[Florida Court: Apropos of the below discussion, see this discussion of a state judge holding Florida's outlier broad ban on same sex individuals adopting (foster care is acceptable) is unconstitutional. The citation of the facts in the ruling is particularly touching as is focus on the rights of the children.
I'm unclear, however, why this is not a "fundamental rights" case given family life is involved. As to equal protection, state precedent bars a higher test than rational basis. The judge appears to reference the federal ruling (also arguing the last five years brought more clarity in research supporting such adoptions) on the matter, but privacy is protected under the state constitution too.]
There was one bit in Bart Ehrman's book that bothered me, that is, not directly related to the subject matter at hand. It is an example of stretching to make a problem easier than it really is, and is also see in the new Prop 8 musical (see mention of shrimp). To wit:
No special emphasis is placed on one of these laws over the others -- they are all part of the biblical law. Yet, in parts of society, gay relations are condemned, while eating a ham sandwich during lunch break on a Saturday workday is perfectly acceptable.
Or, as Jesus (Jack Black) says in the musical -- they pick and choose. Sure enough. But, sexual roles are different. Citation of the Old Testament is hazardous, no matter what you are talking about in the realm of morals, since mosaic law is chock full with such things. OTOH, the New Testament makes it clear that a follower of Christ need not follow mosaic law. You need not "pick and choose" to eat that ham sandwich. And, putting aside the new focus on Sunday (when he rose from the dead), Jesus was all for supporting the spirit of the law. Honor thy Sabbath Day comes in many forms, including some that involved work.
Ehrman knows better than focusing on this lame strand. Acts goes out of its way to have Peter eat with "unclean" sorts to underline the point. Paul was truly passionate on the point -- to be saved, you had to accept Christ died on the cross for our sins. His main audience was Gentiles, so had a reason to be firm on not needing to follow mosaic law to be saved. Jesus focused on the spirit of such laws; Paul went much further. In fact, it is somewhat dubious that Paul accepted the compromise that Acts 15 held was decided upon between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and even then, its nod to dietary laws (food with blood or that was strangled -- not "unclean" animals per se) was later interpreted broadly to mean a ban on murder. The laws of Exodus were not necessary.
Acts 15 did set forth a few guidelines. First, idolatry is covered, including food sacrificed to them. Well, this involves one of the Ten Commandments, so is no surprise. Let's say some sort of kosher animal treatment provision was also involved here. Again, this could include ham, just via pigs killed in a certain way. [A literal reading would allow shrimp, since it has no blood!] So, even putting aside later interpretations as post hoc rationalizations, this was a narrow provision vis-a-vis the Old Testament. Finally, "unchastity" is also banned. Paul, who if anything would think this list too broad, also dealt with sexual morality.
Surely, such matters are not the main point of the NT. In fact, the meaning of Jesus' death and Resurrection as well as things like the brotherhood of man (and other good stuff, which is sometimes selectively deemed "Christian" behavior) is much more important. So, emphasis on homosexuals even in this context is myopic. Likewise, "unchastity" and sexual morality is about a lot more than homosexuality. For instance, Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality, but did broadly (except perhaps for immorality, see Matthew) say divorce was wrong. And, Paul lists many immoral sexual practices, while "unnatural" sexual behaviors included old fashioned sex rules (e.g., women speaking out in church) that is generally seen as outdated, even by homophobes. This is important to underline.
But, the New Testament does touch upon sexual morality, including in the discussion that specifically lists the bare requirements of a moral Christian. It explicitly, except perhaps in a mild way, does not mandate mosaic dietary practices. We "pick and choose" by making same sex behavior as patently immoral as compared to divorce or fornication. And, certain rules in Pauline letters (albeit most probably not written by "Paul" himself) would be violated even by the role women are allowed by the Catholic Church.
So, a more careful application of the general point can be made. Just not a sloppy one.