Notes on the (r)evolution of love

The first three paragraphs pertain to the following case, as described in the National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444989/washington-supreme-court-christian-florist-religious-freedom-gay-discrimination-case
There may have been a similar, much more punitive case in Canada, in which the business person was fined tens of thousands of dollars.
This may indicate the problem with identity politics and the need for guiding principles that don’t lead to contradictions when it comes to freedom and respect for diversity.
Someone’s disapproval of another person’s sexuality or gender identity is itself an aspect of diversity that should be respected in so far as there are reasonably available alternative public accommodations, in my opinion.
To me, the legitimacy of the (r)evolution of sexuality and gender identity that Queer social moments involve rests on the fact that the more options for human expressions of love the better.
There is no slippery slope from Queer love to pedpphilia and beastiality because psychologically immature humans are incapable of consent as are nonhuman animals and  humans with retardation or dementia. The absence of consent precludes sexual or romantic love, and qualifies as abuse.
As for polygamy, the majority of humans may not find it satisfying. For the minority that may, the moral problem may exist, (as is likely the case within Islam and Mormonism), in terms of gender-based social inequality that detracts from the self-determination of women, and thereby calls into question the degree to which the multiple wives in a polygamous marriage have given their consent to such arrangements.  But without that problem, what would be grounds upon which to view polygamy as immoral ? That’s a genuine question.
From a theological standpoint, the modern understanding of same-sex romantic love probably didn’t exist when people were writing the Old Testament or even later when they were writing the New Testament.
Even if one interprets Old and New Testament condemnations of homosexual behavior to include a Biblical condemnation of the entire range of same’sex romantic love, (which an increasing number of churches are no longer doing) that leaves one with a question.
Why emphasize a literal interpretation of a few Biblical passages regarding homosexual behavior while not emphasizing a literal interpretation of other passages, such as those that deal with what fabrics  clothing can be made of or with the command to stone people for adultery, not to mention New Testament passages where Christ condemns wealth and violence and commands human beings to give all of our belongings willingly when someone robs us?
The New Testament passage regarding homosexual behavior comes from Paul. There is no quote from Christ about that, let alone anything about same sex romantic love.
In fact if one were to err on the side of being congruent with Christ’s teachings, one might focus on his main command: to love God and to love one another. In that vein, one would support the development of more options for the human expression of love.
But Judeo-Christian theology aside, in considering the ethical quality of a wide range of human activity, do we base it solely on principles purportedly derived from scripture or do we base it on systems of knowledge based in the sciences and the humanities?
With virtually every aspect of human activity –be it laws regarding how businesses are to be run, how schools and other institutions are to be run, and so on—–in a liberal democracy, as opposed to a theocracy, we shouldn’t emphasize this or that sect’s interpretation of scripture in the making of public policy.
So then, how is it that socially conservative Christians have sought to make an exception when it comes to public policy regarding same-sex romantic love, while largely ignoring the much more numerous and clear Biblical passages regarding the evils of being materialistic?
If we take a secular approach to public policy (which by the way includes non-fundamentalist understandings of various religions) we are likely to conclude that same-sex romantic love is a positive development, in that it affords human beings more options for the expression of love and thereby strengthens the social bonds that enable societies to function.
As for greater individual freedom for gender identity, it too is positive in that it promotes a better understanding of oneself and improves one’s capacity to care for others, thereby benefitting society.
We misunderstand cause and effect if we assume the mental health problems associated with many transgendered persons to be the cause of their gender non-conformity or the direct result of their gender nonconformity.
Barring mental health issues that some individuals would have irrespective of their degree of gender conformity, what mental health problems occur for transgendered persons result from disruptions to the fulfillment of the individual’s need for belonging and acceptance, much of which operates at a subconscious level for every human being, irrespective of circumstances. Hence, societal acceptance is key.