Well, I think this is a great thing. Much like the people during the civil rights era who had nebulous "societal concerns" and "states rights" objections that was mearly cover for their own racial bigotry, all these slippery slope arguments seem to coincidentally come from people who have strong religious views against homosexuality to begin with. I wonder if there's a connection ?
The California State Constitution bans discrimination based on sexual orientation
But didn't Califonia citizens overwhelmingly vote to define marriage as an institution only between a man a woman, rem? Or does that resolution not carry the same weight as the explicit non discrimination declaration in the Constitution?
logansrun, I'll have to disagree with you on the point of a Christain having to be against homosexuality. Since when has a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible been an absolute requirement for accepting it, except by those who happen to be fundamentalist themselves? If a person believes that there's some kind of nebulous spirituality to be found in the bible, or they feel that broad principles and not super literal stories are to be found in the book, what is intrinsically wrong with that? Liberal interpretations of the bible have always been found in the history of Christainity, but obviously more fundamentalist interpretations have been more dominant in its history. But even fundamentalist interpretations are just that; interpretations. They may be justifiable interpretations, but so are the liberal ones. (Hell, the only real problem I have is when the liberal interpretors try to play as if a conservative and backward interpretation of a religion is not possible. So when some western Muslim apologist tries to pass off Islam as some super-feminist religion, I'm not necessarily apt to ridicule that assessment, but I mearly object to them saying that a female repressive interpretation of Islamic text is all wrong, when clearly such an interpretation of Islamic text is quite legitimate, if not more legitimate that the pro-feminist one. More useful would be to promote the seperation of mosque and state and make societial decisions on more clear headed secular ideals than on the whim of religious interpretation).
I myself happen to share your view on the bible being purely man made with no more value than the next man made religious book, but I just see no reason to delegitimize liberal christainity as inferior to the conservative form.
