“1) If the Supreme Court says that it is okay for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then how can they stop there?”
The same way they stopped after they allowed interracial marriages. I notice that despite everyone at that time forecasting a slippery slope of interracial, then same sex, then men marrying their horse, women marrying their dogs and group weddings. But the slippery slope never materialized. People still fight tooth and nail for every step.
“then how can they say a man can't marry his sister,”
I’ve seen that happen. Check your state laws.
“or a mother her son,”
Seen that, too. Freaked out the guy at PSD, as the names on the wedding certificate all matched. Check your state.
"or a man and his dog,”
A matter of consent. Dogs can’t.
“or two men and one woman?”
ALl the precedent laws and policies and privileges are based on couples. Making it groups is a major change to how property law will have to be decided.
" but three men just "married" in Thailand the other day.”
We’re not Thailand.
“2) How do you prevent legalizing same-sex marriage from erasing religious liberty?”
You want the right to discriminate. Not the same thing.
“3) How do you deal with the fact that homosexuality is not immutable?”
Neither is gender, but we still let men marry women, right? Even though they might change later? Not an issue that wedding laws need to take into account.
“4) Why are the voters of this country so marginalized?”
Because RIGHTS are not subject to popular vote. If so, we could get enough people together and vote to remove religious freedom from Baptists. Or Catholics. Or Mormons.
“In short, I oppose same-sex "marriage" because I am in favor of freedom - freedom guaranteed in the Constitution.”
Oh, you’ll be forced to tolerate people who don’t believe the way you do. Which you already do, what with there being American muslims, American Jews, American Mormons, American Hindus….