Can I Own a Canadian?

[Boris]

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger 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, written by a US man,
and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

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 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'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

[berwynguy]

Boris, have you ever posted anything that originated in your own mind?

[Boris]

Boris, have you ever posted anything that originated in your own mind?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I shall do so right now.

I have posted a witty letter that was forwarded to me, which I know will be enjoyed by many here. Your response to it was at first confusing. I thought, "hmmm...I don't know this person. Never interacted with him. Why the attack?" Could it be that you are the kind of slack-jawed, dull-eyed, mouth-breathing cretin that agrees with Dr. Laura, and rather than identify yourself as such, you might attack the messenger?

I took a moment this morning to peruse your entries here on the Berwyn Talk Forum...all 4 pages of them (73 entries). I must say it was a bit of a struggle, and required two cans of Red Bull to make it all the way through. But, I did learn a couple of things about you: you are confrontational. And boring. Your obsession with Jackal, however, is amusing...though through no effort of your own.

You are encouraged to read my offerings to BTF by clicking here. In doing so, you will have discovered 4477 entries (224 pages) of informed commentary, cutting wit, delightful prose and various news and other items I find while working on the interwebs, which I think will be enjoyed by my townsmen here in Berwyn. After such an exhilarating experience, you may wish to relax with a glass of wine and a hot bath...or as is more likely your style, a 6-pack of Bud Light and a couple hours of Me TV.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that many of my entries here at BTF have been chosen by my peers to be among the BEST of Berwyn Talk. I took the time to look carefully, and I did not notice any of your meager offerings among the celebrated BEST. So to recap, I am among the BEST, and you are not. I am better than you.

I did notice while dragging through the cesspool that is your collection of material here on the forum, that you only post things that have originated in your own mind. THAT, I believe, is your problem. 

WOOF

[berwynguy]

lol

[rbain]

pwned.

[watcher]

Boris, have you ever posted anything that originated in your own mind?

Can anyone say they have ever posted anything that originated in their own mind?
They may say something in an original way, or something that is NEW to somebody else, but
when you get right down to it, most everything has been said before.

I wonder how many times YOUR attempted put-down... ahh google... About 98,700,000 results
(0.34 seconds)

In less than a blink of an eye, almost 99 MILLION...

How original.

[jake]

Boris,

Interesting posts (no sarcasm).  And the original one indeed forces one to think about picking and chosing among religious "laws."

So getting away from using religion as the sole argument against gay marriage, where (if anywhere) do you think the line should be drawn? 

For example, if we decide to toss out the notion that marriage is reserved for "one man and one woman" (emphasis on gender), do we all toss out the "one" in "one man and one woman", and accept polygamy? 
And since we are tossing out morality/religion from the discussion, should we accept incest in homosexual relationships?  I understand the gene pool argument against incest (damages society as a whole), but oviously that is not an issue in a homosexual relationship.  Of course, this only applies to consenting adults (other laws would still apply).

This is intended as honest post, and I hope to have a interesting discussion.   

[markberwyn]

Ah, the slippery slope argument; been a while since somebody knocked the rust off this one. Quelle horreur! If people are having gay sex, what's to stop them from having a gay incestuous sex? If a man is allowed to marry another man, what's to stop a man from marrying a horse?

[chandasz]

So, if we're on this old argument-- shall we also argue the moral horrors of premarital sex? I mean - if you are having premarital sex-- what's to stop you from having sex with your dog- right?

Why is it so hard to understand that people can fall in love with people and that genitals aren't the issue?

I don't understand why (save your personal religious beliefs)- this is of interest to anyone.

Hey-- fall in love with who you want to. If your personal beliefs say that you shouldn't- and you buy that-- then, by all means-- follow your bliss. Just leave others out of it.

It wasn't that long ago that people used the similar argument about marrying outside your ethnicity-- right?

[OakParkSpartan]

So, if we're on this old argument-- shall we also argue the moral horrors of premarital sex? I mean - if you are having premarital sex-- what's to stop you from having sex with your dog- right?

Why is it so hard to understand that people can fall in love with people and that genitals aren't the issue?

I don't understand why (save your personal religious beliefs)- this is of interest to anyone.

