My point is not against your belief but against the method of argument...and the effectiveness of that line of argumentation.

One can argue that something is immoral or sin due to divergence from the literal word of God. Boom. That's quotable. It's defined and debatable.

Augmenting that line of argumentation with works of a political hack with an agenda does nothing to advance your point because it introduces inconsistent variables, including but not limited to a timeline in which previous Laws have been abrogated and the fallibility of man.