Criminalisation of homosexual behaviour?

[Matt Black]

And what are those Christian principles? Take a look around you on this board - we Christians here cannot even agree as to whether the death penalty is morally right let alone anything else. Whose Christian principles would you seek to impose on others and on what basis their Christian principles be more justifiable than others'.

And I say again - if you are to criminalise homosexual behaviour, then you'd better get on and criminalise all sex outside of marriage, along with lust, evil thoughts, greed, gluttony etc. There would be more consistency to your argument if you were just as vociferously calling for a law to outlaw rich greedy company executives earning more than $150000pa

 

[Martin]

The United States Supreme Court should allow the individual states to keep sodomy as illegal. People in Indiana do not want to be European in jurisprudence, which we consider inferior because it does not have Christianity as an anchor but says that the command of the king is the law of the land and cannot be considered either right or wrong morally. [/QB]

==Since I have not addressed this legal issue in my posts/replies I am amazed that you continue to say, " Nor do we want people in Texas and North Carolina and Arkansas telling us how to run the state of Indiana through Supreme Court decisions taking away the right of Indiana to govern herself". I guess it shows, by including me in this list on more than one occasion, that you have not read my posts/replies. I have not said what I think the US Supreme Court should do. I am talking about the Biblical (New Testament) principle (or view of) of political activism. It is my view that Biblically Christian political activism has no support. Be it conservative or liberal. Thus Christians should vote (etc) but should not get overly involved in the political process (unless they are a politican by trade). I am against using the courts to push any agenda onto the American people (be it conservative, liberal, good, or bad). The courts are there to judge based on the law not make law(s). I believe, on this issue, that each state should be allowed to make up its own mind (as should each community, city within a state). However I believe that Christians have "bigger fish to fry" than federal, state, and local political or social issues. We need to be concerned about eternity. Whether or not homosexuality is illegal in any state or not will not get one soul into the Kingdom of God. We need to be focused on preaching the Gospel and not on political/social activism. If we focus on the later we are guilty of neglecting our duties and will be held accountable (see Ez 18:4,20, 33:8-9). In other words I think God is not impressed with the political/social activism of the modern Church. Many are neglecting their evangelistic duties for politics. In other words they are focusing on the temperal while millions are losing the eternal. This is sin and we will be judged for it!

Martin.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I say again - if you are to criminalise homosexual behaviour, then you'd better get on and criminalise all sex outside of marriage, along with lust, evil thoughts, greed, gluttony etc. There would be more consistency to your argument if you were just as vociferously calling for a law to outlaw rich greedy company executives earning more than $150000pa

==Amen to that! I find it interesting that the political wing of the Church wants to focus on homosexuality and abortion while ignoring other sins. Do they wish to outlaw idolatry? How about pride or gossip? All of these are sins that lead to death and destruction (look at what pride did to Lucifer). I think John MacArthur made a great point in his little book(let) "Can God Bless America".

"One does not hear the Religious Right arguing with much enthusiasm against pride or materialism. I haven't seen them mounting any great campaign against divorce. They rarely even decry the sin of adultery. They are vocal against sins like homosexuality, pedophilia, abortion, pornography, and other shocking or perverted forms of sin. But they don't even deal with the worst sin of all. What's that? Consider this: If the first and Great Commandment is Matthew 22:37, "You shall lover the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind," then the greatest sin would be any violation of that commandment. You want to talk about morality? Let's talk about that. You want to talk about sin? Let's not pick out five can most easily assault because we don't do those sins. Let's talk about the greatest of all commandments. Why is that not part of the agenda of the Religious Right? If we are going to go after America's immorality, then let's indict people (including ourselves) where we need it the most- for not loving God as we ought to"- pg92-93

Amen!
Martin.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
And what are those Christian principles? Take a look around you on this board - we Christians here cannot even agree as to whether the death penalty is morally right let alone anything else. Whose Christian principles would you seek to impose on others and on what basis their Christian principles be more justifiable than others'.

And I say again - if you are to criminalise homosexual behaviour, then you'd better get on and criminalise all sex outside of marriage, along with lust, evil thoughts, greed, gluttony etc. There would be more consistency to your argument if you were just as vociferously calling for a law to outlaw rich greedy company executives earning more than $150000pa

Nonsense. Here you go again with the idea that we cannot draw the line. Sodomy causes physical decay and disease. Therefore it should not be legalized. It is only natural to turn your back upon the reprobate mind but it is not Christian to wish them ill, as you do willy nilly by your refusal to show legal disapproval for the imposition upon the victim, not to mention the expense forced upon innocent people for the necessary medical treatment of a dysfunctional lifestyle.

