May ruffle some feathers, but very funny!
 

Regardless of your personal beliefs, you gotta appreciate this guys style.

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her Radio show. On her radio show recently, she
said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an
abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under
any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura,
penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.
*****************************************
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price
for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan

Don

That's outstanding. I happen to be a Christian, and I could make serious replies to this one, but nobody would read them anyway, so instead I'll just laugh. :) Good stuff.

Dan

Its easy to answer as a Christian. It would be much harder for an Orthodox Jew.

Brilliant.

Good point Cam, didn't really think of that.

well, you know what Dr. Laura sez...

"love the sin, hate the sinner."

love the hater, not the player. no, I mean hate the lover, not the... no wait, play the hater, not the... oh hell, now you got me all screwed up

Someone emailed me that a short while ago, it's hilarious. Just shows that while the Bible is a wonderful document and everything, "wiggle room" is an important concept to keep in mind w/ it. :D

Careful, Speeder -- if too many people try to make serious inferences from this one, I may be forced to draft up a thesis on The Law fer ya'll. :) Cam, you make a great point. It's a lot easier to answer this one as a Christian. I did have a serious Jewish friend once who answered the sacrifices one, but I don't remember what he said. <smirk> That helps a lot ... FWIW, there are some groups of Jews still today that do their best to live according to The Law, including not boiling a kid in it's mother's milk (kid goat, that is), burning mildewed houses, and not putting cream in their coffee (mixing milk and meat, technically). Maybe that's why the Palestinians are really so upset? Perhaps they could peacefully coexist with Jews if they could only put milk in their coffee, or have cheese on their hamburgers? :)

Dan

What about the hole in the sheet law?

LOL, good stuff.

Hey Lendaddy,

I think this is outside the lines. Orthodox Jews DO adhere to those principles, all 613 of them set forth in the Torah. There is an entire body of interpretation and scholarship surrounding exactly HOW those things are applied to living in the modern world. And they take it extremely seriously-- for example, if you look inside a coat it will say something like "Shanetz Free" which means there's no mix of linen and cotton. There's an interpretation that says that using an electric razor is more closely akin to scissors than using a straight razor, which is helpful in following the rule about shaving. The extent of their efforts to keep the Sabbath is truly incredible. The kosher laws say that any fish with fins and scales is OK, but crab meat ain't. Ask anyone in the orthodox community and they will be familiar with those rules, because they live by them on a daily basis.

Anyway, for those that don't subscribe to the New Testament the principles written above are considered to be inflexible. They are subject to rabbinical interpretation, but they are very rigid.

Where it really gets interesting is the body of interpretation of religious law, that goes back thousands of years, that looks at the cases "at the margin," e.g. what do you do if you have a saucepan full of milk that you are heating up and a piece of meat inadvertently falls in it? Can you retrieve the meat and still use the milk? Any Talmudic scholars on the BBS? (I think the answer is that if the meat is less than 1/60 the volume of the milk you can but don't quote me!)

Anyway, I can understand why some participant in the highly topical debate over homosexuality would challenge the old testament. But there are hundreds of thousands of people who adhere to these principles daily.

The reason I know all this is because I used to work in Detroit with a group of orthodox folks. I'm not Jewish, so it was a real eye-opener for me. And until I had that experience, I never really understood the concept of separation of church and state, or really understood the meaning of religious tolerance. Every time some politician in the bible belt tries to advocate for prayer in school, I think of those guys, and how troublesome it would be for people of Christian background to have the Old Testament incorporated into the educational routine. . .

So while I certainly agree with you that the attached stimulates controversy I do think it could be construed by some as making light of their religious principles. I wouldn't be too happy if somebody started ripping on transubstantiation or communion in this forum, for that matter.

My .02!

John,

If it bothers you I apologize. I have nothing but respect for the Jewish people. I did not write it, but I did laugh. I appreciate the humorous style of the writing, thats all. I don't think it's degrading to the religion, but I respect your opinion.

Or the new "hole in the pillowcase" scenario enjoying new popularity since the Monica Lewinski days.

