[DAII]

Jason,

I have read your continued fallacious, zealous appeals and your orgasmic eisegetic frenzy where you have convinced yourself of your bigotry yet do not address fundamental errors in your thinking.

I refuse to get in a tit for tat about "promoting" sin as everyone here has acknowledged homosexuality is a sin like the scores of other sin ... and one of many of the works of the flesh that you continue to color code.

I will address some of your prooftexting of Romans 1, in a bit, as you believe it seems to exclusively be a condemnation of homosexual behavior only or primarily .... while its context in the entire chapter and in chapter 2 deals with all sin from lying to dishonoring parents ... INCLUDING SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS ... from thinking that showing kindness to being circumcised makes us right with a holy God ... culminating with the conclusion HOW WE ALL FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

In Paul's biblical treatise, not Jefferson's deist one .... he tells us NONE OF US HAVE RIGHTS BEFORE A HOLY GOD AND HIS LAWS ... not a single one ... (an equality indeed) ....other than death under the law of sin ....

our access to Him is through our justification by faith through Christ ... a major theme of his Roman letter.

But I digress ....

Here are some facts that you have failed to address, imo:

1. The authority that we use in a civil context is not the bible. It is the rule of law ... and that little thing we call the Constitution.

(Point of civic interest ... The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land ... as it is written under the rule of British monarchy and a decade and a half before the Constitutional Convention.)

Do not appeal to the rule of law, limiting the power of big gov't ... or speak of strict constructionism if you are not going to recognize its authority in this discussion as well.

Yes, murder, stealing, et al are sins but one goes to jail or is punished for breaking the law of the land ... Just as one does not go to jail for having another God other than Jehovah, practicing witchcraft, looking at adult pornography, adultery, fornication, lying or dishonoring your parents, not sharing, etc ... ALL SINS ALSO

Allowing such things is not a stamp of approval but rather a mutually agreed upon contract between citizens and gov't and a guarantee of protection.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. At this time, employers and unions should be particularly sensitive to potential discrimination or harassment against individuals who are – or are perceived to be – Muslim, Arab, Afghani, Middle Eastern or South Asian (Pakistani, Indian, etc.) ...

Did we as Christians and our gov't legitimize or promote witchcraft, Wicca, Islam, idolatry in the workplace with its passage? *gasp* All stark contrasts to the Word of God and sins before God. No, of course not, it simply protects their right to exercise their faith openly, privately, or both ... simply maintaining their right to disclose their "sinful" behavior without penalty.

Be that as it may, unless you are advocating that homosexuality be a crime as it was decades ago ... you cannot limit a homosexual access to equal rights based on their behavior, habits or lifestyle. This is the very definition of civil rights and liberties.

It is a protection not a license or a decree to flaunt. As it stands the bulk of these behaviors are to practiced out of sight, or privately ... as there are laws about nudity and copulation in public that adulterers, fornicators, and other deviants must follow.

We COLLECTIVELY "allowed" ... or in the true sense "protected" this behavior along with a slew of others like fornication, pornography, etc. civilly decades ago. Thus, I continue to believe your beef is not with a repeal of DADT.

The military in instituting DADT in the 1990's continued to bar equal access to the serve based on their legal lifestyle if they disclosed this in anyway ... and I don't mean flaunting it like a "pinup" girl in an Army barrack ... or the fellas speaking of their sexual trophies from the night before.

... the federal gov't continued in their ban to equal access just as if it had barred Wiccans from serving because of their religion (a lifestyle) but could serve as long as they didn't take out a Wiccan bible or if it had banned fornicators (part of lifestyle) from serving as long as they didn't brag about the night before.

DADT said this:

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the term commonly used for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal the sexuality of closeted homosexual or bisexual servicemembers or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibits people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." (10 U.S.C. § 654(b)) The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" (10 U.S.C. § 654(e)).