As for the disagreements among Christians, that is hardly a point for abolishing the legal code or any part of it. Disagreements are part of Christianity:

1 Corinthians 11:18 (KJV) For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.


It is the religious left with their money and empty churches that weeps over murders like Barabbas and Stalin and says that they should not be executed.

As for what another man earns, that is not my concern if it is done without crime. My Father takes care of me, not the government.

As for the notion that it is proper for the US Supreme Court to impose the agenda of the religious left on the American people by destroying the sovereignty of the state of Indiana, that is too immoral for words.

Indiana should have the right to decide what to do without people from other states calling for the Supreme Court to violate the US Constitution to interfere and diminish Indiana's sovereignty.

Indiana never voted to legalize sodomy.

As for John MacArthur, I agree that the evangelization of the lost is more important than controlling the political agenda. However, once we have evangelized a person, we need to teach doctrine and apologetics so we know what Christianity stands for. And it is clear that Christianity does not stand for the sodomization of certain throw-away persons in the society.

Furthermore, it is clear that Christianity stands for a just society. MacArthur's point says that the Christian agenda is not comprehensive. I would reply to him that we have a list of priorities and first things first and then we will go on building the Christian society as best we can from a minority position in the world. Having listened to MacArthur for years, I am sure that he agrees that his criticism is narrow. Government is a natural function of man and good government that protects the weak among other things is necessary. American government has become predatory in its refusal to punish crime and in its attacks upon the lower class with lotteries, etc.

The Archbishop of Canterbury presides over a decayed church with empty buildings and yet millions in the bank. Having embraced a neo-orthodox theology, the Archbishop of Canterbury wonders why no one believes the teachings of the Church of England or bothers to attend it.

If we are talking about justice from a Christian perspective, then we can say that the command of the king as law of the land is rotten if the king bases the law upon his personal whims and the traditions of the people of the land. Man does not know good from evil unless man receives that knowledge from The Holy Bible.

Natural law, which the British destroyed, was not nonsense on stilts. It said that the Creator had placed a knowledge of right and wrong in every person. That is true but sin mutes that knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary for the survival of people that all law be based upon Christianity and the teachings of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
And what are those Christian principles? Take a look around you on this board - we Christians here cannot even agree as to whether the death penalty is morally right let alone anything else. Whose Christian principles would you seek to impose on others and on what basis their Christian principles be more justifiable than others'.

And I say again - if you are to criminalise homosexual behaviour, then you'd better get on and criminalise all sex outside of marriage, along with lust, evil thoughts, greed, gluttony etc. There would be more consistency to your argument if you were just as vociferously calling for a law to outlaw rich greedy company executives earning more than $150000pa

Nonsense. Here you go again with the idea that we cannot draw the line. Sodomy causes physical decay and disease. Therefore it should not be legalized. It is only natural to turn your back upon the reprobate mind but it is not Christian to wish them ill, as you do willy nilly by your refusal to show legal disapproval for the imposition upon the victim, not to mention the expense forced upon innocent people for the necessary medical treatment of a dysfunctional lifestyle.

As for the disagreements among Christians, that is hardly a point for abolishing the legal code or any part of it. Disagreements are part of Christianity:

</font>[/QUOTE]But who gets to decide what are Christian principles, and why?

If you are going down the '(medical) cost to society' rationale for recriminalisation, then you must also criminalise overeating, alcohol abuse, dangerous sports (in fact all contact sports), smoking, the internal combustion engine, failure to take exercise (provided of course we are not talking contact sports - see above), etc, etc , etc

 

[Martin]

[/QB]

As for John MacArthur, I agree that the evangelization of the lost is more important than controlling the political agenda. However, once we have evangelized a person, we need to teach doctrine and apologetics so we know what Christianity stands for. And it is clear that Christianity does not stand for the sodomization of certain throw-away persons in the society. [/QB]

