The Unreliability of Human Interpretation

The harsh truth about humans is, we can't be trusted. Our interpretations and judgment are simply unreliable. Everybody believes something different, so, left to our own biases, we interpret absolute truth in just the right way so that it backs us up in our beliefs.
And that is precisely why individual interpretation of law results in argument and chaotic relativism; and, if law becomes relative, what purpose does it serve? Is not the very nature of law absolute? For all people? If it is relative to the individual, why should it even exist? What purpose does it serve?
If individuals are free to interpret law however they please, how can society be expected to come to a consensus on what a certain law even means? And if we can't come to a consensus on what it means, it becomes relative to the individual's desires, thus cancelling itself out. In other words, it loses its power; its effectiveness, to human interpretation. We cannot be trusted to interpret the law. By its very nature, it is absolute, and our interpretation of it makes in relative to the individual.

Who Creates Laws?

While atheistic worldviews tend to hold the belief that laws have evolved/been created by societies over time, theistic worldviews see most laws as evidence of a universal "moral code" inscribed in every individual by God. For instance, in how many cultures of the world is it legal to steal and murder? These are universally recognized acts of injustice. But, the question I would like to ask people who believe the principle of law is an evolving product of society, is, who defines this idea of "injustice/justice?" If laws are evolving with society, why have these principle laws remained more or less the same throughout human history? If our definition of justice, freedom, and love are products of our society, why has the way in which humanity defines these virtues remained the same throughout all cultures in human history? The only logical conclusion I see is that these laws have been placed within the fiber of man's being by a Creator.
Secondly, if man's character is essentially good, and society is the source of the world's evil, does it not follow that, if we eliminated all social constructs, like, laws, man should then produce only good fruits? If man is good and society is evil, shouldn't a lawless, shapeless society be the best one? Yet history has proven time and time again that both individuals and groups of people without laws resort to some of the most evil behavior humanity has seen! Lawlessness produces chaos, not order. Thus, we must conclude that mankind is fallen (essentially bad without guidance) and needs the order of law, which testifies to the inscription of the tendency toward basic law in man's nature.

What is the Christian View of Femininity?

Amidst a society that puts feminine and masculine traits in clearly defined and separated camps and places unbearable pressure upon girls (and boys) to live up to unachievable standards, it is important to ask-- What does the Bible (and thus the Christian worldview) have to say about femininity? In terms of character/personality, what makes a girl, a girl? In order to answer this question, we must first abandon the preconceived notions we get from the Western social norm, and then look at Genises 2-3. In Genises 2 when Eve is described as Adam's "helper," this word can also be interpreted "completer," "warrior," or "rescuer." We see this role fulfilled in universal femininity (or rather, femininity that is not culture-specific). By generally being more compassionate, emotional, and relational than men, they complete the image of God as displayed in mankind; for men generally embody the justice and strength of God. Also, women are generally "warriors" for their families, especially children. No one would ever dare get between a mother bear and her cub-- similarly, a woman tends to fight for her children.
In Genesis 3, we see the post-fall effects on femininity when, in verse 16, God says, "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To this day, we see that, in marriage it is much easier for a wife to love her husband, and treat him with love, because of this curse at the fall of man, which made a woman's "desire for [her] husband." This desire makes women vulnerable to men-- they "rule" over women in the sense that relationships are often the source of both a woman's greatest pleasure and greatest pain, again, because a woman's desire is for her man. :) It is interesting that the curse at the fall of man takes the woman's tendencies toward relationship and channels them toward an undying desire for her husband that makes her vulnerable.
Through Genesis 2-3, we see that femininity has nothing to do with long eyelashes, painted nails, and high-heels. Femininity is a type of character found only in women that completes mankind's representation of God's image through its relational and compassionate tendencies.

Sexist? Homophobic?

The Bible does not teach either homophobia or sexism. Genesis 1-3, essentially the basis of Biblical sociology, defines the specific roles of each gender, while giving them equal favor with God, equal intrinsic importance, and equal amount of responsability in this world. The relationship of Adam and Eve exemplifies how, even though men and women equally represent the image of God, and hold equal importance, they have different roles. While the man takes on a leadership role in the marriage and is held accountable for failures and successes, the woman is the life-giver, relationship preserver, and completer of the family. While society seems to argue that the man's "Sumerian Little King" role places him above women in a hierarchy, the Bible's depiction of the male-female relationship indicates that man and woman complete each other-- thus, they are equals.
Also, in response to allegations that the Bible favors homophobia, it is important to look at the person of Jesus. Jesus ate with and had fellowship with the people that the religiously legalistic shunned. In our society today, homosexuals fit into this category of people whose lifestyles don't coincide with the religiously strict's lifestyle, right? ...so basically, by looking at how Jesus treated those who were outcast from the religious scene, we see that he does not respond with "fear" (the translation of the root "phobia") to these people-- rather he responds with acceptance and love. He accepts and loves the PEOPLE, but never accepts a lifestyle that does not correlate with or parallel the life of God, and God's morals. Through this example, we see that just because Christians think the practice of homosexuality is sexually immoral (just like premarital sex or adultery), does not mean they are afraid of or prejudiced against homosexuals. The Bible, which instead preaches Christ-like, self-sacrificing love for all people, does not provide ANY basis for prejudice of any kind, such as homophobia or sexism.