In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus18:22, 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 that 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.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He doesn't think it's a right.

Bigots didn't used to think that denying service to a black person b/c of their skin color was a violation of civil rights either. Submitting the question of whether something is a right to public opinion is disingenuous at best and fundamentally un-American in any event.

He doesn't think it's a civil right, the State Supreme Court doesn't think it's a civil right, the federal government doesn't think it's a civil right. He can either keep it from happening by himself or put it up to a vote to see whether the state's voters want it to happen. Is vetoing the bill un-American? I'm not really sure why the latter would be worse than the former.

I personally think the comparisons to the fight against Jim Crow (or slavery) are mostly ridiculous and weaken the case for gay marriage. It's not denying service (or the right to vote, etc.) to someone based on the color of their skin. There are significant, relevant biological differences between men and women. Men and women get married and procreate and raise children and keep the human race going. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman wasn't some arbitrary distinction founded in bigotry.

I don't know if I think it's a civil right. I think it would be good public policy, increasing acceptance and tolerance and letting people live their lives they way they want to without doing harm to the institution of marriage, but right is kind of a big word. I don't know if this climbs to that level. Good things don't all have to be rights.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:BTW, Barney Frank is getting married. His partner needs the health coverage to have those tiny arms surgically removed from his head.

swishnicholson wrote:Forgive me if I'm wrong, jersey, but haven't you stated that you, yourself, are ok with gay marriage?

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:Forgive me if I'm wrong, jersey, but haven't you stated that you, yourself, are ok with gay marriage?

I would say I'm more than OK with it. I would like for it to be the law of the land nationwide, barring that, it should be legal in as many states as possible. Though I do have a real aversion to state courts discovering that it is some fundamental right required by the constitution and imposing it. I don't know, I just have a hard time making the leap to it being a civil right. Maybe I'm overstating the term civil right in my head.

jerseyhoya wrote: Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman wasn't some arbitrary distinction founded in bigotry.

drsmooth wrote:

The Dude wrote:what do you think it means you psycho

it means she may not be secretary of state much longer

when was it that we came to be at odds, friend?

The Dude wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

The Dude wrote:what do you think it means you psycho

it means she may not be secretary of state much longer

when was it that we came to be at odds, friend?

that's what he was saying, though

The Dude wrote:all he said, based on her statements, was that it looked like she was not going to continue the position. bc she said that. you acted like he didn't understand it, and that is why i said what i did

traderdave wrote:I thought she did a pretty damn good job as SOS and I think Obama will miss her. Really.