==Nobody here is advocating that (you are arguing against a strawman). Once someone is saved they will not be a homosexual nor will they support that lifestyle (1Cor 6:11, Rom 1:24-30, 1Jn 3:9-10). However there is nothing, not one thing, in the New Testament about the church using courts (etc) to moralize the unsaved. They don't need morality (first) they need salvation. Then, and only then, can they have "true" and "Godly" morality. Apart from salvation their "good works" are nothing but dirty rags and they are nothing but tombs with dead bones inside (Matt 23:25-28, 2Pet 2:17-22). That puts them in eternal danger (Heb 6:4-6, 10:26ff, 2Pet 2:17-22). They need the gospel first and foremost. That is where our focus MUST be. Secondly we need to be teaching believers to observe the Scriptural teachings. Everything else is in third or forth place behind that. By the way there is no positive New Testament teaching or example of political activism of any sort.

________________________________________

Furthermore, it is clear that Christianity stands for a just society. MacArthur's point says that the Christian agenda is not comprehensive. I would reply to him that we have a list of priorities and first things first and then we will go on building the Christian society as best we can from a minority position in the world. [/QB]

==Apart from salvation there cannot be a "christian society". You certainly are not going to create a "christian society" through politics and courts. Besides, and more importantly, there is no New Testament command to build a "christian society", none! The New Testament calls us to preach the Gospel and bring people to Christ (He is building His Church). To build on the foundation that is Jesus Christ. When Jesus returns He, not us, will set up a new government (see Dan 2:44-45, Rev 20:4-6). There is no New Testament basis for moralizing people through laws (etc) while leaving them spiritually dead sons of hell. True morality can only come when a person has been born again (of God). Anything less than that is not acceptable.

_____________________________________

Having listened to MacArthur for years, I am sure that he agrees that his criticism is narrow. Government is a natural function of man and good government that protects the weak among other things is necessary. [/QB]

==You are confusing the government with the church. I doubt, seriously, MacArthur would agree. Read his book, "Why Government Can't Save You" and the book(let) I qouted, "Can God Bless America". In that little book(let) he lists 16 very serious problems with the religious right (Christian political activism). So I doubt he would agree with your position anymore than I do.


____________________________________

Martin.

 

[Martin]

Sodomy causes physical decay and disease. Therefore it should not be legalized. [/QB]

==So does fornication, adultery, pornography, smoking, fast food, laziness (slothfulness), and drinking. Do you think we should make all of those illegal? If not how do you draw a line between those sins and homosexuality? Also what about the spiritual damage other sins cause? Pride, rejecting Christ, etc?

Martin.

 

[church mouse guy]

Sodomy is a repulsive, filthy act that causes infection and disease. There is no need to legalize it--God says that it is an abomination. Therefore, we can draw the line against same-sex sodomy on the basis of actuarial evidence. By the way, my church does not extend membership to practicing sodomites and does not ordain them. We leave all that to the Church of England and the Episcopal Church.

The law cannot create a Christian society but it can create a judicial system based upon Christian principles. We can say that Stalin murdered 100,000,000 and therefore Stalin's society was wrong.

The British have been part of the problem since the 19th century when they thought that they would impose British law on the world. The British threw out natural law as too vague and substituted the theory that the law is only the command of the king. Therefore, British law is not based upon morality but upon the whims of the British people and their government.

That is exactly the sort of thing that we want to avoid in this country because we do not want sodomy legalized and the age of consent lowered as the British have done and now seem to want to force upon us.

Nor do we want these issues decided by courts as we have seen the folly of the courts since Dred Scott when the court ruled that blacks were not people but animal property or livestock.

The difference between the liberal and conservative is illustrated by an abrupt cliff where people are falling off to injury below. The liberal deplores the situation and wants to build a hospital below to treat the injured. The conservative thinks that a far better idea would be to build a fence to stop people from falling. The fence is the gospel. In this case, the fence is also the warning of the law that those who allow themselves to be same-sex sodomized are in for extreme medical problems that cost the government excessive amounts because of the large gay and lesbian populations in cities such as Indianapolis.

 

[Martin]

Sodomy is a repulsive, filthy act that causes infection and disease. There is no need to legalize it--God says that it is an abomination.

==Your moral selectivity is amazing. God also calls lying, pride, and giving false witness an abomination (see Prov 6:16-19). Are you wishing to make those sins illegal as well? Pride is a very repulsive sin. Look at what it did to Lucifer! God, through Paul, also put disobeying parents, God hating, gossiping, pride, and homosexuality on the same level (all deserving death). Why are you ignoring these, and other, facts?

