I suppose that Bitbit only picks & chooses the verses of the Bible that support Bitbit’s prejudices, and ignores all else.

SM, you’ve sure shoved your head into the ground quite firmly there! Republicans “claim” to be the party of “family values” and live & die by the dictates of the untra-radical right-whining “c”hristians! Gay Republicans are generally hounded because their party is the one that’s been fighitng to roll back gay rights and non-discrimination laws!

“It is truly amazing to watch the homophobes on the left show their true spirit by hididng behind slang that they feel comfortable with because they are on the left. They feel they can say anything without retribution, and they are right, because they have gotten away with it for so long.” Comment by Southern Man — February 19, 2008 @ 4:03 pm

And how many times have you excoriated the vastly higher number of homophobes on the right? Hmm? Come on, I’m sure that since you’re up-in-arms about this issue, you can count the number of times you’ve stood up to the homophibes on the right.

If you bothered to read the referenced article, Rep. Bartlett is the “first and only openly LGBT African American state legislator.” Why do you think that the very first and only openly gay African American state legislator is news that should be brushed under the carpet, expecially in february???

Why does Bitbit follow SOME words of Jesus, but completely ignore OTHER words of Jesus? Bitbit cannot only follow the verses that support Bitbit’s prejudices, and then (oh-so convenitently) ignore the ones Bitbit find inconvenient!

Until the self-described Christians who use the Bible to bash gay people make a stand against heterosexual divorce, they do nothing but prove their hypocrisy, over and over again!

*Since she didn’t have any Republican opposition, she actually won the seat in July of 2006 but because of the challenge to her victory and a State Democratic Party sub-committee’s decision to nullify the run-off’s results, she didn’t actually win until the State Democratic Party’s Executive Committee voted to accept the run-off.

what the hell does leviticus have to do with it………if you are a christian in America you use the new testament…….new rules for those who beat the drum……….jesus said so.

There are two sections of Leviticus that mention homosexuality. The section in Leviticus 20 is the second one. Leviticus 18 is the first one.

Believe you are correct that the punishment for sexual sin is pretty the much the same.

Leviticus 20
Punishments for Sin

13 ” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 ” ‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 ” ‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 ” ‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 19, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

The nut house I hope.

Comment by gummitch

Correct my if I am wrong but a dark roux is the way to go on this. Most people have neither the knowledge nor patience. You culinary expertise is clear.

Here’s a good bit I found:

Tolerance vs. acceptance

‘Let’s talk for a moment about what I believe the difference is between “tolerance” and “acceptance.” When I hear the word “tolerance” the impression it conveys to me is “I don’t like you, but I feel obligated to be nice to you and make you feel welcome because it’s the right thing to do. I cannot stand certain things about you and feel that those things elevate me to a level superior to yours. But, to keep the peace I will put up with you.”

“Acceptance” elicits a very different and far more positive response from me. It says to me, “You are different from me, and though there are things I may not understand, I see you as a child of God and equal to me. And, though I may not be like you, I support your rights, feelings, and identity as much as I would my own.” In response to the question “What Would Jesus Do?” I feel He would choose the latter as the more loving option.’

http://www.whosoever.org/v6i6/campbell.html

Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

Not according to most definitions of the word.

Only in wingnutland is disapproval the highest embodiment of tolerance. Just like eliminating pollution controls demonstrates a commitment to “Clear Skies”, opening forest land to clearcutting is a valentine to “Healthy Forests”and the president who has admitted to spying on Americans without a warrant is “among the most respectful of all leaders ever when it comes to the civil liberties and rights of individuals.“

Good luck with that line, Chuckles.

Comment by gummitch

Is roux the saltwater bath for the crawdads?

That is the exact opposite of the truth.

————————————————————————————

So according to UNESCO if I want to tolerate my neighbor who plays bad classic rock at high volume, late into the night then I not only have to
accept it, but appreciate it too?…Please.

I was pressed for time. Had to get the roux ready and the gumbo cooking.

And in far fewer words, too.

Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

Not at all. The person who realizes that his neighbor’s behavior is none of his business is the one practicing tolerance. Once he “disapproves”, he is no longer tolerant regardless of his actions.

In its Declaration on the Principles of Tolerance, UNESCO offers a definition of tolerance that most closely matches our philosophical use of the word:

Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference.

Comment by Charles James Napier — February 19, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

I don’t think you’ll sell that concept to very many folks, Chuckles. Liberal or conservative.

I don’t think you really understand the concept of “tolerance”.

Let’s examine it clinically.

Let’s take WordNet’s definition first:

1. put up with something or somebody unpleasant; “I cannot bear his constant criticism”; “The new secretary had to endure a lot of unprofessional remarks”; “he learned to tolerate the heat”; “She stuck out two years in a miserable marriage”
2. recognize and respect (rights and beliefs of others); “We must tolerate the religions of others”
3. have a tolerance for a poison or strong drug or pathogen or environmental condition; “The patient does not tolerate the anti-inflammatory drugs we gave him”
4. allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting;

Now, if the only definition of “tolerate” were the first, you would be absolutely right. But there are others. For instance, recognize and respect (rights and beliefs of others). Your curmudgeon who grumbles but “doesn’t call the cops” has no respect for the beliefs and habits of his neighbors. Neither does Daryll have any respect for the beliefs or habits of homosexuals.

That’s not tolerant.

Similarly, we have definition 4: allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting One can oppose a practice without actively working to end it. By your logic, this person would be “tolerant”, in defiance of the WordNet definition of the word.

I think if you’ll follow the link to dictionary.net, you’ll find that I did not cherry-pick my definitions. in fact, I chose the one best suited to your defense. WordNet was the only one of the three sources listed that mentioned “enduring something unpleasant”.

So, sorry, but I still call bunk.

Black is NOT white. Up is NOT down.

Comment by Fred
————————————————————

The curmudgeon who disapproves of the pot-smokers next door, yet doesn’t call the police is MORE tolerant than the neighbor who does not care one way or the other about pot smoking.

The same applies to homosexuality or any other controversial activity.