal treatment? How is it moral to deny marriage to homosexuals based purely on their homosexuality? I look forward to Pro's case. Thank you. [1] . http://www.nytimes.com...; [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...