When I said “ostensibly” I meant that not everyone realizes that the laws laid out for the Jews in the wilderness do apply to all people, though some are more applicable than others (most Christians do not maintain a Kosher diet, nor do they seem to be required to, as evidenced by Peter’s dream of the great net).
Yes, liberals in general discount the authority of the Bible, but in this case, I’m wondering (mostly rhetorically) how a gay “church” can legitimately claim to teach the Bible. They can’t outright discount the authority of the Bible, or they wouldn’t bother showing up. They must, then, discount only some sections. But how to determine which ones? If some parts don’t apply, might other parts also not apply, and if so, where is the line drawn? Just as God created people with homosexual tendencies, He also created people with sociopathic tendencies. Are we then to permit those people to exercise their proclivities because who are we to judge their lifestyles?
John (1J2) and James (4:4) were pretty clear on man’s attempt to be friends of the world and children of God.
This is what they’re doing.
My own view is that the moral laws apply, but the ritual ones do not.