____________________________________

By the way, my church does not extend membership to practicing sodomites and does not ordain them. We leave all that to the Church of England and the Episcopal Church.

==What does that have to do with anything? Those churches you named are liberal and don't hold the Bible to be God's Word. So why does their moral and spiritual apostasy surprise you? No Bible believing Church extends membership to open sinners (be they homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers,etc). Btw, does your church knowingly admit liars and gossipers? If so why does your church compromise the Word of God? Those things God hates, yes they are an abomination to Him! Churches should not allow any open sinners into the local membership. Sure we all sin but there is a gross difference between a Christian who stumbles and an open sinner (1Jn 3:9-10).

Btw what does your church have to do with state laws? The church is not the state. _____________________________________

The law cannot create a Christian society but it can create a judicial system based upon Christian principles. We can say that Stalin murdered 100,000,000 and therefore Stalin's society was wrong.

==What is your New Testament basis for such an agenda? Where does God give Christians, and the church, that agenda? Please give chapter and verse.

Certainly we all want good government. However we cannot hijack the Biblical version of Christianity and replace it with a humanistic, conservative, social gospel.

_________________________________________

That is exactly the sort of thing that we want to avoid in this country because we do not want sodomy legalized and the age of consent lowered as the British have done and now seem to want to force upon us.

==Certainly no Christian wants to see that. However I am putting to you that politics is not an answer. It is a cheap, deceptive, temporary, and false bandaide. It will not work in the long term. The only thing that will save the individual, and the society at large, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why we are commanded by the Lord Himself to preach the Gospel (Lk 24:46-47). It is interesting that Jesus never commanded us to preach politics. Never! We are to preach the Gospel! That is the only solution to the problems you name.

__________________________________

The conservative thinks that a far better idea would be to build a fence to stop people from falling. The fence is the gospel. In this case, the fence is also the warning of the law that those who allow themselves to be same-sex sodomized are in for extreme medical problems that cost the government excessive amounts because of the large gay and lesbian populations in cities such as Indianapolis.

==You are confusing political activism with the gospel. That is very, very dangerous. It leads to all sorts of compromise. Let me ask you a question:

do you like Dr Laura? How about Sean Hannity?

There is a reason I ask this question.

Martin.

 

[church mouse guy]

I have no idea what your reason is for asking that question but the truth is that I never listen to either one of them. Your points strike me as someone who is mostly a modernist who does not care about the poorest of the poor or you strike me as a pietist of some sort as we had in the 1950s who did not want to be involved. Am I correct that you are a fundamentalist? I am at a total loss to understand why you want sodomy legalized. I think that your school of law is very much like the British school of law--that is, that the command of the king is law and there is no way of knowing if the law is good or bad. I think that that idea led to the deaths of millions and millions in the 20th century and led to nothing but human rights abuse, which is where I myself see your heading now. Your theological points are beside the point because you keep trying to make comparisons to other sins and then try to conclude that all sin is mortal, with which I agree, so your point is pointless in my mind. We can draw the line in spite of what you and Matt have said. I know that the English think that they are all right and I suppose that you think that you yourself are all right also.

 

[Martin]

Am I correct that you are a fundamentalist? I am at a total loss to understand why you want sodomy legalized.

== Please show me where I have said that I "want sodomy legalized"!! I have not said any such thing and that is not my position. You need to read what I am saying. I am saying that political activism (and laws) are not the answer to the problem of sin. Read what I have said. Again where have I said what you have accused me of saying? Please quote.

I think that your school of law is very much like the British school of law--that is, that the command of the king is law and there is no way of knowing if the law is good or bad.

==That is not what I am saying. I can see when a law/ruling is bad. My point is that we as Christians have bigger fish to fry. Have you ever noticed that neither Jesus, Paul, nor Peter got involved in the social/political issues of their day (salvery, etc)? Why not? Because they had a larger purpose. The church's purpose is eternal, politics is temporal. Our focus as Christians should be on getting people into the Kingdom of God and making disciples not on creating a "christian society" (which the New Testament never commands us to build anyway).

Your theological points are beside the point because you keep trying to make comparisons to other sins and then try to conclude that all sin is mortal, with which I agree, so your point is pointless in my mind.

==This is one of the problems with political activism. Theology is pushed aside in favor of a political position.

