Replies

It lays out the two sides of the argument and doesn't champion either. I am not familiar with the Bible "chapter & verse" and have oftened wondered where the homsexual activists found support.

Well, the second sentence explains the sentiment of the first. Just by laying things out as pro and con and in the end talking about how hard and tricky it is to decide when different people interpret the same thing in two different ways, the author has already accorded the pro-homosexual side a great deal of legitimacy in this matter that it has never had. Such a structuring of the "argument" is due either to ignorance or deviousness. Neither is a good thing.

But you're correct in stating that the pro-homosexual position has very flimsy support when trying to use scripture. On the one hand, it has to beg the question to make what it calls pro-homosexual verses support its position and, on the other, it has to explain away clear, unambiguous language that undercuts it or engage in fallacies such as the shrimp equivalency ploy alluded to above ("G-d abominates the eating of shrimp. G-d abominates homosexual behavior. Eating shrimp is no big deal. Therefore, homosexuality is no big deal either. Either that, or G-d's a real dork for making the eating of shrimp a bad thing.")

"...the author has already accorded the pro-homosexual side a great deal of legitimacy in this matter that it has never had."

Well, I see what you mean, but I don't think you can really pin it on this author. Its obvious some of these arguments have found favor among many Bible-savy Christians who should know better. This author is just some person writing for the BBC, the Episcopal church is about to fall apart over that horrid man, Robinson. So there's some legitimacy (however illegitimate) that's been granted heretofore.

I'm not really sure what to think about the shrimp, but I do remember Dr. Laura saying how very, very many of the commandments (after the top several) are about how to treat your livestock, or somesuch.

In all reality I feel the way I do about homosexuality for the same reasons I feel the way I do about abortion. I think both go against nature. I have no reason to doubt I would feel the same way about these issues even if I were a stone-cold Atheist. And my much beloved brother was a homosexual, who died of AIDS, so it's not in unfamiliarity that I form my conclusions.

What is MOST annoying, however, are the people who cite what they like, from the Bible - or wherever - when it suits their agenda, and then ignore that source otherwise. I don't think you can find ANY shred of support for abortion in the Bible, so maybe Rev. Robinson, et al. should be challenged on that point.