Good reading:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/403a.htm

You've touched on one of the inherent problems with religions in general, and this is one of the many reasons I'm not a religious person. The extreme positions in any faith are (virtually without exception) ridiculous, however it is these same extremes that in another way add "validity" to the religion, otherwise it is perceived as weak-kneed and not having what some would call "credibility". A religion has to take contriversial stances and meet a certain level of "difficulty" in order to not be seen as "fly by night", "wishy-washy", unfounded faith. Morality isn't supposed to be easy and isn't "supposed" to take a back seat to contemporary convenience if it is to be viewed as "credible" by its followers, so religions have to try and walk the knife edge between being too contemporary / accomodating and too conservative. It seems that this balance is really just a "slippery slope" and that it basically can't be done from a logic standpoint.

Here's an example: take the Catholic church's view on birth control. This is (particularly in our overpopulated society) what most people would agree is a ridiculous position. It makes no sense in contemporary society (Monty Python satarized this brilliantly with their piece "every sperm is sacred") given our population, lifestyles, etc. The history of this position stems back to medeival times when it was used to (1) ensure that there would always be adequate numbers of "the faithful" (the successful survival of communities was much less assured then than today with things like disease, war, famine, etc.), (2) help with the problem of unwanted children, (3) provide another means / incentive for people to repress their sexuality (seen as the root cause behind a host of other problems like infidelity (adultery), illegitimate children, divorce, weakened family units / structure, etc.) You get the point.

NOW (in the context of modern society) this places the Church in a precarious position: if it "admits" the ridiculousness of their position, it undermines the "credibility" of the religion - i.e. they've "flip-flopped"; it CERTAINLY undermines the notion of papal infallability. If it continues defending the position, the religion risks being perceived "outdated", "out of touch", etc. This is one of literally hundreds of examples of the ridiculousness of "fundimentalist" positions (regardless of faith) that are inherently flawed, but the odd part of it is that the same fundimentalist positions are necessary to give "fundimentals" to the particular belief system, although it is virtually NEVER defensable via logic.

"Organized" religion has yet to adequately address this fundimental flaw about the role of fundimentalism and what its "role" should be.

Porsche-o-Phile,

I think that is EXTREMELY well put. Bravo. (I'm serious)

Where I have historically had a hard time is with the whole "Logic" thing. When you try to get into the REASON why milk and meat together is a bad thing, and think about bacteria growth in the times before refrigeration, this gets you into the area of RATIONALIZING the commandments of the Almighty. Ask a theological scholar and they'll tell you that although there may be good logical principles that are coincident with the rule, that's not why the rule's there, it's because the rule is the commandment of G_d. This tends to deter people from engineering workarounds to the rule and maintains the hard-line of "credibility" that you talk about.

You hit another good point which is the importance of MODERATION of the viewpoint. Isn't the entire concept of justification by faith based on Martin Luther's examination of the life of St. Augustine, from which he concluded that it just wasn't practical for salvation to be based on behavior alone, but belief? Isn't it easier to attract subscribers to a particular viewpoint if it doesn't require enormous self-sacrifice to join?

I'll say this for ritual, though: it tends to be a daily "reminder" of religious principles vs. once a week or twice a year.

And finally, what about political loyalty to somebody outside the country? The entire history of Europe from 1521 to the present can be understood in the context of the struggle for loyalty to the Vatican vs. loyalty at home. To the extent that external loyalty is threatening to the State, is it any wonder that there was an English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell and the IRA?

Very interesting.

Personally my opinion of these things is that these laws were written to help preserve the health and well being of people in that time.

When you look at many of these writings, and consider them in the context of B.C. man, many make a lot of sense. A considerable number were focused around general cleanliness, health, etc... WHile others are a bit confusing and seem somewhat arbitrary.

While there are those that feel you should not pick and choose what you take from the Bible, I think it's important to keep in mind the intent of it's writing, and this, frankly, is what it's all about. REligion is personal and therefore subject to personal understanding.

I understand these "rules" to be more geared towards early people... That the intent of the Bible and Christianity in general was respect towards God and fellow man, etc... ...and personally don't think God has any issues with me eating Shrimp Scampi, why would he?

Porsche-O-Phile

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/clap.gif

Re: May ruffle some feathers, but very funny!
 

