I would argue that one needn't even read the Bible to recognize sodomy as contrary to the Natural Law.
Not long ago, I read that a Japanese man was petitioning his government to allow marriage between human beings and -- wait for it -- cartoon characters. He was even able to get more than 1000 others to sign his petition. Apparently it wasn't a joke. This Japanese man, who is immersed in Japan’s crazy comic book subculture, then explained that he feels more comfortable with “two-dimensional” people than with the “three-dimensional” kind.
Perhaps “inter-dimensional marriage”, then, will soon overtake “same-sex marriage” as the burning “civil rights” issue of our time. After all, we wouldn't want to “discriminate” against those with a “two-dimensional orientation.” No doubt there’s a “loser gene” just waiting to be discovered, the confirmation of which will prove that some people are just “born that way.” And we must not, in any event, be “cartoonophobic.” It’s up to us to “define” what marriage is anyway, right? (Or at least, if you’re a modern “conservative,” it’s up to “the people,” though not the courts.) Inter-dimensional marriage opponents will surely come to be seen to future generations like George Wallace – standing in the doorway of the local comic book store, impeding people from marrying the two-dimensional “person of their choice.”
Of course, I’m not trying to insinuate that “same-sex marriage” is as ludicrous as this – because in fact, it’s far more ludicrous. Consider: Who’s the bigger fool? The man who thinks two imaginary oranges added to two real ones make four oranges, or the man who thinks two real oranges and two further real ones make five oranges? I’d say the latter. The former may be delusional, but at least he can add. Similarly, someone who wants to marry Mary Jane at least wants to do something that is logically possible; after all, Mary Jane might have existed, even though in fact she does not. But someone who wants to “marry” someone of the same sex wants to do something that is logically impossible, just as making two and two five is logically impossible.
Us "moderns", even many of us self-described conservatives, fail to see this because we are often committed to a kind of nominalism or conceptualism on which words can ever only express what we decide or what the majority decides what they ought to as a matter of convention. All definitions become “nominal definitions” rather than “real definitions.” Of course, such people never follow out the implications of this nominalism thoroughly or consistently. Or at least they haven’t yet, because the implications would be too preposterous. But occasionally they follow them out just a little bit further than previous generations have… with the result that, say, “same-sex marriage” suddenly comes to seems sane and even inevitable, rather than a joke. If “marrying” cartoon characters, or dogs, or a can of motor oil still seems beyond absurd, wait ten years. This isn’t a slippery slope argument, by the way. The point isn’t that “same-sex marriage” will lead to absurd results; the point is that it is itself absurd.