Quote:
Fallacious argument, not relevant; there's a whole host of perfectly good non-religious reasons that people shouldn't kill one another.

That was my argument. I wasn't arguing for murder to be legalised, I was saying that asking believers your question doesn't well distinguish between theocratic and humanistic laws.

Quote:
It's possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion, just as it's possible for immorality to exist in its presence.

You and I believe that; it's not clear whether a fundamentalist would, at least insofar as it concerns their particular religion. Certainly no fundamentalist worth the name will be building their personal morality on such considerations.

Perhaps a better question would be "Do you believe that allowing gay marriage will have tangible bad consequences for this mortal life?" If an action has bad consequences only intangibly or in the afterlife, then the place for a prohibition on it is in religious doctrine. For everything else, there's temporal authority.

Peter