>> Name the issue, and both sides of it will  have agents who will twist whatever is handy to make it sound as if they are correct. The trick to unmasking it is to demand context.

There are 637 laws in Leviticus, having to do with everything from the acceptable length of one's hair to what fabrics one should wear to what to do to adulterers when they're caught in flagrente... not to mention the old standbys about not eating shellfish and being gay. Oh, and a few things about how to beat your slaves, if you're interested. That one is a doozy, BTW. If you beat him and he's still alive after three days, that's okay with God (check it out; it's in there, somewhere around chapter 12, IIRC -- it's been a while since seminary, but I think that's right).

Now, we could discuss context for all of them, why they would seem reasonable and right back then and ludicrous and absurd now. For example, in Leviticus it says that if a man dies, his wife must immediately marry his brother.. even if said brother is already married (Hey, what's a little polygamy when it's done in the name of the Lord?). We laugh at that now, but back then in OT times, it was a necessity to keep the family name and lineage alive. (Curiously, if a woman dies, nothing's said about that particular legal situation.) The stuff about shellfish? No doubt because so many had died from eating poorly stored shellfish. Being gay? Because the Hebrews needed a growing population, and homosexuals werent doing their part, as it were.

So context is easy, Tom. What's tougher and harder to let go of is that the context no longer applies. We now know how to store shellfish. We're not so concerned about continuing family names. And we really dont need a growing population, but somehow, out of all 637 Levitical laws, we cling to that one with a tenacity that would strike envy in a dog worrying a towel. Just. That. One.

And why? Because some guy named Paul, who had an identity crisis while on the road, decides he needs to reinforce it in his letter to the Romans. Of course, also in that letter he has some highly interesting things to say about the place of women in the church -- all of which most denominations cheerfully and willfully ignore, because they understand that Paul was of a different time and a different culture. But that doesnt stop them from saying, at the same time, "Look! See? Paul says God says being gay is a sin!"

So. Two verses out of the entire Bible, which speaks more about dietary regulations and haircuts than it does about homosexuality -- but those two verses are the only things the ever devout Christians will cling to in their desperation to keep us underfoot. And the more we point out the context in which those verses arise, the more they doggedly ignore us, then turn around and use those verses as justification for all manner of atrocities, from the legal nonsense we're seeing in California to those fun times during the Inquisition, where gay men, bound together, were used as kindling for the bonfires meant for burning witches -- hence, the charming epithet "faggot".

So there's your context, Tom. It aint pretty, and it ably demonstrates how the RR, like all the arch-conservative religious movements before it, have manipulated and used the Bible to lay claim to a type of most peculiar Christianity, one that is, more often than not, in direct antithesis to what Jesus Himself had to say about such things.

But hey, why let God's Son get in the way when you have the Truth? Or, at least, what you perceive to be the Truth.

And folks wonder why I left the Franciscan Order after two years.

So, as I wrote before, sorry, but no sympathy for those who are all concerned about the social impact of gay marriage. These are the same people who used the Bible to justify slavery and to forbid inter-racial marriage and even to deny women the simple democratic act of casting a vote. And since all those other things have now passed from acceptable society, now they feel it necessary to take care of those uppity gays by quoting scripture that -- in context -- is utterly irrelevant... just as the RR is now.

Now, with all due respect towards good Christians like Marque, sorry but no sympathy there either. No discussion of gay and lesbians is ever complete, it seems, without a handful of self-righteous "christians" telling us to just shut the f*ck up. I thank God that most honest, real Christians arent like them, but it;s sorta like the media at a Gay Pride Parade: they love those drag queens and ignore the accountants.

In other words, where does the slippery slope level out?*

I see nothing problematic in any of the situations you describe. If a man wants three wives and four husbands, what difference is it to you? What does what you think even matter? Are you partipating in this marriage? I gather not, so, to be blunt, it's none of your business, is it. If a particular state says the legal age for marriage is 14, seems to me that's a law that's been on the books for quite some time. Yes, when it was written, it had a meaningful context -- maybe not so much now, but no one's gotten around to rewriting it, which suggests the State's just fine and dandy with it. So again, what business is it of yours? Should you decide to marry your girlfriend under these circumstances, would that mean you find your own marriage less valued? Well, frankly, that's your problem, no one else's.

So to answer your question, the slope levels out when folks realize that they should not and do not control the lives and relationships of others. Just as I wouldnt dream of telling you you shouldnt marry your girlfriend, so do you not have the right to tell me I cant hitch up with Mister Right.

Or, to put it another way, I promise I wont dance uninvited at your wedding if you promise not to uninvited picket mine.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider