Texan Bigotry

[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.

[Lorizael]

None of what you said here is actually in the constitution.

This is funny, because you're the one who claimed freedom of association is explicitly mentioned in the constitution when it is not. But I've gone over my cardiologist's recommended daily limit of discussion with you, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But I do believe the ELCA is better at reading Paul than the Catholic Church has been.

[Felch]

You're free to believe in unicorns and leprechauns if you want. Just don't go around claiming that Paul said things he never said.

[DinoDoc]

Romans 1:18-31

For the record, the people involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature -- being straight and all -- and engaged in homosexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature -- being fabulous -- and engaged in straight behavior would also be sinning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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."

Lets see what Paul says right after that in Romans:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

Since plenty of gay people are not like this at all (in fact plenty of less evil and greedy than heterosexuals), does that mean Paul was just completely 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.

Seriously? So when you write that we should do something about Syria - you write in a history of the conflict?

[MikeH]

Who gives a **** what the bible says? We're past that, let's do what's morally right instead.

[DinoDoc]

Who gives a **** what the bible says? We're past that, let's do what's morally right instead.

That's the discussion going on at the moment.

[Felch]

Lets see what Paul says right after that in Romans:

You mean, "32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Or did you conveniently forget that bit?

Since plenty of gay people are not like this at all (in fact plenty of less evil and greedy than heterosexuals), does that mean Paul was just completely wrong?

It certainly could. Paul was a human being after all.

Seriously? So when you write that we should do something about Syria - you write in a history of the conflict?

WTF? You're literally inventing something Paul never said. This isn't about supplying context, this is about deliberate fabrication. Paul was talking about men with other men. He never mentions men with boys. I'm calling you out for making up some **** that isn't in the Bible. You're defending it on some flimsy bull**** about how he wasn't going to include a history of pederasty in his letter to the Romans?

[Imran Siddiqui]

For the record, the people involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature -- being straight and all -- and engaged in homosexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature -- being fabulous -- and engaged in homosexual behavior would also be sinning.

Do you mean "heterosexual" in the last sentence?

[Imran Siddiqui]

This isn't about supplying context

Yes it is. But that would blow up the 'all gays deserve death' worldview and how tragic would that be. Of course the God who speaks of love and mercy would torture folks who had eros love for their same gender .