[sturm und drang]

Kiki, without quoting your long response:

You ask what my belief is rooted in. I believe very strongly that homosexuals are born that way - that there is absolutely no choice involved as to their orientation. And as my Sunday school teacher once told me long ago, God don't make mistakes. I believe that, too. I don't see why God, in his infinite wisdom, would make one out of 10 of his children innately defective, innately sinful.

In all his teachings, Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Not once. In the NT, Paul is the only person to speak of it. And as you can see from the Ephesians quote I used earlier, Paul's words (like many other throughout the Bible) have to be viewed in context of the culture in which they were made. Just as most all Christians would admit now, the "slave, obey thy master" dictum he set forth has to be... well, what do you do with it? Do you toss it away? To you attempt to justify it?

You justify Paul's advocacy - nay, enforcement - of slavery thusly:

"Paul's perspective as he wrote the letter you refer to (and others where he makes similar statements) was that of how we should respond to the circumstances of life in light of that relationship with Jesus. Paul was lobbying for personal transformation, not social change."

Interesting. If we can read Paul's dictum on slavery in such a forgiving, interpretory light - why not his mentions of homosexuality? Are we to read some of his statements in contemporary and personal context, but accept others as the infallible word of God? If so, how do we discern between the two?

And to your ridiculous extrapolation theory - "if we let them damned homos marry, wha's next? Polygamy? Parents marrying their kids? Animals? Dead people?" - I ask you to turn it the other way. If we now exclude certain people from marrying, what's next? Whites can't marry blacks? Christians can't marry Muslims? The healthy can't marry those with special needs? (Particularly Nuremburgian, that one...)

You ask me superciliously why I – simplistic, thick-skulled imbicile that I no doubt am – can't see that slippery slope, why I can't see that including homosexuals in marriage wouldn't inevitably lead to polygamy, pedophaelia. Now I ask you why you can't see how excluding homosexuals couldn't engender equally nefarious ramifications. In a country where interracial marriage is a novel concept and still much-detested in some circles (per your article), which extrapolation theory is more likely? If I can make the case that's it acceptable to exclude certain people from marrying, then why isn't it acceptable to bar others?

I simply don't buy your extrapolation theory. I also don't believe that clinging to social mores because "that's the way it's always been" is a viable way to gauge and weigh such issues. If we all lived by this, would slavery still be present? Would Hammurabi's sense of justice prevail? Would women be second-class citizens?