By "sick bastard," I'm referring to the father, not the son.

Here is the news release he issued to start his media blitz against his son:

<a href='http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=107-04122004' target='_blank'>http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease....id=107-04122004</a>

Here is the op-ed piece he wrote as part of that media blitz in the Washington Times:

<a href='http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040412-091634-6744r.htm' target='_blank'>http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040412-...91634-6744r.htm</a>

This is a news story in the Advocate:

<a href='http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=12057&sd=04/14/04' target='_blank'>http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=12...057&sd=04/14/04</a>

This is an excerpt of the Out Magazine piece:

<a href='http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:vht8-J7XFpYJ:www.out.com/feature.asp' target='_blank'>http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:vht8-J7...com/feature.asp</a>

In a perfect world, every bigot would have a gay son and a daughter married to someone of a different ethnicity than himself. :laugh:

Oddball Wrote:In a perfect world, every bigot would have a gay son and a daughter married to someone of a different ethnicity than himself. :laugh:

Speaking of his daughters, he has two of them. CNN is planning an interview with both of them tonight.

Both have children out of wedlock. :laugh:

Us liberals should be ashamed of ourselves for laughing at the misfortunes of others. :roflol:

Oddball Wrote:Us liberals should be ashamed of ourselves for laughing at the misfortunes of others. :roflol:

Correct you should be lookin at your own misfortunes :D

Can anyone say ........... Morally bankrupt?

GrayBeard Wrote:Can anyone say ........... Morally bankrupt?

Yes, you're right, that man is morally bankrupt. To attack the gift that God gave him, his son, over ignorance and predjudice about an issue that is barely touched upon in the Bible, and never even mentioned in the teachings of Jesus, is a terrible sin.

Oddball Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:Can anyone say ........... Morally bankrupt?

Yes, you're right, that man is morally bankrupt. To attack the gift that God gave him, his son, over ignorance and predjudice about an issue that is barely touched upon in the Bible, and never even mentioned in the teachings of Jesus, is a terrible sin.

I just love it when liberals misspeak about the Bible! :roflol:

In God's eyes, there is no such thing as a "terrible sin", sin is sin, and there are no degrees of sin.

Thanks for playing!

And us liberals love it when you neo-cons try to hide your ignorance of the book you use to justify your fear, hatred, and bigotry behind semantic games.

Oddball Wrote:And us liberals love it when you neo-cons try to hide your ignorance of the book you use to justify your fear, hatred, and bigotry behind semantic games.

Let's get this straight, Jesus did not teach fear, hatred, or bigotry, so any professed Christian that is partaking in any of these exercises in ignorance has missed the main point of the man they claim to be following.

Jesus taught love...Love people, but not the sin. Do you get it? I doubt it, but you will one day.

Schadenfreude Wrote:By "sick bastard," I'm referring to the father, not the son.

How is this much different than when Carrol O'Connor started "crusading" against drugs?

GrayBeard Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:And us liberals love it when you neo-cons try to hide your ignorance of the book you use to justify your fear, hatred, and bigotry behind semantic games.

Let's get this straight, Jesus did not teach fear, hatred, or bigotry, so any professed Christian that is partaking in any of these exercises in ignorance has missed the main point of the man they claim to be following.

Jesus taught love...Love people, but not the sin. Do you get it? I doubt it, but you will one day.

How much farther away from the topic do you have to move this discussion before you feel that you're off of slippery ground? Let me know when you get there...

DrTorch Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:By "sick bastard," I'm referring to the father, not the son.

How is this much different than when Carrol O'Connor started "crusading" against drugs?

Well, one is about sexual orientation, the other about death caused by drug addiction. :rolleyes:

Oddball Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:By "sick bastard," I'm referring to the father, not the son.

How is this much different than when Carrol O'Connor started "crusading" against drugs?

Well, one is about sexual orientation, the other about death caused by drug addiction. :rolleyes:

The consequences of this particular lifestyle are often quite severe, including death. <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080105625X/qid=1082035880/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9889733-5022244?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>This excellent treatise</a> describes some of them, and backs it up w/ the sort of rigorous research that we all prefer.

So, I'll re-submit my question.

Also,

Quote:over ignorance and predjudice about an issue that is barely touched upon in the Bible, and never even mentioned in the teachings of Jesus, is a terrible sin.

How many times should an issue be mentioned in the Bible before it's taken seriously?

Sexual promiscuity is dangerous. The "lifestyle" argument is nonsense.

The single definite reference to homosexuality in the Bible is Leviticus 18:22 and refers to ritual sex with a temple prostitute. The word "Abomination" is almost exclusively used in the Bible to refer to ritual or idolotry.

