Ron, I agree that morality can't be legislated in the sense that you can't really force people to comply with any law simply because it is a law, especially what folks choose to do in their own bedroom. And I don't think that the government belongs there anyway, not in the least. But I also think that since the definition of harm is a subjective judgment, I'm sure it would follow that the definition of a demonstrable harm would also be something quite subjective, and I think these issues should be discussed in the public square to try to arrive at some sort of consensus on an issue by issue basis in our legislatures.
That same Bible that says homosexuals should be executed.
I do wonder why homosexuals would like some recognition and reassurance from their government that they have a right to exist.
Pesky aren't they?
L.R., the Law that the Jews were under called for the death penalty for virtually everything. But it was only the law for the nation of Israel. It didn't apply to any other nation and its penalties under that law certainly didn't apply to any other nation and it certainly didn't carry over into the New Testament. Find me one place in the New Testament where anyone is commanded to stone anyone to death for breaking the Law of Israel or for breaking any moral code for that matter. There was a transition there: Jesus Christ. The one who was slain for the iniquities of everyone, the one who took the death penalty that we all deserved, so that we didn't have to bear the penalty of our sin: for Jews, the breaking of the Law of Moses, for Gentiles, the violating of their consciences, and for both groups, the falling short of the perfection of God.
Homosexuals don't need reassurance from our government that they have a right to exist, and they've got recognition as a protected class and hate crimes legislation as well, and some judges are already using it to describe any statement that expresses a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle as a hate crime. So those priests and preachers better make sure they leave out that one thing in the long lists of things described as sins that besets the human race in their sermons, or they may one day find themselves being dragged off in hand cuffs. Silence those who disagree with you, that sounds tolerant doesn't it? That sounds, oh what's the word, a bit totalitarian?
The issue of this thread was not someone's right to exist (we've all got that right under the Constitution here in the U.S., I thought (?), oh, yes, with the exception of pre-born humans of course). The issue was whether gays should have the right to marry. I gave my reasons why I thought that would not be the course to take (Hush, see my several previous posts). And instead of honest intelligent discussion of the issues, and answers to questions that I raised, and perhaps tolerantly showing me where I may have been wrong, it seemed better to answer my questions with questions, to completely change the topic several times, to ridicule me and my reasoning processes and my values.
I am very disheartened by this exchange and if I thought people really didn't want a discussion including both sides of the issue I would have just kept my mouth shut. I have enough crap going on in my real life without this too.
If you all don't care for or agree with traditional values, that's fine, you have that right. I just have a different view, that's all. And I've never ridiculed any of you for any position that you've expressed. It would have been nice if I had been shown the same courtesy.