Pretty good. I'm always appreciative of someone who can take an absurd, baseless argument, and magnify it's absurdity.

I think this guy did at least a 10x magnification.

OTOH. . ."ruffle some feathers" !? I thought sex with a rooster would fall into the "bestiality" catagory.

Is bestiality an abomination, according to Leviticus?

Clearly, if it is, bestiality too must be embraced and accepted, as has homosexuallity. That is, since Leviticus says some absurd stuff, ALL what it says MUST be absurd. :rolleyes:

(read: who knows, maybe even Leviticus could find a nut every once in while)

The origin of many religious edicts are often forgotten or misinterpreted. A catholic friend of mine told me that priests used to be able to marry, but in the 13 or 1400's they banned the practice not just for the stated reasons of focusing on God, but because when many married priests died, their wives tended to comingle church and private assets

Re: Re: Re: May ruffle some feathers, but very funny!
 

Probably more like a "natural variation", like left handedness and a million other congenital variations that our species represents. A "defect" implies an alteration that reduces viability of the affected individual. No such claim can be made of homosexuality. Biologically, homosexuality is a normal variation.

All modern research supports your suggestion that most male gays are homosexual from birth, if not conception. The same models do not support that hypothesis with lesbians. Different story there. Most lesbians report an unfortunate history of an abusive relationship with men, either sexual or emotional.

Yep, got to agree with moses a "natural variation" . . .naturally, unnatural.

Though I disagree that homosexuality is a condition. . .seems more of a choice.
yeah yeah, i'm ducking for all of the "do you really think anyone would choose this hell!? -types.
For those, people I'll ask, If you vote, and choose Bush or Kerry . .. are you making a good choice. . .or is either choice, rather hellish?

The point being, I know some men who would choose the problems associated with a homosexual lifestyle rather than "sell-out" their mother. . .. you know, that horrid thing that some men do, when they find a replacement woman/mother called a wife. (how could they?:mad: ) :rolleyes:

There are of course, many other tough choices. The opposite sex can be scary (venus/mars), for example.

At anyrate, whom (or what) people have sex with is kind of interesting. How people try to legitimize it is really something.

Homosexuality exists. It doesn't matter WHY it exists as far as is relevant to the intersection of homosexuality and politics.

The following is not intended as a "bait," just an open invitation to be enlightened: Consider what we know about natural selection. If an individual expresses a genetic trait that for whatever reason ends up diminishing the likelihood that that individual will reproduce sexually, then you have the basis for the elimination of that trait over time.

Imagine for a moment the gazelle herds in the African veldt. The "selecting environment" is the presence of predators. Suppose that along the evolutionary path, a gazelle develops a mutation that allows her to run faster than the other gazelles. Barring her catastrophic death by other factors, it's more likely that her genes, including the mutation for speed, will work their way into the next generation, perpetuating the characteristic.

Now consider another mutation that occurs, except this time, the mutation diminishes the reproductive drive of the gazelle. She doesn't reproduce. The trait dies out.

Can someone explain to me how, if homosexuality is a genetically passed on characteristic, it can continue to exist?

And don't start calling me a homophobe, narrow-minded or whatever: I am genuinely interested to know how it can continue to exist in the context of accepted theories of natural selection.

The answer is not simple. First, congenital conditions are not all genetic in origin. They may be due to hormonal influence or due to a multitude of factors, all biological. Second, deleterious genetic traits are rarely eliminated from the gene pool. We still have Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia and a million other genetic disorders.

What I have gathered from modern research is that male homosexuality is probably multifactorial. A combination of factors interplay with a defined result. Male homosexuals are probably predetermined to be homosexual. It is completely normal for them. The primary point I think is that it does not appear to be a choice any more than my heterosexuality. And it's certainly not a disorder.

"does not appear to be a choice" eh moses? So what about pedophiles? . .. adult who are sexually attracted to children; is this a genetic condition from birth?

What about foot fetishes? Bestiality? . . .. Some get turned-on by latex. . . is there a latex attraction gene? What did the latex-genetics do for fun before latex was invented.

Point being, I dont think you can just say; "it does not appear to be a choice" without considering it just may be a choice.

