The Bible makes it clear that slavery is a morally permissible, occasionally commanded by God, act so long as it exists within the bounds of proper slave practice. If you want to call that neutrality, go for it.
The OT may so do. The NT does not.
It agrees with the position I expressed in the post I am quoting. The United States, unfortunately, contravenes this Biblical position and outlaws it. Religious righters are really dropping the ball by not fighting the 13th amendment.
This sophistry is actually worthy of Darth J. U.S. law and moral views do not contravene "the biblical position" as the OT law and society was fulfilled and done away in Christ. That was, indeed, a harsh law for a harsh and barbaric people the Lord was trying to forge and purge so that it could move beyond that level. The "biblical position" with which modern Christians are concerned is the NT position, which takes no position on slavery at all, but simply accepts it as part of the sociocultural milieu within which it finds itself (as it accepts Roman occupation and thoroughly non-democratic political rule) and attempts to function within those constraints and under those conditions.
To spend so much time and effort on the issue of homosexuals is highly disproportionate to their alleged basis for thinking what they do and often consistent. As Savage says, they should just move on as religious people have been able to do on many other subjects like slavery. Happily, that's exactly what's happening.
The only folks obsessed with homosexuality, and with sex qua
sex, is the secular/humanist Left. Without the sexual revolution of the sixties and the totemization of human sexuality, in endless variety (the noble and lofty polymorphous perversity) as the sine qua non
of human existence, we wouldn't be having this conservation at all.
He's an advice columnist who spends his entire profession thinking about right and wrong behavior and offering advice on it.
He's an intellectual thug. Go back and watch the video, or check out Youtube for some more of his stuff. This guy is the homosexual activist version of Bill Maher, albeit with an even coarser and more intellectually deteriorated approach to public discourse (or perhaps this could be seen as a kind of intellectual Andrew Dice Clayism?)
You just call any moral position you disagree with "relativism."
No, I call relativism relativism when I see it. This is a specific philosophical position, and either developed and explicit or rudimentary and emotionally based as the case may be, and historically has at least several major variations on the central theme
He's also done far more good for the world than you could hope to.
Poor little secular lefties and atheist libertarian immoralists. Always a bridesmaid but never a bride.