Also in Leviticus:

19:28 prohibits tattoos
19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock
11:7 forbids the eating of pigs
19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed
11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits
11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales
23:3 instructs that the seventh day (Saturday)of the week is to be the Sabbath
Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped but no one heard her scream

More relevant passages that bigotted "christians" tend to ignore, as well:

-Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
-Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
-Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
-Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."


So, if you don't burn offerings to God in your backyard, or you trim your sideburns and beard, or if you speak to a menstruating woman, you are as guilty as a homosexual. Afterall, these are all listed as sins in the same place, and as has been pointed out, there are no degrees of sin.

Oddball Wrote:Sexual promiscuity is dangerous. The "lifestyle" argument is nonsense.

Shouldn't you read the book before you decide?

Quote:The single definite reference to homosexuality in the Bible is Leviticus 18:22 and refers to ritual sex with a temple prostitute. The word "Abomination" is almost exclusively used in the Bible to refer to ritual or idolotry

Gen 19:1-7

19:1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, "Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." And they said, "No, but we will spend the night in the open square." 3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!
NKJV

Rom 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
NKJV

I realize that folks can offer up other interpretations of these passages, but the straightforward interpretation does not offer any contradictions, and is quite indicting. Regardless, these certainly are definite references to acts of homosexuality.

Quote:Also in Leviticus:

19:28 prohibits tattoos

Actually in context it seems to be tattoos for the dead (as in ancestor worship or other spiritual rites) But I've never been comfortable w/ professing Christians getting tattoos if you want to know the truth.

Quote:19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock

Yes, and I've offered this to bioethics researchers and laymen as context for some of the genetics and cloning issues. It could be that we've overstepped the line for centuries.

And how about not having fabric blends? (Lev 19:19)

Quote:-Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."

Yes, one of my favorite passages. You should see the scowls and animosity that comes out when I suggest that they are WAY overreacting when they want to ban Trick-or-Treat.

I agree that the trappings of the old covenant are no longer necessary, because we're no longer under that covenant. So sacrifices, festivals and choice foods are not essentials.
But, that doesn't get rid of those things which are absolutes. Lying, stealing, murder...they were not a symbolic part of the old covenant. They were areas of absolute. And Rom 1 continues on and explicitly identifies sexual morality as part of the list of absolutes.

"But, that doesn't get rid of those things which are absolutes. Lying, stealing, murder...they were not a symbolic part of the old covenant. They were areas of absolute. And Rom 1 continues on and explicitly identifies sexual morality as part of the list of absolutes."

Hey, that's a nice attempt at a backpedal, Herr Doktor!

Not nice enough, though.

So there are absolute truths (e.g., lying, stealing, murder, homosexuality) and there are relics of the old covenant. Ah! Tell me more! :roflol:

The Genesis quote refers to homosexual rape, a common practice of conquering tribes in those days.

Paul's letter to the Romans, when taken in context, was a reiteration of a Jewish text attributed to Solomon that was condemning Gentile idolotry and Gentiles turning from God. The passage is generally thought to refer to pederasty as result of the sin actually being discussed, and does not refer to sexual orientation as a sin.

Oddball Wrote:The Genesis quote refers to homosexual rape, a common practice of conquering tribes in those days.

Paul's letter to the Romans, when taken in context, was a reiteration of a Jewish text attributed to Solomon that was condemning Gentile idolotry and Gentiles turning from God. The passage is generally thought to refer to pederasty as result of the sin actually being discussed, and does not refer to sexual orientation as a sin.

I have to take exception to the "generally thought" part. I would say that such an interpretation is a relatively recent one. And it certainly is by not even close to universal in contemporary circles.

However, while I agree that from this passage pedarastry can be a result of sin, it is also included as sin. The last clause of your final sentence does not follow logically nor contextually.

DrTorch Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:The Genesis quote refers to homosexual rape, a common practice of conquering tribes in those days.

Paul's letter to the Romans, when taken in context, was a reiteration of a Jewish text attributed to Solomon that was condemning Gentile idolotry and Gentiles turning from God. The passage is generally thought to refer to pederasty as result of the sin actually being discussed, and does not refer to sexual orientation as a sin.

I have to take exception to the "generally thought" part. I would say that such an interpretation is a relatively recent one. And it certainly is by not even close to universal in contemporary circles.

However, while I agree that from this passage pedarastry can be a result of sin, it is also included as sin. The last clause of your final sentence does not follow logically nor contextually.

Pederasty is not the same as homosexuality.