I agree that it's not simple. I agree also that conditions like CF, Tay-Sachs and Sickle-Cell anemia do continue to exist: natural selection would imply that to the extent those things have a morbidity effect which would tend to diminish the population over time. E.g. a child stricken with Tay-Sachs disease before sexual maturity won't reproduce and that particular trait ends there. The point about homosexuality is that no morbidity effect is necessary to get you to the endpoint of not reproducing: favoring the same sex IS the endpoint.

Science will probably never know.

Choice is something of a loaded term. I can understand why people would want to suggest that homosexuality is genetic: if you can CHOOSE your sexuality then you are RESPONSIBLE for your sexuality, whereas if you were "born that way" you are divested of having made a volitional choice. Semantics aside I'm more persuaded by the hormonal and environmental explanation.

Again, not that the origin is relevant to the policy discussion (but I said that above.)

By the same token, do you consider your heterosexuality to be a choice Island?

All right Island, we were having a reasonable discussion there for a minute and you bring up the foot-fetish! Moses' point is that other factors besides genetic ones may contribute to sexuality as being beyond the conscious control of the individual, whether s(he) acts on it or not! The fact that a man may CHOOSE to engage in homosexual activity does not necessarily mean that he prefers the same gender (post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy)

As punishment for bringing up latex I prescribe you the following homework for the weekend: Lawrence v. Texas

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

Interesting point about pedophilia. I don't know. No research done that I'm aware of.

There have even been suggestions that sociopathy is congenital. Hard to know. Not much research. Remember the XYY "supermale" story? XYY males have a higher rate of violent crime commission, but not all XYY males are violent. It's a complex world.

Tshabet - what took so long for that question?:rolleyes:

Yes, absolutly. . . wouldn't I have to?

Early on, somewhere around the time of "girl-germs" (and all) we all start entertaining ideas of of this thing called sex.
I saw some guys decided "girl-germs" were just too scary, and the strong understandings they had, were established with other guys . . .. just too much to dismiss. (the 'stick to what you know' idea) While others decided they would look in to what seemed at the time, a very strange norm.

Tell me you don't remember the first time you thought, 'you're suppossed to put what, where!? . . . on purpose!?. . . for fun!?'

Re: Re: Re: May ruffle some feathers, but very funny!
 

everyone knows that god loves lesbians

are you guys getting cold feet on this topic? :cool:
or are ya still pondering? . . driving home?. . .driving to a gay bar? :D

hmmm. . .homosexual activity vs homosexual being. You wouldn't be trying to pull a little equivocation out of a hat, would ya? ;)

'Sexual activity with another of the same sex' is certainly not the same as 'Sexual activity with another exclusively of the same sex.'

We have a word for those whom are not too particular about where they get some; bisexual.

I find it interesting, that when it comes to sexual preference, how strongly some demand that they were "born that way."

Many hetero's cling to the "born that way" in a latent homophobic knee-jerk reaction.
Many homo's cling to the "born that way" in a "you must accept me" knee-jerk reaction.

whaddaya gunna do?:cool:

I really don't know why this issue gets people so unsettled. I have lots of gay colleagues. Some are good friends. I'm married with three kids. Never had a guy at work hit on me or make me feel uncomfortable. (Could be I'm not very good looking!) Anyway, in my life it's just a great big so what? Why is it a big issue for heterosexuals? Maybe my experience isn't typical.

I don't think the majority "choose" though I am posative many do, I couldn't care less. Why is it a big deal to so many? I think it must be a religion thing. I have personally posatively impacted several homophobes with my reasoning, they just don't know. Time will continue to make this less of a "deal". To stir the pot a little, I think they could better their own cause by turning down the flames a little:) It's the scared little bunny theory.

Maybe because the whole "marriage/commitment usurping status" thing. per JC "intersection of homosexuality and politics."

We know that polygamy (or just plain hoarding the women) leads to fighting and wars.
Having gangs of guys going around raping wasn't so peaceful either.