We can draw the line in spite of what you and Matt have said.

==Please show me how the abomination of lying (Prov 6:16-19) is less destructive than the abomination of homosexuality (Lev 20:13)? Please show how 1Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:24-32 makes homosexuality somehow worse than other sins. Also please contrast/compare these verses with Revelation 21:8,27 and Galatians 5:19-21. Also please show how drunks, fornicators, and pornographers (etc) are not also causing disease and death in our society (on the rich, middle class, and poor).

Martin.

 

[fromtheright]

Martin,

God also calls lying, pride, and giving false witness an abomination (see Prov 6:16-19). Are you wishing to make those sins illegal as well? Pride is a very repulsive sin. Look at what it did to Lucifer! God, through Paul, also put disobeying parents, God hating, gossiping, pride, and homosexuality on the same level (all deserving death). Why are you ignoring these, and other, facts?

If I believed in instituting a theocracy here on earth, this equivalence would make a difference. We live in a civil society in which, as I've said before, citizens get to pick and choose what they believe worthy of sanctions to encourage and discourage/punish. In a theocracy, this equivalence would make sense. Because we do not, this suggestion is as absurd as it sounds. While I believe that discouraging cohabitation among unmarried is worthy public policy, I'm afraid the moral climate would not support such laws, though I believe that majorities would still protect someone's right to not rent an apartment to an unmarried couple. Activist courts stand in the way of such property rights as they now do in the way of states exercising the right to protect their moral climate by prohibiting homosexual conduct and protecting homosexual marriage.

Have you ever noticed that neither Jesus, Paul, nor Peter got involved in the social/political issues of their day (salvery, etc)? Why not? Because they had a larger purpose. The church's purpose is eternal, politics is temporal. Our

Neither did they vote that I'm aware of. Are you saying that we should therefore not vote? Or be involved in political issues at all?


If homosexual is immoral and it is good for society to discourage it, why should we hesitate to do so just because there is not public support for limiting/prohibiting/discouraging other sins? If murder was illegal and rape was not, should we therefore legalize murder?

[ November 26, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

[JamieinNH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Neither did they vote that I'm aware of. Are you saying that we should therefore not vote? Or be involved in political issues at all?

I have always voted and tried to be a good citizen, however the more I study the Bible, and although I am a young Christian, and I could be wrong. I believe we are not to get involved in voting and politics.

I think I mentioned something along these lines in another thread. Where does it say we are to take an active stand in politics in the Bible?

As far as this thread, I believe we should continue to teach and preach the Word and let God sort it out. We shouldn't try to use laws to stop what we believe to be ungodly.

Jamie

 

[Martin]

While I believe that discouraging cohabitation among unmarried is worthy public policy, I'm afraid the moral climate would not support such laws, though I believe that majorities would still protect someone's right to not rent an apartment to an unmarried couple.

==Okay but why does the "moral climate" matter? If we are going to make laws like this why do we even need to take into account the feelings of society? Again this seems to me to be a clear case of picking and choosing what sins we wish to criminalize. If we are going to go after the homosexuals we must, if we are not to be hypocrites, go after the fornicators, adulterers, liars, idolaters, and others. There is no Biblical basis to divorce homosexuality from other sins and abominations and I see no social reason to do so either. Fornication (etc) is just as vile, just as destructive, just has harmful to society as homosexuality is. So I don't see your argument as being valid (neither socially nor Biblically).

Activist courts stand in the way of such property rights as they now do in the way of states exercising the right to protect their moral climate by prohibiting homosexual conduct and protecting homosexual marriage.

==I agree but it is not the place of the church to spend time and energy worrying about such temporal matters. Jesus did not speak out against the crimes of the Roman Empire (though He certainly could have) nor did He push for change (ie...simular with John, Paul, Peter, etc). While I think they certainly opposed slavery (see Paul's letters) they did nothing to oppose it in a political sense. They were concerned with the eternal matters (salvation, spiritual growth). That is what we need to be doing.

Btw, there is no such thing as "gay marriage". It may be called that by some states (etc) but it is not marriage. It is still an abomination. God does not approve of it, and it falls outside of God's definition of marriage, therefore "gay marriage" is not marriage.

Btw, instead of arguing against so-called "gay marriage" via politics we need to warn people that God will judge those who "toy" with marriage (see Hebrews 13:4). They need to repent.

