If one’s interpretation of scripture has been a poor guide in the past for some laws, does that mean, therefore, that scripture is a poor guide for all law?
That’s not the reason, but scripture is a poor guide for laws now, just because that’s not the purpose of scripture. It’s not intended to be a guide for modern lawmaking, but a guide for religious faith and worship. Let scripture guide you spiritually and keep it out of the secular governmental arena where it’s not intended to be and is not really welcome.
(Do Latter-day Saints just have to keep there mouths shut about SSM in the public arena because we rely on more than just the Bible?)
No. Why would they?
No one said old things are automatically foolish, but neither are they automatically ethical or virtuaous. Slavery is a good example, as is the example of women as chattel. A long-standing tradition may be either good or evil. the fact that it is old is evidence of nothing. You and others keep wanting to make long-standing tradition count for some automatic virtue: e.g.; you say:
longstanding precedent is an indicator of moral & ethical validity – not a foolproof guarantee – but an indicator.
But it’s not. It’s an indicator of nothing except that it’s been around a long time.
For thinkers who advocated same-sex relationships, you might want to look at Plato and Plutarch, among others.]]>
The ancient holy books define marriage in the same way as most stable societies have through thousands of years of history.
The religious argument also includes the weight of the world’s history.
This kind of argument could have been (and was) used in the defense of slavery, which both the Old and New Testaments presuppose as acceptable. Longstanding precedent is no indicator of moral or ethical validity––it wasn’t before 1 January 1863 (in the US), and it isn’t today.]]>
You are now trying to tie the religious argument to a historical one, which is pretty much the same thing Tom Owens was saying. That argument has some merit, and it’s true that conservatives are generally reluctant to discard long traditions in favor of new approaches, but as I said before, history by itself is not a very good reason for doing anything.
Justice trumps history. If we are being unfair to one part of society and our reason for doing so is only “that’s the way we’ve always done it” then history loses every time.]]>