Hey-- fall in love with who you want to. If your personal beliefs say that you shouldn't- and you buy that-- then, by all means-- follow your bliss. Just leave others out of it.

It wasn't that long ago that people used the similar argument about marrying outside your ethnicity-- right?

Have you ever had interest in having sex with an animal?  I'm guessing that is a big, loud NO.  Not quite the same as premarital sex.

[The Jackal]

Boris, have you ever posted anything that originated in your own mind?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I shall do so right now.

I have posted a witty letter that was forwarded to me, which I know will be enjoyed by many here. Your response to it was at first confusing. I thought, "hmmm...I don't know this person. Never interacted with him. Why the attack?" Could it be that you are the kind of slack-jawed, dull-eyed, mouth-breathing cretin that agrees with Dr. Laura, and rather than identify yourself as such, you might attack the messenger?

I took a moment this morning to peruse your entries here on the Berwyn Talk Forum...all 4 pages of them (73 entries). I must say it was a bit of a struggle, and required two cans of Red Bull to make it all the way through. But, I did learn a couple of things about you: you are confrontational. And boring. Your obsession with Jackal, however, is amusing...though through no effort of your own.

You are encouraged to read my offerings to BTF by clicking here. In doing so, you will have discovered 4477 entries (224 pages) of informed commentary, cutting wit, delightful prose and various news and other items I find while working on the interwebs, which I think will be enjoyed by my townsmen here in Berwyn. After such an exhilarating experience, you may wish to relax with a glass of wine and a hot bath...or as is more likely your style, a 6-pack of Bud Light and a couple hours of Me TV.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that many of my entries here at BTF have been chosen by my peers to be among the BEST of Berwyn Talk. I took the time to look carefully, and I did not notice any of your meager offerings among the celebrated BEST. So to recap, I am among the BEST, and you are not. I am better than you.

I did notice while dragging through the cesspool that is your collection of material here on the forum, that you only post things that have originated in your own mind. THAT, I believe, is your problem. 

WOOF

LOL!!!!

[AmazonAnne]

Why anyone gets their underwear in a bunch over gay marriage is beyond me...There are much more important issues to make a big deal about, but the religious fanatics always have to have their say and think they're always right, what the bible says, blah, blah, blah..I think this guy below said it best.

[Boris]

Boris,

Interesting posts (no sarcasm).  And the original one indeed forces one to think about picking and chosing among religious "laws."

So getting away from using religion as the sole argument against gay marriage, where (if anywhere) do you think the line should be drawn? 

For example, if we decide to toss out the notion that marriage is reserved for "one man and one woman" (emphasis on gender), do we all toss out the "one" in "one man and one woman", and accept polygamy? 
And since we are tossing out morality/religion from the discussion, should we accept incest in homosexual relationships?  I understand the gene pool argument against incest (damages society as a whole), but oviously that is not an issue in a homosexual relationship.  Of course, this only applies to consenting adults (other laws would still apply).

This is intended as honest post, and I hope to have a interesting discussion.   

I think the line should be drawn precisely where the citizenry want it drawn. One step at a time. Given our Puritan roots and relatively young nation, it's somewhat amazing that we've arrived at this point at all. But it's quite clear that a growing, and soon to be definite majority of the United States citizens support the idea of two gay adults marrying.


CNN poll

Even some of the religious right's most outspoken whackos don't have a problem with it:

   O'REILLY: Do you believe -- do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?

   BECK: A threat to the country?

   O'REILLY: Yeah, it going to harm the country?

   BECK: No, I don't. Will the gays come and get us?

   O'REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?

   BECK: I believe -- I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?

   O'REILLY: OK, so you don't. That's interesting. Because I don't think a lot of people understand that about you.

What is being fought for is the right for two consenting adults of the same gender to become legally married. That's it. And I think that as the half that is opposed to that slowly dies off, and their children are honestly exposed to just how innocuous gay marriage really is, the number of people who care enough to oppose it will be living in communes with their 15 wives.

Which brings me to another point: polygamy. It never works without severe restrictions to the freedom of the women involved. Just ask any "free" person who tried an "open" relationship. It never works. The only way polygamy can work is if at one point (usually early on) the women involved are virtual slaves. Eventually, they get used to it...

