Texan Bigotry

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben knows all.

If they were made for it why are they men?

[rah]

And still waiting for Ben to cite an actual court opinion instead of "what he thinks" But I forget, Ben knows all.

[Ben Kenobi]

it is stunningly naive to think that specific discriminatory motel practices in the aggregate doesn't impact interstate commerce

Everything can be interpreted as 'impacting interstate commerce'. This is the definition of overreach.

And in the midst of all of this, Ben has never made anything close to as decent of an argument as this.

You're the first to actually address Dinodoc's argument rather than simply bleat, 'where's the evidence for your position'? I see no need to cite additional evidence when DD has already done so and everyone ignores him...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Paul said nothing of the sort, at least not in his letter to the Romans.

Because we always spell out specifically to the letter what we are referring to in our letters, even in cases where people we are writing to would know exactly what we were talking about . Your emails must be hundreds of pages long.

A good resource is Sarah Ruden's "Paul Among the People". Though she isn't the first to look at what homosexual practices were actually occurring during the age and reading the texts in their historical context rather than transposing our own views.

[Lorizael]

First amendment to the constitution. Nothing in it about 'except for gays or blacks who are protected classes to whom the state CAN regulate folks.'

Yes, you even quoted it. And the word association does not appear in the first amendment. SCOTUS has ruled that freedom of speech implies certain forms of freedom of association, but with limits. Nevertheless, there is no explicit protection of the freedom to associate in the constitution.

[snoopy369]

It's clear what you were made for, at least.

[Ben Kenobi]

And still waiting for Ben to cite an actual court opinion instead of "what he thinks" But I forget, Ben knows all.

Several things. One - DD's already cited a case. I suggest you actually address his argument.

Two, where's the support for your opinion? That's how the law works. If you want to regulate freedom of association - you say, 'this is how the law works'. The burden is on you to show why the rights we possess under the constitution are legally limited in this fashion - since I've shown there's no such regulation in the US constitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, you even quoted it. And the word association does not appear in the first amendment. SCOTUS has ruled that freedom of speech implies certain forms of freedom of association, but with limits. Nevertheless, there is no explicit protection of the freedom to associate in the constitution.

Where does the constitution cite that the freedom exists except if you want to exclude black or gay people? I'm having trouble finding that part... Remember - the 10th covers powers not enumerated. If not enumerated the people have this right.

[Ben Kenobi]

A good resource is Sarah Ruden's "Paul Among the People". Though she isn't the first to look at what homosexual practices were actually occurring during the age and reading the texts in their historical context rather than transposing our own views.

How does this address the argument that Christian morality is transcendent and applies everywhere to everyone?

[Felch]

Because we always spell out specifically to the letter what we are referring to in our letters, even in cases where people we are writing to would know exactly what we were talking about . Your emails must be hundreds of pages long.

A good resource is Sarah Ruden's "Paul Among the People". Though she isn't the first to look at what homosexual practices were actually occurring during the age and reading the texts in their historical context rather than transposing our own views.

Oh, I get it. What you meant to say was, "Sarah Ruden says that the dehumanizing nature of homosexual relationships in the Greek and Roman world, where the "receiver" is a boy slave who is used for sexual benefit and then cast aside when he becomes too old is not ok." Because Paul's letter to the Romans said nothing of the sort.

[Lorizael]

Where does the constitution cite that the freedom exists except if you want to exclude black or gay people? I'm having trouble finding that part... Remember - the 10th covers powers not enumerated. If not enumerated the people have this right.

If the tenth amendment granted people the right to do anything they're not otherwise barred from doing, then there would be no need for the first amendment. The reality is the other way around. The tenth is intended to reinforce the concept of federalism and has pretty much no case history supporting unenumerated rights of the people. Freedom of association has historically been granted through the first amendment, but it is not spelled out explicitly. What this means is that if the state has compelling interests, the freedom to associate can be abridged because there is no freedom to associate. Protecting equality counts as a compelling interest.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the tenth amendment granted people the right to do anything they're not otherwise barred from doing, then there would be no need for the first amendment.

The constitution doesn't regulate we the people. It regulates the state and what the state can and can't do. There's a reason why this falls under the first as it's an infringement of free speech. We are starting to see this in academia, where universities are saying that Christian clubs must admit gay members, that the boy scouts have to do the same, etc. It is impossible for a group to express themselves if they are required to admit people contrary to their faith or opinion.

Freedom of association has historically been granted through the first amendment, but it is not spelled out explicitly. What this means is that if the state has compelling interests, the freedom to associate can be abridged because there is no freedom to associate. Protecting equality counts as a compelling interest.

Quite the opposite. The 10th explicitly states that unless it's enumerated the people have this authority. Not, "if it's not enumerated the state has this authority'. None of what you said here is actually in the constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, I get it. What you meant to say was, "Sarah Ruden says that the dehumanizing nature of homosexual relationships in the Greek and Roman world, where the "receiver" is a boy slave who is used for sexual benefit and then cast aside when he becomes too old is not ok." Because Paul's letter to the Romans said nothing of the sort.

^ This is what happens when we close our eyes to the context of letters written 2000 years ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How does this address the argument that Christian morality is transcendent and applies everywhere to everyone?

Yes, Christian love is transcendent and applies everywhere to everyone, and thank God that He has been patient with us as we slowly but surely understand more and more of His will. From the babytalk (as Calvin referred to it) in Genesis that the people of that era could handle, to the words of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, revealed within a 1st century Jewish context, to the Holy Spirit coming upon people in the 1800s to help end the practice of racial slavery in the Western world, to the present, where we realize that God's love is equally strong for homosexuals and always has been. What amazingly transcendent and powerful love is this?! How wonderful that His grace is so abundant that even when we got His will wrong, He was always forgiving and full of mercy. May the Spirit continue to reveal His will and bring us closer to His understanding of the age to come.

[Felch]

If Paul was only condemning homosexual acts between grown men and young boys, why wouldn't he have said so? Instead he talks of men committing shameful acts with other men. It wouldn't have made a big difference in word count for him to say, "While sexual acts between consenting adults are fine, fucking little kids is wrong."

I also think it's strange that Paul would have injected so much subtext into a letter he was writing to people he'd never met in person. When I'm communicating with people I've never met, I try to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Even here, where most of us have been posting for over a decade, it's sometimes hard for people to pick up on jokes.

Face facts. Paul wasn't ELCA.