So, I’m sure many of you have heard, when laughing about some of the absurdities in the old testament, that “all that old-testament stuff was done away with by the new testament” and so forth. This is, actually, a rather silly argument considering this is where the objections to homosexuality, working on the sabbath, beating children for disobedience, and so forth stem from. It is also where the creation myths come from. Why is it it is acceptable to pick out the parts of the old testament which you agree with as “inerrant” but, in the same breath, discount dozens upon dozens of other rules within the text? Good examples are the kosher laws, sprinkling blood of a dead bird on lepers, and so forth. Should we condone killing adulterers? If you wish to be consistent, any church that claims homosexuals should be killed should likewise consider adultery punishable by death as purgery, contempt of court, blasphemy, false prophecy, worship of other deities, and so forth. Also, any attempt to include homosexual women has absolutely NO basis in the bible; it only talks about homosexual men, and we know the Christian text of choice does not consider men and women equal, so I suppose lesbians don’t even get figered licked outed discussed by this book. All joking aside, the “moral” objections to homosexual marriage is about as vacuous as the “moral” objections to sexual education, condom distribution, pornography, cracker abuse, alcoholic beverages, abortion, ham sandwiches, anal sex, violence in video games (but you can have violence in the bible, god guy says that violence is perfectly OK!).