But, the bottom line here is that gay culture is (and has been) a part of the human condition for as long as there have been humans. Even the most absurdly orthodox, far-right religious fanatics—the Taliban—embrace gay culture.

Your other questions (at least at this point in history) are absurd.

[chandasz]

 
[/quote]

Have you ever had interest in having sex with an animal?  I'm guessing that is a big, loud NO.  Not quite the same as premarital sex.
[/quote]

I also don't know any homosexuals interested in having sex with a family member so my point was that the relationship was ridiculous

[jake]

Which brings me to another point: polygamy...It never works.

Didn't people make similar claims less than a century ago about gay marriage?

But, the bottom line here is that gay culture is (and has been) a part of the human condition for as long as there have been humans.

When was polygamy not practiced in some part of the world?  Within the animal kingdom, what percentage are monogamous?

Your other questions (at least at this point in history) are absurd.

Give it time...
And I disagree about "absurd."  Absent a moral argument, why not?  If nothing else, it can eliminate the estate tax (unlimited marriage exemption)  

[markberwyn]

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for six years, jake---ample time, I'd think, for people start agitating for the right to have sex with their relatives and marry multiple partners, if your concern had any merit. 

[billyjean]

One thing I do know for certain ... a gay couple cannot create a child together.  A couple must turn to a third party so to speak to create.  A gay couple can never experience the combining of their own individual genes together to create a child.  Of course, they both can produce their OWN children, but not with each other.

All I am saying with this statement is that NO, they are not exactly like heterosexuals who marry and have children together in the true sense of the word "together".  The distinction is clear.

Now, we know the gay community can be quite creative in their thinking and it would not be surprising that they might try to work around this by, in the case of a lesbian couple, brother of one donates sperm to the other partner.  Or in the case of a gay couple, a sister of one donates her eggs to be fertilized by the other partner, and placed in the womb of a another woman, or the sister even having the children for them.  This assumes first that they have all these sibling willing to participate.  It's starting to get a lil wild.  Of course, we have heterosexuals that go to great lengths to have kids too ...


OctoMom
 

[markberwyn]

I don't understand what kids have to do with the discussion. Plenty of heterosexual couples marry and don't have kids. Unless you're arguing that couples who marry but have no children should be considered part of some distinct class, or shouldn't be permitted to marry at all....

[Boris]

One thing I do know for certain ... a gay couple cannot create a child together.  A couple must turn to a third party so to speak to create.  A gay couple can never experience the combining of their own individual genes together to create a child.  Of course, they both can produce their OWN children, but not with each other.

All I am saying with this statement is that NO, they are not exactly like heterosexuals who marry and have children together in the true sense of the word "together".  The distinction is clear.

Now, we know the gay community can be quite creative in their thinking and it would not be surprising that they might try to work around this by, in the case of a lesbian couple, brother of one donates sperm to the other partner.  Or in the case of a gay couple, a sister of one donates her eggs to be fertilized by the other partner, and placed in the womb of a another woman, or the sister even having the children for them.  This assumes first that they have all these sibling willing to participate.  It's starting to get a lil wild.  Of course, we have heterosexuals that go to great lengths to have kids too ...


OctoMom
 

...spoken like a true homophobe.

Your point is absolutely meaningless. Absolutely. Meaningless.

(...and of course, we have heterosexuals like me, who go to great lengths to avoid kids at all costs)

[jake]

I find it interesting that this thread started with a post of a thought provoking article that cuts at the far ends of Judeo-Christian beliefs (and all from the Old Testament) in an effort to remove religion from the debate.  Throw out the baby with the bath water...but fair enough for a potential interesting discussion.

But when I simply ask where the line should be when it is not guided by morality/religion, people will not answer the question, but rather jest at few examples I mention.  I think that says a lot.  Rather than debate the issue, anything other than monogamous heterosexual and homosexual marriage is laughed away as absurd (just as anything other than 1 man, 1 woman was laughed away less than a century ago). 

At Boris, what do the polls have to do with it?  Does that mean that 100 year ago, homosexuality was wrong because the majority of Americans polled thought so? 

At Mark, for how many years has it been acceptable in the Muslim world?  What about parts of Canada?