W,

Your being wrong headed about this. Sure DB wears his religious bias on his sleeve and sure his beliefs are contrary to the legal position but that does not mean BD should be censured for expressing his opinion.

The current law only came about because people expressed positions opposing the previous laws. By all means point out the flaws in his intolerant position; but it is fundamental to our democracy that citizens are free to question laws - not disobey them, but question and debate them.

Fortunately, for the very reasons our society has become more liberal and tolerant, we can be confident that DB and his religious kin will not succeed reversing legal progress.

DB, the bible is just a book, and the New Testament was largely compiled by the Romans for political reasons. There is wisdom in some of the dogma, but it is mixed with the prejudices and intolerance of those who wrote the passages and selectively compiled the writings which make it up. It is no basis for law.

Contrary to what W said in an earlier post, judges are required to set aside their personal prejudices and beliefs when making rulings.

DB, in your example, you would be unfit as a judge if you chose to impose your own personal beliefs ahead of the clear law. A devout Christian judge in the position of your example would still be obliged to source his decision in the law. A judges 'prime directive' is to uphold the laws of the land, as set down by Parliament. Personal beliefs might be permitted judicial expression when Parliament and the common law are silent on an issue, but this is very rare.

I agree Kalin
as I thought I said...I would need to disqualify myself from judging a case on homosexual behavior because of those biases I hold.

I don't think I want to go so far as to re-criminalize homosexual behavior, though the thought does cross my mind.

Your comment about 'invented largely by the Romans' for the New Testament.... believe it or not, that is probably the ONE take on the N.T. for which there could be said to be some slivers of suggestive evidence. I've not actually heard that one before, most people just woffle on about 'contradictions' and 'Hellenistic influence' and 'mystery religions'.

But the passages which at first site might seem to support your claim, such as Romans 13 in particular, are more an expression of Christian loyalty to the state, simply as a function of being a good citizen.
If Paul wrote it with the Authorities in mind, he would have done so because he was in fact a Roman citizen and to hopefully have something to point to in order to demonstrate loyalty to the state and avoid on-going persecution.

I'd recommend some serious reading on the major books of the N.T. ranging from the 'higher critical' to the 'conservative'.
I don't think your view has much weight in the light of the evidence.
Still, its good to get a variety of views expressed.
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
for a conservative approach.
cheers

Boaz, I had to have a bit of a think about whether it’s worthwhile responding to that juicy baited hook you dangled before my quivering whiskery nostrils the other day, but I’ve decided I can’t help myself.

I had to “wikipedia” NAMBLA to try to work out if such an organization still exists outside of the South Park episode when Cartman joins them. I was vaguely aware of them as the devil-incarnate during the seventies and eighties, but as far as I’m aware, these days they’re simply a tiny, extremely marginalised group of creepy guys in the US with a bizarre agenda and a website – a bit like NARTH, but on the other end of the extremist spectrum. To suggest they enjoy anything other than revulsion from mainstream gay rights movements is a bit like saying the Southern Baptist Convention is really a front for the Ku Klux Klan. The linking of paedophile agendas with gay rights is really a bit tiresome, and it would be offensive if it wasn’t so ludicrous. Saying if you support gay rights you’re in favour of child abuse is like saying if you’re Christian you support witch burnings or the Oklahoma bomber.

The fact is, the growing acceptance of homosexual unions between consenting adults has not been paralleled by increased tolerance of child sexual abuse. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred over the past 30 or 40 years. My guess is that child sex abuse is not only far less tolerated than previously, but is also probably much less common now, too, because of a greater awareness. This is a difficult proposition to prove, however, since sexual assault generally is massively underreported, and children abused 30 or 40 years ago were unlikely to have been believed, let alone had their complaints adequately dealt with. Fortunately this is changing, although some institutions, notably the churches, have been notoriously tardy in taking the issue seriously.

Cont below:

There’s obviously a broader debate to be had about what you call “enduring social values”, which probably belongs on a new thread. My guess is that the growing acceptance of adult homosexuality, and the taking seriously of the previously hidden problem of child abuse are part of a broader shift in the past few decades in the ways we think about sexuality. These shifts are, it’s pretty clear, of some concern to you.

I’d be happy to debate some of these issues with you (body armor optional), but I’d hope that we could keep some perspective: NAMBLA is a tiny extremist group that barely even exists any more let alone has any credibility whatsoever, and the proposed Dutch paedophile party that has so many people hot under the collar has failed (according to wikipedia) to get even the paltry 570 signatures required for its registration even in libertarian Netherlands

I don't suppose Bosie would welcome Howard's somewhat belated admission in today's news that homosexuals are systematically disadvantaged in our society, and has announced that his government will act to redress this in some areas?

Bosie,

"For example, if the issue was accomodation and a neighbour objected to a homosexual couple moving in next door, I would find in favor of the complainant."

Granted this is one of many things discussed in here and I am singling it out. Granted also that it is just one example of the things that you consider you couldn't judge fairly but...That sounds a bit steep don't you reckon?

We aren't talking about homosexual marriages or homosexual priests. We are talking about people living next door.

I invite your explanation as to how this is Christian.