[OBW]

For me, the issue with moral standards is that, like the command to husbands is to husbands, and the one to wives is to wives, the Christian moral standard as a command is to me, not you (generically). But that does not mean that there are not rational arguments for those moral standards that do not require "God said so" to sway those who do not believe.

What I see in Peter's arguments is a position to refrain from using a sort of "just because" argument by invoking God and religion. There are arguments that can be made for many positions without it and they are more likely to sway those who otherwise will cease to even listen if God is invoked. If the goal is to improve the standards of society, PO-ing the unbelievers is not a good way to get them to listen and consider.

Of course, this methodology will not likely do much about the homosexuality issue. But the homosexual and the heterosexual are both in a pickle if they do not believe in and follow Christ. Seems that the real issue is following Christ. I would rather that the efforts at preaching the gospel not be clouded, or even drowned out, by those who are already chastised and dismissed by those whose charge was to love them.

The problem is not that I and others would not prefer a more moral society. But the process of insisting on it in the manner that trying to criminalize personal sin does stomps on our first priority as citizens of the kingdom. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Or does this say something about how little we love ourselves?

And coupled with so much of this is more and more "conservative" politics treated as if it is the very mind of God. So many are certain that God would always vote Republican. I generally do (vote, not think that God would). But I'm not so sure about God. I know many of his people that do not and I don't doubt their faith, honesty, or sincerity.

But I do not deny those of faith the privilege of trying to influence the political realm. But if they speak as if their position is God's leading and I don't agree, then is God speaking, or is God being slandered? I can't say because I don't know his mind on the subject. But I'm fairly sure that taking the "God is on my side" position flies in the face of any claim of "love your neighbor." And for the rest of us, even if we disagree with that particular position, it has placed roadblocks on our testimony.

Yes, it is everyone's right (according to American law) to do as they please. But is it expedient? Maybe this is a little like some of those freedoms that Paul admits we have but would probably be better off refraining from.