Neither did they vote that I'm aware of. Are you saying that we should therefore not vote? Or be involved in political issues at all?

==Jesus paid taxes (etc) because it was part of His duty as a citizen. If Jesus lived in the US today I believe He would vote because that is part of being a citizen. However I don't think you would see Him (Paul, Peter, etc) getting heavily involved in politics. In fact they would probably be very, very unpopular with both democrates and republicans, conservatives and liberals. I base that on their teachings.

If homosexual is immoral and it is good for society to discourage it, why should we hesitate to do so just because there is not public support for limiting/prohibiting/discouraging other sins?

==Society? Society is made of up moral and immoral people heading to eternal hell. Homosexual or not they all need to repent. The church must oppose sin (in all its forms) by preaching the Gospel and calling people to repentance. I see no New Testament basis for political activism or attempting (in vain) to fight sin with politics. Discouraging is is not enough. People can be discouraged from a behavior but if they have not repented and turned to Christ it does them no good.

If murder was illegal and rape was not, should we therefore legalize murder?

==Since both involve harming another person it should not be legalized.

Martin

 

[church mouse guy]

Government is God-given. It is the job of the government to govern, obviously. In a republic such as ours, the people are in charge and they govern through representatives. So part of the job of a Christian is to be involved in government by voting and speaking responsibly to The Holy Bible.

Pietism said that politics was too filthy for the Christian and therefore Christians should not be involved in government. That meant that our government would become non-Christian, and that is the mess that we are in today, with the court ruling that abortion, sodomy, and land takeover by the government for private development are all okay when they are not.

You are your brother's keeper and if you don't keep him, no one else will.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Is it wrong (in any country) to make a law to cut off one's hand for stealing? Or to hang adulterers? No, of course not. God has given societies since the beginning of time the right to make laws (usually based on the law written in our hearts) to punish evil acts. That said, society is not always right. There is a right and wrong according to God. We as Christians should be salt and light to preserve justice in society.

The distinguishing factor of Soddom and Gomorrah before God wiped them off the map was their "very grievous" sin, i.e. homosexual activity. Let us legislate ourselves before God does so. There are degrees of sin. Homosexuality is right up there at the top. It's a crime against the natural use of the man or woman, whereas adultery, while still evil of course, at least is still within the realm of the natural use and function the body was created for.

 

[JamieinNH]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:

There are degrees of sin. Homosexuality is right up there at the top.

You have got to be kidding me. A Sin is just that a SIN. There are no degrees if sin. Except for one, and it's mentioned specifically in the Bible. All others, lying, cheating on your taxes, sexual desires, they are all SIN and will bring down a judgement on you.

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:

It's a crime against the natural use of the man or woman, whereas adultery, while still evil of course, at least is still within the realm of the natural use and function the body was created for.

No, again you're fooling yourself. Yes, homesexulity is against the natural use of the man and a women, but adultery isn't the 'natural use' God created Male and Female to populate the earth and have children, He didn't create it just for "fun" so, even a guy and gal just having fun in the "sack" isn't doing what is natural in God's eyes.

From the sound of this post, you would rather have some people commit a "proper" sin rather than NO sin at all.. It doesn't work that way, a SIN is a SIN, except for one.

Jamie

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by fromtheright:


If homosexual is immoral and it is good for society to discourage it, why should we hesitate to do so just because there is not public support for limiting/prohibiting/discouraging other sins? If murder was illegal and rape was not, should we therefore legalize murder?

If we're going to base our laws on public support let's abolish taxes. Of couse that would have a disastrous effect on roads, police, firemen, and not least of all the military but what the heck I bet it would be a winner.

 

[fromtheright]

Straight and Narrow,

If we're going to base our laws on public support let's abolish taxes. Of couse that would have a disastrous effect on roads, police, firemen, and not least of all the military but what the heck I bet it would be a winner.

If you can get the public support required, go for it. This being a representative form of government, all you need to do is convince your fellow citizens and the legislature. Knock yourself out. BTW, I'm not sure that law is based on public support, but they at least in theory laws can't be passed without the public's support.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Martin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:

The question I have in this topic is: do you believe a state has the right to legislate the private sex acts of married persons?

==No. Not the federal and not the state.</font>

Exactly my point. The SCOTUS overturning of the Texas sodomy case overturned all state laws banning sodomy amongst married persons. What Christian has a problem with that? Certainly not I.