So, way back, society (stemming from "the church" since it was the power at the time) decided to help those, man/woman (venus/mars) type commitments. The church and society gave an elevated social status to those brave enough to commit to pairing . .. .pairing with the intent of choosing one to share sex, and it's results. (offspring)

The guys out in the fields loving their sheep, or other field workers, where seen as not too, eh-em. . . productive.

Now, at this time in history, we have homosexuals Demanding for the same elevated social status, as the brave venus/mars couples struggling to transform their snot-nosed off-spring into a happy, balanced, productive person. A tough job when you have homosexuals justifying there choice, thru recruitment saying "see, even the law says it's okay." (talk about long sentances - sorry)

So, those of you with kids; do you want you children potentially lobbied by homosexuals? It really is the same question as; do you want your kids to have no offspirng of their own?

Sure its no big deal for those other people. ;)

Island, I see your point and I should clarify. I think homosexuals should just accept that they are different, hence life will be a little less easy. Hell, there are all kinds of traits people have that stack the cards against them in one way or another, thats life. I am speaking legally here not person to person civilness.

So what really IS the role of marrage in contemporary society then? My wife and I got married because we happened to love each other and it seemed like the sensible place for our relationship to go. We have no kids and are not planning on any either - so under the system described should we also be "excluded" from the "normal" group and from joining in this institution just because we don't feel like having children? Ridiculous IMO.

Upon reflection, the reasons for our decision seem more societal (epigenetic), not purely genetic (i.e. we don't want to deal with the expense, inconvenience, being kept up all night, etc.) There is also a little bit of the "why the heck would I bring a child into this screwed-up world" as well, but these are all social, rather than genetic factors. Might the same thing be said about a homosexual lifestyle (at least in some cases)?

OK thinkers, let's get thinkin!

Here's the issue from a constitutional perspective.

One of the predecessor cases leading up to Roe v. Wade involved whether or not it was constitutional to prohibit the USE of birth control. Prohibition on sale, etc., was a much more black-and-white issue, but it came down to the question of whether or not the court wanted to encourage enforcement of a law that by its very nature would require enforcement activity that extended into THE BEDROOM. Basically, the court said, "The bedroom is a zone of personal privacy, what you do there is entirely your business.

Now, let's roll forward to Island's homework assignment, Lawrence. The majority struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law and overturned its own ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick saying:

Justice Scalia, in a dissenting opinion (with Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist), said:


So there you have it: the court has thrown the door open. What will be next?

The law was never intended to represent the ceiling for moral behavior, only the floor, below which if an individual sunk s(he) would be subject to penalties to get back in line. The question now becomes, what do YOU choose for yourself?

Well, IMO, you're almost had it there. :cool:

The way I see it; good law is never intended to represent the morals for anything other than community benifit. (not individual level morals, other than when they impact social balance).

That is. . .
Community level: Actions such as bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, and adultery, all undermine society, as we know it.
Where as laws regarding; masturbation, fornication, and bestiality, are not likely to have profound effects on society, as we know it. (Individual level)

Looking at those social underminers:

bigamy: just look at the middle east; a few wealthy take all the desirable women, stranding a large population of men with nothing better to do than pursue the "after-life virgins" (thats sad for all society)

adult incest: pollutes the gene-pool with mutation.

same-sex marriage, prostitution, adultery: all pollute the intitution of marriage.

Civil society is all about having rules (laws) that are "balancing" in nature. . . .that they lead to a balanced society.

Parimount, within that "balance," lay human reproduction and (more importantly) responsibility, for their offspring.

SO, what's next!? . . .I would say that that is tough, as judges and law-makers have cultural and religious (or anti-religious) bias.

geez, what a ramble.

Anyway; I'm just glad to hear that, The liberty protected by the Constitution allows persons the right to choose an ********* of their liking. (paraphrased) oh wait. . .that kinda makes it sound like the decision has to do with the right to find a good lawyer. :D

btw: shouldn't that have been "So there you have it: the court has thrown the backdoor open." (?):cool:

Good question. . . .very few ask that question. Most just know that's the way it is, and Cinderella stories (married and lived happly ever-after).

Marriage is one very established effective way of supporting and prolonging commitment to a nuclear family.

In the absence of marraige we have some real bruttal laws regarding so-called "dead-beat dads."